#but he is repeatedly and remarkably selfless when it comes to PEOPLE
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
exams-will-make-me-cry · 2 years ago
Text
I don't know any shit about this but I still love this entire post holy macaroni-
I think a lot about The Bathroom Scene™ and how Kaz's selfless actions towards Inej are contrasted with their discussion about whether he's any different from Pekka, but Chapter 26 as a whole also does a lot to show how much Kaz cares about all of his Crows and not just Inej. He spends a lot of time in that chapter thinking about how he's probably about to die, and yet he does everything in his power to make sure his Crows get out alive.
He specifically zeroes on Inej's safety, of course (because when isn't Kaz focused on her?) but his actions, dialogue, and internal monologue are all entirely centered around how guilty he feels for getting everyone into this mess and how desperate he is to make sure he's the only collateral damage of his own scheme at the end of the day:
Kaz sits down and (more or less) fully explains his entire plan to the Crows instead of keeping them in the dark
Kaz gives Jesper's dad the only protection he's still able to give: his own family's name and reputation
Kaz ruminates on why he called Jesper by his brother's name and implicitly acknowledges that it's because he's scared to recognize Jordie in Jesper (that he's afraid to lose another brother)
Kaz thinks "But they’d landed in a trap, and if he had to chew his paw off to get them out of it, then that was what he would do."
Kaz pays off Inej's contract by liquidating "every asset he had" and explicitly tells her "I don't want you to be beholden to Per Haskell. Or me."
Kaz tells Inej about his emergency money stash and charges her with getting everyone out of the city safely if he doesn't come back from the Slat
Kaz tells her "Whatever happens to me, survive this city. Get your ship, have your vengeance, carve your name into their bones. But survive this mess I’ve gotten us into."
Kaz leaves on a suicide mission, telling Inej not to follow, because if he's going to die he wants to be the only one in active danger
And of course Kaz had already offered to serve himself up on a silver platter to the stadwatch and give them a way out even before he came up with the auction plan (though we don't get Kaz's point of view of The Clocktower Fight, I suspect it's also why he picked that fight with Jesper: he knew Jesper would never leave him to die unless he made him mad enough to "walk away" for once in his life).
What separates Kaz from other Barrel Bosses like Pekka isn't just that he would never sell a person or con/otherwise harm children. It's that at his lowest, when all the bravado and scheming and masks are stripped away, Kaz chooses to put himself on the line and sacrifice his own safety over putting his people in any more danger than they have to be. Because despite his ruthlessness and casual assholery, Kaz simply doesn't have it in him to watch those he cares about get hurt if he can prevent it. He ended Chapter 26 saying he intended to leave damage behind when he's gone, but also spent the entirety of the Geldrenner chapters spending time and effort and money he didn't have to minimize the damage as much as possible for his friends (his new family) if the worst should happen to him.
So he gives them a safe place to land where the gangs won't find them. He tries to push them away and make them mad enough that they won't grieve him when he dies. He gives them multiple ways out even if none of those options guarantee his own safety. He gives them money and as much safety as he can provide with the whole city out for their blood. He gives Inej her freedom. And he gives them time to rest, recharge, and prepare for whichever plan they end up doing while he goes off to stage a coup he's not sure he'll come back from.
This is all to say: Kaz could never be Pekka, no matter how tough of a game he talks about burning everything to the ground, because Kaz cares too much to ever become Pekka. Even as he continues to pretend not to care about anything but the money, his love for his city and his Crows are baked into every one of his thoughts and actions in those chapters. Unlike Pekka, who flees first Ketterdam and then Kerch entirely when his son is in (percieved) danger, Kaz stays to fight for the city he bent to his will. And unlike Per Haskell, who lets other people do his dirty work and sells out at the first opportunity for glory, Kaz puts himself on the front lines first even when doing so comes at a great cost to himself.
Pekka chases money and power for their own sake. Per Haskell chases money and power for the decadence, glory, and laziness it allows him to get away with. Kaz chases money and power because he knows what it's like to be powerless and wants to, in his own weird way, protect others from suffering his trauma and himself from losing anyone else he cares about. And that's why even at his most unhinged Kaz could never become Pekka Rollins: his quest for power and fame and riches comes from a fundamentally different place. Kaz Brekker doesn't need a reason, but he has at least six at all times during the course of the duology (the Crows+Jordie)...and while those reasons are often filtered through his two primary reasons (revenge for Jordie and Inej's freedom, safety, and happiness), none of them are ever far from his mind.
1K notes · View notes
conduitandconjurer · 2 years ago
Note
We know that Klaus would rather stay in a toxic/abusive relationship than be alone. In that context, how are you interpreting Ben's "That's why you're always alone" line in S2?
Tumblr media
Honestly I think that line is as much if not more about Ben at his worst than it is about Klaus.
Though understandable given the circumstances, it wasn't Ben's finest hour, tbh: particularly when you consider the sentence that precedes it: "Nobody wants to deal with your shit, Klaus." Because sure, everyone has their own struggle to deal with, BUT: who does that sound like?
I think the intention might have been a tough-love reminder that one's own choices are key to recovery....but lbr, sandwiched in with a hundred other rejections disguised as "I'm worried about you and really frustrated," it begins to sound like Reginald's "You're more trouble than you're worth." What complicates this is that, other than Reginald, the people who have said these things are speaking from their own poor emotional regulation and trauma (the other Umbrellas and some of the Sparrows). And that's incredibly tragic.
People who are (repeatedly) traumatized and ND (neurodivergent--ADHD, autism, learning disabilities, PTSD and C-PTSD, among others) hear those words in a thousand micro-aggressions a day, in a neurotypical world over which they have very little say or control. They can be as small as an angry sigh and eye-roll, a "shut up" or "this is an adult conversation" or "you always say stupid shit" or "you useless pukebag" or "just be the lookout." They begin to internalize the callousness and the projection, and BELIEVE the things others say or do to invalidate them, and make choices that self-fulfill the worst opinions that others have (which is why I get frustrated when I see yet another fan shitting on Klaus for "choosing" to return to bad relationships, or drink, or use, or simply walk away: "you are hopelessly broken, so why bother" is NOT an idea he planted in his own head). That's what has happened to Klaus, and it is why he is reluctant to step outside the methods he already knows how to utilize in order to keep going (including repeated patterns of enduring toxic relationships, with Dave as the sole canonical exception).
Yes, sometimes their own actions reinforce these invalidating remarks, BUT WHY? Because they have grown accustomed to being disregarded and ignored ANYWAY, so best to beat others to the punch and cut out some of the sting of another dismissal.
I don't think Ben understands that, because Ben is built to be a people-pleaser; Ben is traumatically obsessed with making the people he loves and admires proud. He struggles SO MUCH with this, and we see it most vividly in his Sparrow timeline, in which he absolutely despises himself and resents everyone around him just because Marcus, not him, is Number One. Ben, ironically, does not have Klaus's survival skills or adaptability. It's by the book or failure. It's all or nothing.
And his frustration with relying on someone who has been forced since AGE 8 to adapt to intolerable circumstances bubbles over in his third year stuck in the 1960s with Klaus the accidental cult-starter. He resents that Klaus can achieve a sustainable living situation by taking advantage of (frankly very willing and privileged) people. These aren't real relationships to Ben, so he boils over and aims his self-loathing outwards at the sibling he has helped survive for 17 years. "After all I've done for you," etc.
There is resentment for PERCEIVED (but I would argue, not real) ingratitude and there is jealousy: Klaus, "King of the Dead," is better at staying alive (even after overdosing a thousand times) than Ben, who died at sixteen indubitably trying to do something selfless.
Again, I can understand where he's coming from, but it's also unfortunate that Klaus's Jiminy Cricket voice has joined the throngs of "you're a fuck-up loser that no one will ever take seriously and you brought it entirely on yourself."
Which, incidentally, is a core belief that directly causes Klaus's initial decision to just stay dead, in 3x10.
16 notes · View notes
mudwingpropaganda · 5 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
Queen Glory of the RainWings
Ye of terrible governmental implications! The replacement Dragonet of Destiny, her Majesty of the Rain Forest, and who knows what else. There’s a lot to be said about Glory, a victim of abuse, a part in the cycle of violence, and the child who knew better than an entire queendom of dragons. Glory is an unfortunate character, both personally and in the story as a whole. 
I have a lot of opinions about Glory. Bless yourself upon them if you deserve so.
Design Headcanon
Despite appearing colorful and bright, especially among her fellow dull scaled siblings, her scales are much plainer than a traditional RainWing’s. Most of which tend to have terribly neon scales correlating with their emotions. Glory tends to have disgusted green and irritable red scales reflecting her mood. The yellow is simply an accent, but mistaken by her subjects as muted amusement. Her scales easily flinch along to her emotions, but she finds that showing these colors gains the respect of her subjects, rather than lose it like she did with the guardians, who never truly did pick up on what these colors meant.
Glory has inspiration from a few different animals. Chameleons are out of the way. She also has a similar “beak” to a swan, a dark area on her face that she simply can’t change the color of. She also has dexterous claw talons, excellent for gripping onto trees or delicate dexterity. And the oddest thing about RainWings is that they initially appear wingless, similar to a draco lizard. RainWing ribs expand and and glide rather than the intense flying that most dragons do, which made her appear weaker than her fellow dragonets of destiny. She always keeps her wings flared, which is risky and makes her underside vulnerable, but it was better than being called a wingless serpent by her guardians.
Glory is a very cautious individual. She doesn’t walk until she knows where she’s going. She won’t begin to walk until she’s sure she can get there confidently. Glory is surprisingly prideful and avoids not to waste her breath, even if she chooses the wrong battles to fight.
Implication of Heritage
If I were to write Glory, I would completely boot out the idea that Glory was biologically destined for the throne. The whole moment where Grandeur spills her guts and explains the whole narrow-minded royal blood idea, that was stupid. Because it implies that all overcoming of adversity will be rewarded with the fact that all those who deserve it will be rewarded with their desires, not for hard work they used to achieve those goals, but simply because they’re supposed to.
Instead, I would make Kinkajou a convenient character in the scene to have a moment of importance, but it doesn’t mean she’ll be the new queen. But I’ll get to that later on. Grandeur will recognize Glory’s selfless and initiative as the prime reason she is more deserving to be queen. The idea that she’s fighting so desperately to help the NightWing prisoners, and that’s reflected by how she puts away the chance to win the Queen Competition for the life of this little dragonet.
Glory should have been Queen through initiative and new perspective, not the idea that she was “smarter” than the RainWings or that the RainWings were too “lazy” to have a functioning leader. She should have been a respectable character who overcomes her biting remarks to be truly selfless, put aside her needs and desires to help this tribe. Be the leader that Sunny would look up to.
Miscellaneous Thoughts
Glory doesn’t honestly get the proper respect as a grumpy character considering the trauma she’s went through and considering her entire life has been ruined as those who raised her repeatedly told her she shouldn’t exist and that they ought to kill her. Not as an empty threat! The acceptance of her situation seemed so understated (until it was revealed she had a plan) and no one really respects that she had the shortest end of the stick compared to the other Dragonets of Destiny. 
Along with that, I feel like it’d be interesting if Glory had an innate distrust or fear or SOMETHING of SkyWings. After being berated by a SkyWing guardian, being meant to be a SkyWing her whole life, Clay unintentionally claiming Peril as the missing SkyWing, and being prisoner and biggest prize of Queen Scarlet of the SkyWings, I don’t see why she wouldn’t be a little more afraid or hostile in a scenario with one. 
One headcanon of mine is that Glory has narcolepsy, a byproduct of not getting enough sun as a sun dependent tribe. She frequently lost control of her muscles during sparring practice with Kestrel, leading her to slither helplessly and worsen her image. She pardoned her sleepiness through consistent naps Under the Mountain, but it became harder to excuse after they left the mountain. Once the sun hit her scales on the marble tree in Scarlet’s clutches, she finally gave in and slept for a majority of that time, otherwise overwhelmed and unable to move. Unfortunately, along with classic form of narcolepsy, Glory also has hallucinations. She often interprets her hallucinations as Kestrel or Queen Scarlet, long after their deaths. Despite denying special treatment as the RainWing Queen, she does give into sun times to satiate the urge in her to rest.
Narcolepsy is also described as being triggered by high surges of emotion. Another reason why Glory does her best to suppress her emotions, to stay in control of her consciousness.
It can negatively affect relationships with other people by being triggered during these surges of emotion and as a result, Glory is not quite as emotionally connected to her siblings as the others are. As the consequences of the war subsides, she wishes to try making up for lost time and finally respond to her narcolepsy instead of be frustrated and angry with it.
Glory’s reign of the Rain Forest Queendom is characterized not by her inherent intelligence over the other RainWings. In fact, a majority of the beginning of her rule is learning the rich history and important traditions of RainWings from Duke Handsome. Due to her unfamiliarity with oral history, her first order is to try and record as much history and as many orders as possible to keep the RainWings’ respect and learn about her own culture. 
As well as that, Glory steels herself, with the sympathy of her siblings, Prince Jambu, Duke Handsome, and the other Queens, when ruling the NightWings. So easily could she take out her anger on these innocent victims of their own actions. But in the end, she learns it’s more important to be the bigger person and move forward in peace, not dwell in hatred.
Despite that, Glory is still apprehensive before directly meeting with SkyWing figures such as Queen Ruby. 
Glory and Tsunami probably have the closest relationship out of any of the other Dragonets of Destiny. Tsunami looks up to Glory as a queen and Glory makes fun of her lack of royal blood for it. Tsunami, after apprenticing with General Shark, also assists in the disciplining and order in the Rain Forest Queendom. Tsunami, Sunny, and Glory are the main royalty figures establishing a fairer justice system in the Rain Forest so there are no more Chameleons and that individuals like Mastermind have a place to go.
LGBT+ Headcanons
Glory, for a large part of the story we see her, is probably questioning her orientation. She’s never felt the right to be loved and never been able to emotionally connect with anyone enough to feel worthy of affection. Eventually, she comes out as a lesbian! Proudly leading her two tribes with acceptance and understanding. The Rain Forest proudly leads the largest Pride Parades with the SandWing queendom following closely behind. (Which means Deathbringer x Glory is not canon in my headcanons! He can ROT.)
Glory is also a trans woman! She did not embrace it easily with the role models she had growing up. She had always been told she was born incorrectly (for OTHER reasons, but it’s for the metaphor), but with the unconditional support from her siblings, especially her solidarity with Starflight, she was able to come to terms with her identity and be even more prideful because of it. Fully taking her destiny and her life into her own talons has empowered her more than anything after the events of the SandWing War of Succession.
337 notes · View notes
arcadialedger · 5 years ago
Text
Merlin: BBC’S Epic Tragedy
WARNING: EXTREME EMOTIONS LIE BELOW PROCEED WITH CAUTION
Tumblr media
_________________________________
Oh, Merlin. How I love you. Where do I even begin to describe just how deeply this show impacted me-- how it reached into my heart and made me feel as though only the great epics can. 
One day in the summer of 2016, I was looking for something to do. I was tired of only ever rewatching Doctor Who, and I wanted to try a new show. MY best friend, @shadowqueendiangelo​, had recommended BBC’s Merlin, so I decided to turn it on. 
Little did I know the emotional experience I would go through over the next five days as I marathoned the shows five seasons. Little did I know what this story would come to mean to me as a melancholic catharsis. 
So why did I react so strongly to Merlin emotionally? Well, I’m an INFJ, and I have always said that Merlin is THE show of the INFJ-- both the character himself and the feel of the show in its entirety. It’s deep, contemplative, introspective. IT, UNLIKE MOST FANTASY TELEVISION-- IS CENTERED ON EMOTION. 
But most importantly? The story is a giant tragedy-- to almost Shakespearean levels. One could even argue that, with five seasons, the structure of the show was inspired by Shakespearean tragedies. 
So what makes Merlin a tragedy? 
Tumblr media
Even before he was bound to fate, Merlin is the story of a boy who was forced to hide who he was from everyone around him-- even his loved ones. He grew up without a father, his mother viewed his powers as a danger to be hidden and concealed. 
*Merlin totally needs to talk to Elsa but that’s a discussion for another day
The point is, from the moment he was born-- MERLIN WAS TRAINED AND MENTALLY PERSUADED TO BE AFRAID OF WHO HE WAS. Merlin’s life before he leaves Ealdor is a tragedy in itself. He is a boy who is forced to live his life as a life against his will, and due to things out of his control. THIS  ITSELF IS ENOUGH TO MAKE HIM ASHAMED OF HOW HE WAS BORN, AND EMOTIONALLY DRAIN HIM. This facade has overtaken his entire life. 
Then he comes to Camelot, and the real tragedy of his life begins. 
Tumblr media
From the moment he steps foot in Camelot’s walls, Merlin is not only in constant fear of his safety, forced to work for a king who he knows would persecute him if he knew the truth of his identity, and continuously forced to lie to all of those around him-- ALL CONTROL AND AGENCY OVER HIS OWN LIFE IS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN OUT OF HIS HANDS BECAUSE HE IS BOUND TO FATE. 
Further, Merlin goes on the form the strongest bonds he has ever made in his life. He meets Arthur, his other half, the other side to his same coin.
And for years he has to live with the fact that the foundation of that friendship is built on a lie.
That he must always hide who he truly is from his best friend who he loves. 
For years he has to live with the fact that if his greatest friend knew the truth about him, he would have him killed.
Close as they are, this will always get in the way of their friendship, until Merlin tells Arthur the truth in 5x13-- shaking, sobbing, and terrified of what his friend will think of the true him. 
Tumblr media
BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOVE SOMEONE, IT’S SO HARD TO HIDE YOUR FULL SELF FROM THEM. AND MERLIN IS FORCED TO DO THIS DUE TO A GENERATIONAL PREJUDICE WHICH HE KNOWS, DEEP DOWN, THAT ARTHUR IS GOOD ENOUGH TO SEE THROUGH. 
The thread of that hope is what keeps Merlin going. 
Being forced to lie to, manipulate, and hide your true identity from a loved one is enough of an emotional burden as it is. However, Merlin is not only just forced to live this sad reality. He is forced to do it WHILE SERVING A KING WHO WOULD HAVE HIM KILLED.
Yet, despite knowing that Uther would have him executed, Merlin finds a place in his heart for Uther. Why? Because Uther means so much to Arthur. And that, alone, is enough for Merlin to not only find faith in the king, but the strength to emotionally support Arthur when he loses him, when they fight after learning the truth of Arthur’s birth, etc. That’s incredible. 
Merlin is carrying such a heavy emotional burden already, yet he gladly takes on the weight of all of those he cares about. Because, like the INFJ he is, Merlin will always look our for others while neglecting to take care of himself. Thank goodness for Gaius for providing some support when it comes to his-- not that Gaius’s own insisting on keeping Merlin’s magic a secret and following his destiny doesn’t take its own emotional toll. 
The first moment of the show that I cried, and perhaps my personal favorite episode of the show, is season 2′s The Last Dragonlord. Here, we not only start to see the full depth of Merlin and Arthur’s relationship, as well as Merlin’s undying loyalty to Arthur, but WE WATCH MERLIN BRIEFLY MEET THE FATHER HE ALWAYS LONGED TO KNOW, ONLY TO LOSE HIM MOMENTS AFTER.
To have that thread of hope-- that promise-- snatched out from underneath you-- is nothing short of devastating. Merlin never got the chance to know the man who not only loved his mother but gave him the magic which has for so long ruled over his life. 
Make no mistake, Balinor gave Merlin is a sense of being, an identity. For once, Merlin wasn’t alone. He had a source, a place, a home. He had someone who could know his true and full self and was also like him. 
Then he is forced to watch his father-- that promise, that hope, that newfound sense of identity and reassurance-- die before him, having sacrificed himself to save his life. And even worse-- MERLIN IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO GRIEVE, BECAUSE ARTHUR CANNOT KNOW BALINOR WAS HIS FATHER.
Tumblr media
The sense of loneliness at this moment is astounding. Merlin is left alone, forced to internalize overwhelming grief and sorrow. He has to hide the suffering of one of the greatest losses a person can endure. 
Yet Merlin continues on-- keeping faith in a king and a kingdom which despises the truth of who he is. He continues on FEELING WORTHLESS AND NOT BEING RECOGNIZED FOR ALL OF THE GOOD THAT HE DOES BECAUSE NOBODY CAN KNOW THE TRUTH.
The fact Merlin still does so much, despite getting no reward for what he does outside of Gaius, is astounding. It’s part of the human condition to need proper acknowledgment of the things we do. It’s against our nature to give and give and give, and get nothing in return. 
Yet, that is exactly what Merlin does. He gives and gives everything for Arthur, for his destiny, and expects nothing in return. Only his own moral soundness. 
It’s because Merlin is so selfless, he does nothing for himself. He works for Arthur. But more importantly, everything he does is for the purpose of his destiny. As stated before, MERLIN HAS LITTLE TO NO COUNTENANCE OVER HIS OWN LIFE. His purpose, and the actions he must take, have been predetermined, as they are a remarkably heavy burden to carry.  
One of the saddest little moments in the show is when Arthur states “You can’t hide anything from me, Merlin, and Merlin responds with four simple words
Tumblr media
Merlin is so sad in this moment-- his smile and ton so bittersweet-- because his friend has such faith in him. And Merlin wants to be better-- he wants to be able to live up to Arthur’s word and tell him the truth like they both deserve. But due to preconceived circumstances he just can’t. All of Merlin’s pain, loneliness, and suffering are written by history and prejudices from before he was born, and that he is taking the weight of every day. 
Merlin suffers from emotional trauma because he is forced to lie to his loved ones-- make no mistake. He beats himself up due to something out of his control. 
And time and time again? Merlin loses the few people who knew the truth about him. That he didn’t have to lie to. 
Balinor. 
Lancelot. 
Tumblr media
Freya.
Tumblr media
The only people Merlin doesn’t have to be ashamed in front of, with whom he is not in a constant moral crisis of identity and honesty, ARE TAKEN FROM HIM BY THE CRUEL HANDS OF FATE. Repeatedly, Merlin’s destiny seems determined for him to be alone outside of Gaius. 
Now, outside of the tragedy of Merlin’s entire existence and emotional turmoil, we move to the tragedy of Arthur’s death. 
Merlin is a servant to both fate and Arthur. He would give anything-- anything-- for Arthur Pendragon. And, in season 5, we see Merlin TRY AND FAIL TO WORK AGAINST FATE AND SAVE HIS FRIENDS LIFE. Yet, destiny seems determined for Merlin to lose the one thing he still truly cares about, the person he loves most and who has driven his purpose most of his life. 
The friend he was done everything he can to save, and he can’t even let him know. He can’t tell him how much he cares. 
The idea of this working against fate first arrives in season3, in one of my favorite episodes-- The Crystal Cave. Here’s we see the entire overarching concepts and themes of destiny in the show, as well as the final season and descent to Arthur’s death-- presented and condensed into an episode-long concept, in which Merlin tries to stop Morgana from killing Uther-- FOR ARTHUR’S SAKE.
Tumblr media
Merlin could have easily let Morgana kill Uther, and life would have been so much easier for him. MY God, life would have been so much easier. Arthur would be king, as Merlin has always wanted, and Merlin.
Yet Merlin is once again, selfless, and doesn’t allow either Uther or Morgana to die BECAUSE HE CANNOT STAND THE SIGHT OF ARTHUR’S GRIEF. ONCE AGAIN, EVERYTHING HE DOES IS FOR ARTHUR’S BENEFIT AND NOT HIS OWN. 
We see Merlin, one last desperate time, try to get Arthur to see the good in magic with his decision to heal Uther in The Wicked Day. This is thwarted, however, by Morgana, and Arthur’s hatred of magic is solidified. 
Then we hit season 5, which is just a swan song and spiral of depression, as Merlin is just so, so desperate to save his friend. 
Tumblr media
This entire season is, indeed, a swan song to Arthur’s death, but more importantly, a testament to the power of fate, as everything Merlin does ONLY LEADS CLOSER TO ARTHUR’S DEATH.
His choice to not tell Morgana about his magic in season 2, which might have saved her from evil and therefore spared Arthur
His choice to save Morgana, which could have stopped his death in battle had he let her die in season 3.
His choice to not trust Mordred, which Merlin thought was protecting Arthur, but only assured Mordred’s turning and Arthur’s death at the tip of his blade.
As in all tragedies, all roads lead to one inevitable fate, which Merlin is so desperate to stop. The destiny in stone, however,  cannot be rewritten. Every decision Merlin makes ultimately leads them closer to the inevitable fate of Arthur’s death. And thus, Merlin is trapped into a corner of loss. 
Tumblr media Tumblr media
And thus, after his best friend-- the man he loves most-- is finally able to know who he truly is, Merlin loses him too. And the tragedy of Merlin’s life is complete. Fate asked him to endure an impossible burden and gave him little in return. 
So why do I love Merlin? It’s poetic, emotional, and yes, beautifully tragic. It delves deep into the heart, mind, morality, and relationships. It warns against the overbearing power of fate.
And I guess I have always been one for the melancholy, dark, and sad. In that regard, I’m a bit of a masochist. I love to linger in the deepest, darkest emotions I can find. 
Depth, nuance, and pure, unfiltered sadness. That is what makes Merlin an epic tragedy. That is why my heart feels heavy and bursts with an ocean of bittersweet love and nostalgia whenever I think about it. 
That is what makes Merlin special. 
Tumblr media Tumblr media
35 notes · View notes
ryantate · 4 years ago
Text
Renée French, actor, nurse, just needed a little space
Tumblr media
Before she died last month, Renée French was a nurse at New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital. At some point before that, she rendered an unforgettable performance in downtown indie film icon Jim Jarmusch’s Coffee and Cigarettes as herself, or at least a version of herself with the same name, leafing through a gun magazine in a restaurant. She was poised and smoldering, gracefully insisting, to a persistently helpful waiter, that she be left alone to simply drink her coffee. “I really wish you hadn’t done that,” she says at one point, as he pours an unsolicited refill. “I had it the right color, the right temperature — it was just right.”
Coffee and Cigarettes was released in 2004, but French’s scene was shot some time during the preceding 18 years, during which Jarmusch filmed the movie’s 11 distinct stories. It’s not clear how much acting she subsequently did; IMDB lists just one other performance credit. Presumably, French might have found more work had her performance in Coffee been released sooner. (Jarmusch did try to do so, at one point reportedly nearing a deal to showcase the shorts on MTV before concerns about glorifying smoking scuttled things.)
After Jarmusch memorialized French on his Instagram, photographer Stephen Torton wrote about her recent life, saying in a comment, “Renee was a single mom and a front line nurse who died after months of near round the clock work.“ Another commenter wrote, “ She helped my mom when she was at her lowest during the peak of this pandemic. I’ll be forever grateful for her compassion and love for helping others.” French was a longtime New Yorker, and other friends remembered her working at and patronizing various downtown bars in the 1990s. “She cared about fellow humans,” one wrote. Jarmusch remembered her as “a truly rare and remarkable human being... kind, selfless, beautiful.”
It’s clear, in other social media posts, that French was grappling with the emotional toll of her work. At one point she wrote, as the pandemic waned, “I am struggling coming out of this ‘dream’.” Another time: “Just wanna have a few drinks and SLEEP.“
In the week and a half since I learned of French’s death, my thoughts have repeatedly returned to her. I saw Coffee for the first time maybe a month ago, part of a Jarmusch binge that began in March, as the city began its move indoors. In her work we see that peace is necessary for compassion, that providing solitude is as much an act of love as active care. I wish as a city and community we could have provided Renée with more of these things, and looking at what we together have gone through, and what many brave people have fought for, these last few days, I think they clearly are also needed by our most vulnerable citizens. Let people alone to live in peace, to care for others and to pursue happiness.
8 notes · View notes
dabistits · 6 years ago
Text
Himiko & emotional intelligence
This is an aspect of Himiko that I deeply appreciate and want to talk about here, especially since I haven’t seen a comprehensive post about this character trait. I think this is especially important given her desire to Kill and Replace, but it also contradicts portrayals of Himiko that construe her as not particularly smart or strategic. Emotional intelligence is actually a huge asset of hers, in many terms, including as a weapon. She exhibits a profound and seemingly intuitive understanding of other people’s emotions and can modify her own behavior accordingly for her own ends. Below is a listed breakdown with specific examples, in no particular order of importance:
1. Intuitive understanding of unspoken feelings
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
This is probably the most prominent example, and which we see time and again. Himiko repeatedly makes assertions based off tangential information, which she surmises into an accurate reading of other people’s character. Ochako and Izuku are basically complete strangers to her, but with minimal interaction, Himiko’s able to deduce important relationships to both of them. In the latter examples, while Izuku and Jin have alluded to their feelings to or around her, Himiko cuts right to the heart of the issue: not only does Izuku hold Ochako’s abilities in a conflict situation in high regard, he trusts her; not only does Jin feel guilty for Magne’s death, he feels the most guilt, and cooperating with the yakuza hurts him because of his guilt.
She confidently makes a statement about three different characters, and she’s shown to be correct in how she interprets their feelings. Her intuitive deduction often acts as a narrative device to show authorial intent (that Ochako does have a crush, that Izuku does trust her, Jin does feel guilt), so it’s important that her statements are accurate. As a result, she happens to become one of the most emotionally perceptive characters in the series, almost to an unnerving degree, able to correctly make snap judgments about people’s feelings and relationships. But how else do you use a quirk like Transform, right?
2. Blending into her role
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
We’ve so far seen Himiko in four different transformations (Rock Lock isn’t on here because I got lazy lol). Quite obviously, she’s not perfect—Kemi’s classmates at Shiketsu notes that she’s been acting weird, and Izuku quickly figures out that the Ochako he rescued during the Hero License Exam was an imposter. That said, Himiko does several things very well that shows it’s not carelessness on her part, so much as reasonable limitations given how much she knows about each of these people.
Starting from the obvious: her mannerisms. Himiko adjusts her mannerisms according to whomever she’s imitating, including expressions, body language, and (I’m assuming, w/o the requisite Japanese knowledge to go on) speech. Her personas are distinctive in each instance, and tailored to suit the situation they’re in, from Ochako’s sheepish look to Izuku’s direct, urgent communication. Himiko assumes a, at the very least, passable imitation of people she’s, again, barely met, adopting salient behavioral traits so she doesn’t easily get found out. Even when Izuku calls her out, he points out technical flaws in her imitation of Ochako (that she didn’t float, the lack of planning when coming to save him) rather than obvious tells from personality.
That said, where and when Himiko uses her Transform ability is also strategic in nature. For sustained periods of transformation, she selected a target who she could imitate more easily, whose strangeness would be more likely to get overlooked. Shishikura Seiji says this about Kemi:
Tumblr media
Himiko’s target and surroundings are carefully chosen to minimize chances of discovery, all strategic considerations that rely on an ability to read the atmosphere and people’s dispositions. She makes use of moments of confusion and plays off of people’s (but especially heroes’) need to react and help, betting on them to act before asking too many questions. This also raises an interesting question for me: in the hero license exam as Ochako, did she fall deliberately, counting on Izuku to catch her? Canon doesn’t make it particularly clear either way, but to speculate about it is fun in its own way.
3. Curiosity towards others
Tumblr media
This trait ties in obviously to Himiko’s fixation on Kill and Replace, but it also serves to expand her understanding of other people. By asking these questions in her drive to satisfy her curiosity, Himiko must also necessarily take in and process the information she receives in response, so she necessarily acquires an (emotional) understanding towards others. While this line is directed to Izuku, her interrogation of him broadens her perspective about not only Izuku himself, but those who are like him—in this case, heroes. Both Himiko and Tomura (in the mall scene) seek out Izuku to elucidate certain ways of thinking that are foreign to them, and seem to come away from the interaction with some knowledge gained about the enemy. While Tomura is the one who clearly grew during his encounter, in beginning to use his acquired philosophy to gain legitimacy, it would be inaccurate to say Himiko gained nothing from hers, even if it was marginal enough not to be addressed in the canon narrative yet. She’ll obviously have more interaction with Izuku in the future though, so there should be plenty of opportunity to show how this encounter affected her too.
4. Using emotional information for her own ends
Tumblr media
All of her skills amount to this—a brilliant play in the Hideout Invasion Arc that is vastly under-appreciated. Let’s set the scene: she and Twice have been drafted into the yakuza, whom neither of them much like, and now they’re embroiled in the yakuza’s affairs which involves a confrontation with heroes. They’re disadvantaged in terms of sheer physical power, they’re trapped in the battlezone with a significant risk of getting arrested, and their true target (Overhaul) is quickly making his escape while Mimic slows everyone down. Mimic is someone with whom she’d had a brief but antagonistic interaction that we know of, maybe more went on off-screen. Regardless, she understands enough about this person to figure out where he’s hiding (which stupefied the heroes), and exactly what to do to make him reveal himself against all his best interests. How she goes about this sets the course for the rest of the chapter.
With the right combination of words, she coaxes Mimic into self-sabotaging by revealing his location, and the heroes react exactly as she wanted them to. They prioritize subduing Mimic; once Izuku catches on to where he’s hiding, he takes him out, and it occupies all of the heroes for just long enough for her and Twice to make their escape. Himiko talks the situation into her favor, and ends up with one of the most troublesome yakuza members out of the way, and the road cleared for Twice and herself to execute their own plan to sabotage Overhaul.
I don’t think I need to go on about how amazing it is to manipulate a chain of events like that. Suffice to say that achieving such a result required a remarkable understanding of Mimic’s character and tics. She knew what to say that would dig the most at his insecurities, what would piss him off the most, and how the heroes would react. Basically, she played them, pretty much effortlessly and with very little time to think everything through. As stated in point 1, her ability to grasp a situation and all personalities involved seems pretty much intuitive, allowing her take advantage of what is going on around her. This is one of those scenes when the cunning of a character truly shines through, and it happens by allowing Himiko to take control of the situation just by reading someone’s personality and emotions. 
5. Emotional intelligence=empathy?
Tumblr media
One would think that this all amounts to an extremely sympathetic reading of her, and Himiko does tend to get very sympathetic reactions out of fans. After all, she’s redeemable by her age, she’s fun, and she has extremely endearing interactions with Twice. People particularly like to cite the scene above as evidence that she’s empathetic, and therefore not just a surface-level sadistic serial killer. I somewhat agree on these points, but although I’ve just spent a lot of words detailing indications of her emotional intelligence, I hesitate to assert that it necessarily makes her more predictable in terms of her loyalties or willingness to self-sacrifice.
So as to not get too deeply into what other people think or don’t think, I’ll just present my own argument here. While Himiko does show herself to be perceptive towards other people’s feelings, upset at the team’s loss of Magne, and reassuring when Twice is distressed, it may not come from a totally selfless, empathetic place. This is something of an extrapolation from her behavior in other instances, like the serial killing lmfao, but also this bit towards Tomura:
Tumblr media
When faced with the possibility of doing something she doesn’t like, her reaction drastically differs from Twice. Twice is hurt by Tomura asking them to join the yakuza, but Himiko doesn’t seem to feel hurt; rather than echo Twice’s plea for consideration, her reaction is a logical, problem-solving attempt to remove the element that is making her do that which she dislikes. Her gesture towards Tomura is antagonistic. Her expression is placid, she even calls Tomura by his first name, but her action is a threat, making it clear she will hurt someone to get her way.
What I read from this interaction is that, to Himiko, people are disposable if they become ‘unpleasant.’ It’s the people on her good side who warrant her reassurance, but given that it’s Tomura she threatens here, that can change at the drop of a pin. This is why I hesitate to point to her emotional intelligence as something that indicates unconditional loyalty or compassion; there is very clearly a self-centered and opportunistic streak in the way Himiko evaluates people around her and her relationships to them, and that’s a trait that’s often overlooked. People are welcome to interpret her however they want, but I think her willingness to rebel against and threaten the people she deems friends is something that bears acknowledging.
6. Bonus: she still cares to remark on what Tomura thinks though
Tumblr media Tumblr media
IT’S CUTE, that’s all.
Emotional intelligence doesn't always point to good deeds and intentions, and I think this aspect of it is ignored when it comes to Himiko. Focus on her character tends towards the moments when she's being compassionate (and I get that because it's really cute) but I feel like it undersells how manipulative she can be. She regularly uses her people skills to infiltrate, confuse, and sabotage, which is also very a interesting and fun part of her character. She can be strategic! She can be cunning! It's just a different type of intelligence that most of our main characters exhibit, especially in terms of how she uses it, but that's also part of what makes her a great villain.
1K notes · View notes
roominthecastle · 6 years ago
Note
Hey Room! Thanks for replying to my Q. But if Illya was that lovesick for Katarina since he was 6, doesn’t it give a stench of classic transference to the Red/Liz dynamic? Like, Illya couldn’t get Kat, so he sees her daughter as his second chance . . . with Kat really. Liz was supposed to be the woman Red “loved and lost” in Cape May, but if Red = Illya, then that description must apply to both girls.
I would see it as such if Red chose to whisper Kat’s name as his final word, or a memory of her flashed across his mind before his impending almost execution, or if he talked about her as the woman he loved/his heart/his life. But it’s always clearly Liz, there isn’t even a touch of ambiguity to this. If he still harbored feelings for Kat, they should have surfaced in these key moments but they didn’t. His past relationship w/ Kat has an influence here, I don’t deny that, but I don’t believe Red sees Liz as a replacement or consolation prize. He sees her as her own person, and if he fell for Liz, he fell for Liz bc she fits his type just like all the other women he has fancied before – 99.9% of whom were not her mother. He’s loved before but not the way he loves Liz now.
And I should have worded my response better re: the lovesick puppy thing bc I don’t think he’s been in love w/ Kat since they were 6 or that it’s some sort of guiding constant in his life. They likely lived separate lives on different continents, for starters, and she wasn’t interested in him that way. And I mentioned somewhere else how I see an inconsistency in his attachment to Kat in “Rassvet”: he isn’t devastated when he thinks she committed suicide, at least nowhere near as affected as he was by Liz’s death, which undercuts the whole selfless lover-hero image that seemingly follows soon after she comes out of hiding to ask for his help. There are no hurt feelings, no stinging sense of betrayal in the way he interacts w/ Kat (it’s almost like “oh, you’re back, good, wanna make out?”), yet it was all there after Liz came back from the dead, which already suggests different depths of emotional involvement.
Ilya’s repeated insistence to honor a pledge he made when he was 6 is the takeaway in “Rassvet”, imo. “My word is my bond” and “loyalty above all else” are still the most important guiding principles in Red’s life (both in business and personal relationships), and this is also what Ilya – or through Ilya, Dom – kept emphasizing as the only reason to help Kat. Treating a childhood promise as a serious, binding contract is a very Red thing, imo. How much actual “in love-ness” went with it remains to be seen since this is Dom’s version of the story and Red is clearly not happy w/ it.
But this signature compulsion is there in Red’s relationship w/ Liz, too. He promised her to keep her alive and safe, to give her the life she longs for, and he is not stopping until he succeeds but he also has his own agenda unfurling in the backdrop of their relationship. So he pledged himself to Liz, too. This compulsive aspect of the “lovesick puppy act” is what I think these two dynamics have in common, that’s why I said that Ilya’s behavior around Kat fits w/ how Red behaves today. This super intense loyalty to a select few stems from who Ilya/Red is as a person at his core, and it’s independent from romantic/sexual feelings but it’s easy to confuse/conflate the two, esp if one is young(er) and/or lonely like Ilya/Red was ~30 years ago.
And all this naturally brings something James once said to mind:
“I think in life, people have this confusion about love. We all want to fall in love so badly that we are almost willing to lie to ourselves, to force ourselves into believing that we are in love when we aren’t. It’s too bad, because in so doing, we cheapen it. I don’t think we recognize the depth of the emotion at all. It’s entirely transformative and we think of it as a blurb on a Hallmark card. When you’re in love, you can’t control it. It’s when you can’t take charge of what you feel, when you are completely powerless in the face of the emotion. When it happens, it happens in spite of you.” [x]
In “Rassvet” Ilya is, in fact, taking charge and Dom emphasizes this by calling him “the architect of this charade”. He gets himself transformed as part of a deliberate plan, a power move, he came up with and had to talk Kat into. Liz, however, is unintentionally yet inescapably transforming him in ways he is 100% unable to control, and she is transforming him back to who he used to be (a lá Beauty and the Beast). She tears right through every design he’s ever come up with, zigs when he zags, and lands him in the most insane situations he had no intention of ending up in (most recently: the execution chamber).
So the first part of the quote above feels more Ilya/Kat atm, and the last bit is 100% what I see when I look at Red and Liz’s relationship and, perhaps not by accident, that last bit is also what made it into actual canon dialog btw Red and Liz, and it’s been repeatedly stated how only Liz can render Red powerless and how she is his kryptonite. Liz.
So I don’t think Ilya/Red truly felt for Kat in the past what he – in spite of himself – ended up feeling for Liz in the present (true, all-consuming love). But he follows the same “my word is my bond” principle in both dynamics.
Tumblr media
I can def see him being irritated by how Dom chose to reduce his relationship w/ Kat to some sanitized fairytale, but I still don’t think Dom believed that lying through his teeth was the way to dispense closure here. It’s Dom who warns Red at the end of S5 that Liz is never gonna stop digging for his true identity, then again tells him that she was gonna find out sooner or later anyway, so he did Red a favor by ripping off that band-aid. Liz was desperate to know Red’s real identity and Dom gave it up, hoping/thinking it would be a small price to pay for a way forward. Dom himself is sick and tired of secrets and hiding, living that way has cost him so much already and he knows nothing good ever comes from it, so I don’t think that heaping full-on lies on this issue was his go-to move here. I could be wrong, of course, but for now, I am rolling w/ “most of what Dom said he believes/assumes to be true but stuff was omitted that will end up re-framing things once they are revealed”.
Tumblr media
But nothing (potentially) traumatizing was revealed here? things Red wanted to keep from Liz were revealed and he clearly did not like it or the way Dom chose to tell it, but “I know you used to be Ilya who made a huge sacrifice to protect my mother and me” is not quite in the same league as “I know you killed Sam” or “I know I killed my father” as far as devastating revelations go. I think Red’s reaction matched that + he was also still fuming and hurting from the confirmation of her most recent betrayal, so that’s also coloring his response and mood here, imo, making him so tightly wound that only a few twitches escape as he listens to her.
That smartass Popeye remark was not his immediate response, it’s not a response to “I know you’re Ilya”. It’s a deflection that comes when she – sensing an obvious hole in the story – starts questioning why he kept Reddington’s identity once the alleged reason of taking it on was satisfied. That’s when he says, “I am what I am. … Popeye the Sailor Man.” to avoid the topic bc – imo – now she is truly close to knowing everything and he needs to stall to figure out how to handle this entirely new playing field.
I think his reaction to her at the end of “Rassvet” is a unique mix – previous methods of (now half-hearted) deflection w/ an undercurrent of surprise, fear, anger, uncertainty + a touch of “you disappoint yet impress” he also voiced at the end of S5.
39 notes · View notes
reylorabbittrail · 7 years ago
Text
What I would love to see out of a redemption arc in Episode VIII and IX
I think I may have mentioned in my introductory post that I’m a mother of a large family. Six kids, five of them boys. And my little boys love Kylo Ren. I mean really love him. This morning on the way to church my five year old was insisting that his Kylo Tsum Tsum come with him and ride in his pocket.
So I realize that at least one reason that I would love to see a redemption arc is how amazing would it be for a badass villain to redeem himself and become just as badass for the forces of good? Because I think it would be really cool for my children, especially my little boys who love Kylo Ren and Darth Vader to see the cool bad guy become a cool good guy. I don’t want them to see evil as cool. Snoke is evil. Snoke is not cool. I want them to see that all of the things that make Vader and Kylo cool, all of that power, can be directed to something better than the tyrannical whims of creepy old dudes. 
But the other reason I would love a redemption arc is because of the possibilities for romantic Reylo. Yes, Rey could experience sexual attraction even to an unredeemed Kylo, and I love a lot of the fanfics that explore that, but outright love of the lasting sort has to be based on mutual understanding and respect. I can’t see that without a redemption arc for Kylo/Ben. 
But what I find really cool, and I hope happens, and I hope doesn’t get screwed up, is the possibility for the one of the best examples of a positive vision of romance since The Incredibles. 
Stay with me here.
The Incredibles is one of the best movies about marriage ever. You have an amazing romance between two super-powered people. Neither needs the other. Elastigirl didn’t need a husband to provide for her. Mr. Incredible was probably perfectly able to take care of himself, or at least use restaurants and drycleaners. Look at their mottoes. Mr Incredible says it repeatedly: “I work alone.” Elastigirl is a strong confident woman who can save the world without help, thank you very much.
Tumblr media
But then the avalanche of lawsuits drives the pair into living out their “secret identities as their only identities” and it fits them like a badly cut suit. Helen Parr was never meant to be a housewife. Bob Parr was never meant to be a wage slave in Cubeville. More importantly, neither was ever meant to live an utterly separate life from the other. Helen would not have been any happier if she had a “meaningful career”. She and Bob had met and fell in love as super heroes. They both were meant to battle evil. But neither had come to terms with what it meant to do so as husband and wife. 
Enter a whole lotta plot. It takes most of the movie for them to figure out that their family is more than the sum of their parts. The complementarity that has been clear to the audience from the beginning finally starts to become apparent to the Parrs as they reach the climax of the story.
Bob is preparing to fight Syndrome and the Omnidroid. He tries to keep Helen and the kids out of the fight. Helen is justifiably upset. 
Elastigirl: While what? I watch helplessly from the sidelines? I don't think so.
Mr. Incredible: I'm asking you to wait with the kids.
Elastigirl: And I'm telling you, not a chance. You're my husband, I'm with you - for better or worse.
Mr. Incredible: I have to do this alone.
Elastigirl: What is this to you? Playtime?
Mr. Incredible: No.
Elastigirl: So you can be Mr. Incredible again?
Mr. Incredible: No!
Elastigirl: Then what? What is it?
Mr. Incredible: I'm not...
Elastigirl: Not what?
Mr. Incredible: Not... I'm not strong enough.
Elastigirl: Strong enough? And this will make you stronger?
Mr. Incredible: Yes. No!
Elastigirl: That's what this is? Some sort of work out?
And then Bob responds with unexpected vulnerability.
Tumblr media
And this is the lovely moment where Helen replies that if they work together, he won’t have to be strong enough to face losing her.
This is what marriage is supposed to be. Two people with different but complementary strengths forming a union where they work together toward a common goal. It’s amazing that an animated film got marriage right where so many live action films can’t even come close.
Back to Rey and Kylo/Ben.
I love the idea of romantic Reylo because it has the potential to have a dynamic as good as Bob and Helen Parr. They’re both super-powered. They have a remarkable degree of complementarity in their talents (at least from the little we’ve gleaned on EA game leaks and inference from Rey’s latent abilities). Tell me they would be awesome to see battling together on the same team. And that only happens if there’s a redemption arc. 
Eros is powerful thing, but it generally isn’t lauded for its salvific qualities. If Ben is brought back from the dark side and finds balance, its going to be through the compassion and vulnerability of something deeper. Don’t get me wrong, I want the attraction as well, but the friendship (philia), the affection (storge), the selfless love (agape) also need to be there. So whatever would be present would actually be a much better, fuller romance than the previous Star Wars romances.
Look at Anidala. I love them. I really do. But they were a trainwreck. There was mutual attraction aplenty, and some real affection, but there was no common ground on which to form friendship. (Quick clarification: friends share common interests. Familial relationships can survive on long acquaintance, and this is why we still love some friends even after we lose common interests. They have become like family, who we love even when we don’t like them.) 
Han and Leia were a different kind of trainwreck. Again, mutual attraction. And so long as they had the Rebellion, they had common ground. But the end of the war brought that common ground to an end. Leia put the Republic before everything, including her family. Han was home more than he would have been otherwise, but he was still away a lot. They just didn’t have a common life. And Ben suffers for that. Neither parent is really there for him when he needs it. 
Reylo could be something really different. Not just a romance, but a romance between equals who understand each other completely, and who are united by common talents in a common cause. They could be like Mr Incredible and Elastigirl, working better as a couple than they could as individuals, and better as a family then they could as a couple. Because with their common history of isolation, neither would want their children to have absentee parents. Working a “family business” as magic space knights might actually be a possibility where self-actualization is not achieved at the detriment of family but instead enhances the family. 
Am I being too optimistic? Probably. But if Pixar can pull it off, I see no reason why LucasFilm couldn’t.
But there you are. Why I really want a redemption arc to be part of the endgame. Because I want my little boys to see a cool bad guy turn into an equally cool good guy and see that it’s not the evil that’s awesome, it’s the power that is so much better when it’s in service to something worthy. Because I don’t want Rey to be stuck in the role of striking down the bad guy (at least, not the relatable bad guy) when she could be showing that real power doesn’t come from a magic sword, but from compassion and courage, qualities that aren’t restricted to magic space knights. And because if romantic Reylo is a thing, it could be the most positive and balanced relationship I’ve seen on screen since The Incredibles. The potential is there. I’m hoping those involved in creating this see that same potential. 
122 notes · View notes
sinceileftyoublog · 5 years ago
Text
Summerfest 2019: 6/30
Tumblr media
Guided By Voices
BY JORDAN MAINZER
Of all of the straight, white, buttoned-up indie rock bands of the 2000′s, The National have endured because they’ve subverted those very expectations, at first with Matt Berninger co-writing with his wife Carin Besser and now with the band including women as not just prominent but lead parts in the performance. Their new album I Am Easy To Find and its partner short film (starring Alicia Vikander and directed by Mike Mills (Beginners, 20th Century Women)) was conceived of and partially recorded during the Sleep Well Beast sessions. While the aesthetic of the new record is certainly consistent with that album’s, its themes move on from Beast’s tension between inner and outer dark forces. I Am Easy To Find is instead a record about our devotion to one another, and the femininity of the presented voices is an effective aesthetic for The National’s most empathetic album to date.
Much of the album sees Berninger singing duets or flat out giving way to the likes of Gail Ann Dorsey, Lisa Hannigan, Kate Stables, and Mina Tindle. Opener “You Had Your Soul With You” starts out familiar enough--glitching electronics, nervous drums and guitar flourishes and flutters, weeping strings, Berninger’s baritone--but the introduction of Dorsey, the type of voice that was previously relegated to background harmonies on National albums, is one of those moments where you’re listening to a longtime band and realize they’re offering something truly different. On “Where Is Her Head”, Berninger shouts like he does on many National tracks on which he’s losing his mind, but his stream of consciousness is here dwarfed by Dorsey in harmony with Eve Owens, them providing the emotional and musical stability that’s usually the job of Bryan Devendorf’s snares. “Dust Swirls In Strange Light” features the Brooklyn Youth Choir and no Berninger. And there are a couple tracks without any words: choral instrumental “Her Father In The Pool” and “Underwater”.
Digging deeper, though, it’s the lyrical approach that’s an even more radical change. Berninger sings again with Dorsey on “Roman Holiday”; “I’ll take away your shame,” they promise to each other. “I’ll come to where you are alone in the quiet light,” he declares on “Quiet Light”. Elsewhere, with Tindle on “Oblivions”, they sing, “It’s almost like you’re not afraid of anything I do”--a far cry from “I was afraid I’d eat your brains.” “Not In Kansas” is a total tribute to women that have changed Berninger’s life. On the title track, Berninger and Stables sing to each other, “There’s a million little battles that I’m never gonna win anyway / I’m still waiting for you every night with ticker tape, ticker tape.” The line (a selfless contrast to “I’m a festival / I’m a parade”) is the ultimate tribute to true love: No matter how much people bicker and fight, unconditional support conquers all. It’s what makes closer “Light Years” so sad. “Oh, the glory of it all was lost on me / ‘Til I saw how hard it’d be to reach you,” Berninger sings. An album ago, he was death obsessed, and now, he can’t stop living, perhaps even afraid to die.
So how would The National adapt I Am Easy To Find to a live stage at a Summerfest closing slot? With backup singers on songs like “You Had Your Soul With You”, “Quiet Light”, “Hey Rosey”, “The Pull Of You”, “Oblivions”, “Where Is Her Head” and the swaying title track. As for old songs, Berninger provided his usual stage antics, air guitaring with the Dessner brothers on “Don’t Swallow the Cap”, trying to toss his drink to someone in the crowd, perhaps drunkenly remarking about the “flying benches” in the sky (the skyride), and, genuinely, telling the crowd how excited he was to see his wife and kid, the sentiment most consistent with the band’s great new record.
Album score: 8.2/10
The other two bands whose full sets I saw at Summerfest had connections to The National. Adia Victoria’s two albums have been recorded by Aaron Dessner. Silences, her 2019 release, like 2016′s Beyond the Bloodhounds, centers around the identity of black women like Victoria herself, but its ambitions delve into the Southern Gothic. From the very start, Victoria modernizes the aesthetic. “Clean”, like Odetta Hartman’s incredible “Misery”, is a gender-inverted murder ballad, the victim God himself. On the less-than-two-minute ditty, Victoria, over plucks of the cello and National-esque glitchy electronics, breathes life into and begins her religion-and-patriarchy-conquering persona continued throughout the album. “I’m gonna do everything in the world that my grandma ever wish she had,” she declares on “Pacolet Road”, the ultimate fuck you to those who use religion, race, sex, or gender to oppress. Furthermore, on “The City”, her sample of Billie Holiday singing “Lady Sings The Blues”, blending in with baroque swipes of strings, pays tribute to another strong black woman in a position of creative power but during a different time frame, one step closer to becoming eternal.
While Victoria totally nails the demonic aspect of Southern Gothic, she frames many of her demons as positive and uses them for leverage over those who disappoint and oppress. “Different Kind Of Love” is an absolute stomp of a breakup song. On “The Needle’s Eye”, over disorienting, swirling electronics, she sings, “The day is done / Let’s have some fun / Beat me like a drum,” her layered vocals repeatedly cooing the last words at the end of the song. Victoria mixes references to habits of self destruction and feelings of desire, both part of her and what makes her fierce. “I like the things that make me hurt,” she sings on the tiptoeing “Devil Is A Lie”. “I like to do things my way / Or I don’t do them at all,” she strongly declares on “Heathen”, continuing, “Cause first they ask you to compromise / And then the next breath demandin’ you crawl.” In other words, it’s not really self destruction; it’s the “same old nice folks bringing me down.”
Silences climaxes in “Dope Queen Blues”, what Victoria calls the “culmination of my ruination”. Flute and piano add weight to Victoria’s ultimate goal: Seek the divine within herself, replace who she did away with on the first song. “I wanna break free from my body / Shaken loose my skin / ‘Cause I had a thought I am a god / Of this I am convinced.” Alone at the top, staring at her reflection, she ends the album singing to her reflection, over an instrumental with wonderfully uneasy synths: “I wanna get lonely with you.” 
When she performed live, Victoria was appropriately in control, dominating the stage during “Clean” and “The Needle’s Eye”, but cementing her story and songs in context with her peers and fellow citizens, dedicating them to black victims of police murders and women who are victims of the patriarchy. Interestingly enough, she lifted lines from Nirvana’s “Heart Shaped Box” during a song, and it was an oddly fitting choice. Despite what the celebrity back-and-forth will tell you, Kurt Cobain’s original was purportedly inspired by documentaries about children with cancer: “I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn black,” he sang. Victoria, who strutted around on stage like an almighty being, could convince you she had such power.
Album score: 7.6/10
youtube
Guided By Voices, meanwhile, occupied a strange slot, getting a mid-day 90 minute set as opposed to their usual headlining three-plus hours. Still, they offered 35 songs, a little over a third from albums from this year (Zeppelin Over China and Warp and Woof). “Every song could be first or last,” Robert Pollard observed about the band’s set. These days, the first song tends to be a newer one, the closer Isolation Drills banger “Glad Girls”. It was an abridged, arguably more concise GBV set because it had to be, but it was fun seeing the band essentially open for their Ohio brethren. The words “Towers to the skies / An academy of lies” were sung twice on that stage, because Berninger interpolates them on I Am Easy to Find’s title track, following them up with “You were never much of a New Yorker”. On a day seeing two Ohio bands and a Nashville queen in Wisconsin, New York was the farthest thing on any of our minds.
0 notes
luluuu-blog · 5 years ago
Text
P.Jaisini-smiles-GIG-NYC2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MANIFESTO GLEITZEIT 2015 BY STELLY RIESLING Featured below is another original art work of mine in homage to THE PIONEER OF INVISIBLE ART — PAUL JAISINI. Forget all the copycats that came after him — Master Paul Jaisini was the *FIRST* of a totally original concept and the *BEST*. My favorite thing about him is that he’s a voice, not an echo, which is quite rare. DISCLAIMER: This is for anyone who is a hater OR wishes to better understand me, what I’m all about, so you can decide whether I’m weird or normal enough for you — a kind of very loose manifesto, rushed and unrevised, full of raw uncut emotion that I don’t like to be evident in my writing as lately I prefer a more professional, formal style, so we can consider this a rough draft of the more polished writing to come when I have extra time. I might return to this text later and clean it up or break it into separate parts. Right now it’s a long-winded hot mess, so if you manage to make any sense of it, BIG PROPS TO YOU. lol …and if you manage to read it ALL, you have my solemn respect!!! in a day when reading has been reduced to just catchy headliners and short captions of images once in a while. The consequence of this one-liner internet culture is non-linear, tunnel thinking, which is baaaaaad. There lives among us a most enigmatic and charismatic creature named Paul Jaisini who led me into the wonderful world of art, not personally, but through descriptions of his artworks in essays written and published online by his friend, which painted the most fascinating images in my mind. Early on as a kiddo, I experimented with photography, simple point and shoot whatever looked attractive to me. Digital manipulation of my photographs with computer software followed… and somehow I learned useful drawing techniques along the way to combine existing elements with nonexistent ones, which allowed me to elevate the context for my ideas. Later, I started creating my own digital art from scratch for my friends and family as a favorite pastime. They would shower me with praise and repeatedly encouraged me to share my “different” vision with the rest of the world… it took a while and wasn’t easy to overcome the insecurity of not being good enough along with a gripping fear of being harshly criticized, but one day I woman-ed up and started publishing my work on the web, reminding myself that my livelihood didn’t depend on a positive reception. Paul Jaisini’s role in all this has been to not disgrace myself, even if what I do is just a hobby. And I would never do him and other genius artists the disservice of calling myself a professional because I know I’ll never be as good as any of the GIANTS of pre-modern history. Be the best or be nothing, no middle ground. People’s jealousy in the past, future and present over my obsessive love of Paul Jaisini, which they are well aware is purely plutonic, has caused them to despise the man and has made many relationships/friendships impossible for me. I refuse to have such people in my life because by harboring any negativity towards Paul, they unknowingly feel that way about me and express it to me. It’s their own problem for not realizing this. Paul’s new art movement, Gleitzeit, shaped me into the allegedly awesome girl I am today, giving my art more edge, more “sexy” because it refined my vision of the world and propelled me to attain the skills necessary to not dishonor my family name through tenacious pursuit of perfection. Since the beginning of my life, I attempted to depict what I saw in visual, musical and literal forms, but continuously failed without adequate training and determination. Paul Jaisini’s Gleitzeit was the answer to my prayers. Who I am today I owe mostly to him and his selfless ideals of the artverse that I’ve given unconditional loyalty to (he has this cool ability for hyper-vision to see whole universes, not itty bitty worlds, hence I call it an artverse instead of art world, with him in mind). So again, anyone who hates Paul Jaisini hates ME because, regardless of what he means to you, he is the most important person in my life for making me ME. The way a famous actor, dancer or singer inspires others to act, dance or sing, Paul inspired me to become a better artist, better writer, better everything. More people would understand if he was a household name because they’re wired to in society. But we’re inspiring each other all the time in our own little communities without being famous, so if someone has the ability to change even ONE person’s life immensely with creativity, it is a massive achievement. And passionate folks like myself are compelled to scream it from the cyber rooftops. So here I am. It’s whatever. Furthermore, I’d like to address here a few pressing matters in light of some recent drama brought on by both strangers and former friends. To start, I never judge the passions, interests or likes of others, which are often in my face all over the place, so likewise they have no right to judge any of mine. It is quite unfortunate and frustrating how very little understanding and education the majority of people have or want to have. Their logic is as primitive as a chipmunk when it comes to promotion of fine art on the web: “spamming, advertising, report!” It’s their own problem that they fail to understand what it’s about due to the distorted lens through which they see the world or inability to think for themselves; an inherent lack of perception or inquisitiveness. Well, guess what? Every single image, every animation, every video, every post dedicated to Mr. Paul Jaisini and “Gleitziet” (to elaborate: a revolutionary new art movement Paul founded with his partner in crime and personal friend, EYKG, who discovered him and believed in him more than anyone) has an important purpose. Every one of those things you run across is a piece of a puzzle, a move in a game, an inch down a rabbit hole; the deeper you go, the more interesting it gets; the more levels you pass, the more clues unfold, the greater the suspense and nearer the conclusion (yet further). You earn awesome rewards like enlightenment, spiritual revelations, truths, knowledge, wisdom and the most profound reward of all: the drive to improve yourself to the absolute maximum, so an unending, unshakable drive. People often make a wrong turn in this cyber game and go back a few levels or get stuck. Those that keep on pushing, however, will come to find the effort has been worth it. And what awaits you in the end of it all? The greatest challenge to beating the game: YOUR OWN MIND. You will be forced to let go of every belief you held before you had reached the last level, to completely alter your mindset and perception of the world, of life, of yourself. But by the time you’ve gotten to that point, it will be as easy as falling off a cliff! (It is a kind of suicide after all — death and rebirth of spirit.) Paul Jaisini does NOT, *I repeat* does NOT use mystery and obscurity to his advantage as a clever marketing ploy, no, he’s too next level for that with a consciousness so rich, he should wear a radioactive warning sign (he’ll melt your brain, best wear a tinfoil hat in his presence as I certainly would.) The statement he makes is loud and clear, hidden in plain site for those who take the time to connect the dots and have enough curiosity to fuel their journey into unknown territory (an open mind and flexible perception helps a lot). Actually, anyone with an IQ above 90 is sure to figure it out sooner or later. Hint: You don’t have to SEE an extraordinary thing with your eyes to know it exists, to understand it and realize its greatness — you can only feel it in your bone marrow, your spinal fluid, your heart and soul. The moment you do figure it out, as the skeleton key of the human soul, it will unlock the greatness and massive potential buried deep within, changing the doomed direction humanity is undoubtedly headed. I don’t speak in riddles, I speak in a clear direct way that intelligent humans will understand, so I’m counting on them. GIG is an international group of artists and writers that support Paul Jaisini’s Gleitzeit. We started off as an unofficial fan club of Jaisini in 1996, comprised of only 6 individuals spanning 3 countries, and eventually escalated in status to an official fan group across the entire globe. A decade later it had grown to hundreds of fans. Nearly another decade later, there are thousands. Let’s not leave out another delightful group of vicious haters that have been around for nearly as long as us since the late 90s and have also grown in impressive numbers. Now, for the record (and please write this one down because I’m sick of repeating myself), Paul Jaisini himself is not part of our group and has nothing to do with us. He loves and hates us equally for butchering his name and making him appear as a narcissistic nut-job in his own words. He casts hexes on us for the blinding flash we layer over the art that members contribute to GIG — “disgusting-police-lights, seizure-inducing-laser-lightshow, bourgeois-myspace-effects retarded-raver shit” in Paul’s words. Ahh, how we love his sweet-talking us. In a desperate attempt to please him, those among us who make the art and animations have spent countless hours and sleepless nights trying to solve a crazy-complex quantum-physics type of equation = how to not create tacky or tasteless content. He does fancy some of it now, we got better, that’s something! In the reason stated below, our mission just got out of hand at some point. What little is known about Paul Jaisini, even in all this time, is he’s a horrible perfectionist who slaughtered hundreds of innocent babies — I mean — artworks of remarkable beauty created by his own right hand (mostly paintings, some watercolors and drawings). He’s a fierce recluse who wants nothing to do with anyone or anything in life. But those few of us who know of an incredible talent he possesses (one could go as far as calling it a superpower), could not allow him to live his life without the recognition he FUCKING DESERVES more than any artist out there living today and, arguably, yesterday. We use whatever means necessary to reach more people, lots of flash and razzle-dazzle to lure them into our sinister trap of a higher awareness. Mwahaha! The visual boom you’ve witnessed in both cyber and real worlds, that is GIG’s doing — two damn decades of spreading an art virus — IVA. InVisibleArtitis… or a drug as in Intravenous Art. It’s whatever you want it to be, honey. Our Gleitzeit International Group (GIG) started off innocently enough and gradually spiraled out of control to fight the haters, annoying the hell out of them as much as humanly possible. They don’t like what we do? WE DO MORE AND MORE OF IT. But never without purpose, without a carefully executed plan in mind collectively. If we have to tolerate an endless tidal wave of everyone’s vomit — e.g., idiotic memes and comics; dumbed-down one-liner quotes; selfies; so-called “art photography” passed through one-click app filters; mindless scribbles or random splatters by regular folks who have the nerve to call themselves serious/pro artists; primitive images of pets, babies, landscapes, random objects, etc… then people sure as shit are gonna tolerate what we put out, our animated and non-animated visual art designed for our beloved master, Paul Jaisini, who has shown us the light, the right path to follow, taught us great things and done so much for us — and so in our appreciation of him, we stamp his name on everything, for the sacrifices he has made in the name of art, to save our art verse, he’s a goddamn hero. There’s a book being written in his dedication where little will be left to the imagination about him. If Paul Jaisini was as famous as Koons or Hirst, for example, people would know it’s not him posting stuff online with his name on it but fans creating fanart like myself among others. But noooooo, such a thing is unfathomable to most people – the promotion of another artist. Like, what’s in it for us? Uhh, nothing?? This is all NON-PROFIT bitches, the way art should be. It’s a passion FIRST, a commodity/commercial product/marketable item LAST and least. Its been that way for us since the early 90s to this day. Not a single member of GIG has sold an art work (neither has Paul Jaisini who’s a true professional) and we want to keep it that way. We do it for reasons far beyond ego. So advertising? Really? How the hell do you advertise or sell thin air, you know, invisible paintings, invisible anything? Ha ha, very funny indeed. The idea here is so simple, your neighbor’s dog can grasp it. Our motives: replace fast food for the mind with fine art, actual fine art. You know, creativity? Conscious thought? Talent? Skill? Knowledge? All that good stuff rolled into one to bring viewers more than a momentary ooohand aaahh reaction. Replace the recycled images ad nauseum; repetitious, worn-out ideas; disposable, gimmicky, money-driven fast art for simpletons. Stick with the highest of ideals and save the whole bloody planet. Fine art is often confused with craft-making. This often creates bad blood between classically trained artists who put out paintings that leave a lasting impression, that make strong conversation pieces, that are thought-provoking and deep… and trained craftspeople whose skills are adequate to create decorative pieces for homely environments — landscapes, still lifes, animals, pretty fairies, common things of fantasy, and other simplicity. Skills alone are not enough for high art, you need a vision, a purpose, the ability to tell a story with every stroke of your brush that will both fascinate and terrify the viewers, arousing powerful emotions, illuminating. I have yet to see a visible painting in my generation that does anything at all for me, other than evoke sheer outrage and disgust. What a terrible waste of space and valuable resources it all is. Paul Jaisini leads, we follow. He wishes to remain unknown – so do most of us. I’m next in line, slipping into recluse mode, no longer wanting to attach my face, my human image to my art stuff. I wish to be a nameless, faceless artist as well, invisible like P.J., and in his footsteps I too have destroyed thousands of my own artistic photography and digital art made with tedious, labor-intensive handwork. The whole point of this destruction is achieving the finest results possible by letting go of the imperfect, purging it on a regular basis, to make way for the perfect. I love what I do so it doesn’t matter, I know I’ll keep producing as much as I’m discarding, keeping the balance. Hoarding is an enemy of progress, especially the digital kind as there’s absolutely no limit to it. It’s like carrying a load of bricks on your back you’ll never use or need. The watering down of creativity that digital pack ratting has caused as observed over the years is most tragic. For the creative individual, relying on terabytes of stock photos or OSFAP as I call them (Once Size Fits All Photos) instead of making your own as you used to when you had no choice, being 100% original, is a splinter in the conscience. It’s not evil to use stock of, say, things you don’t have access to (outer space, deep sea, Antarctica, etc.), but many digital artists I know today can’t take their own shot of a pencil ‘cause they “ain’t got no time for that!” How did they have time before? Did time get so compressed in only a decade? Ohhhhh, and the edits, textures, filters, plug-ins and what-have-you available out there to everyone and their cats… are responsible for the tidal wave of rubbish that eclipses the magnificent light of the real talents. I can tell you with utmost sincerity there is no better feeling on earth than knowing your creation is ALL yours, every pixel and dot, from the first to the last. It’s not always possible to make it so, but definitely the most rewarding endeavor. I’m most proud of myself when I can accomplish that. Back to Paul Jaisini, from the start there have been a number of theories floating around on what his real story is. One of my own theories is that he stands for the unknowns of the world who can’t get representation, can’t get exhibited at a decent gallery because highly gifted/trained artists aren’t good enough – those kind of establishments prefer bananas, balloon dogs, feces, gigantic dicks/cunts, and all kinds of what-the-fucks… So again, you don’t get the Paul Jaisini thing? That’s your problem. Don’t hate others for getting it. People are good, very good, at making baseless assumptions and impulsively spewing it as truth. They criticize and judge as if they’re high authorities on the subject yet they clearly lack education in fine art or art history and possess little to no talent or skill to back up their bullshit. My little “credibility radar” never fails. When they say I know this or I know that, I reply don’t say “I know” or state things as fact as a general rule of thumb – instead say “I assume/believe” and state the reasons you feel thus to appear less immature, especially about a controversial topic like invisible art. I have zero respect or tolerance for egomaniacs who think they know it all and act accordingly like arrogant pricks. Who can stand those, right? Once again, a good example would be: I, Stelly Riesling, believe everything I’ve written in this little manifesto to be correct based on personal experience and observation from multiple angles, thorough research and sufficient data collected from verifiable sources (and don’t go copying-pasting my own words back at me, be original). Just because you or I say so doesn’t make it so. Just because you or me think or believe so doesn’t make it true or right. I only ask that my opinions are regarded respectfully and whoever opposes them does so in a mature, civilized manner. We should only be entitled to opinions that don’t bring out the worst in us. I don’t normally take such a position, but the time has come to stand up for what I believe in! It’s quite amusing and comical how haters think calling me names, attacking me or my interests or members of the project I’m part of for years is going to change something. It only makes more evident the importance of what I’m doing so I push on harder still. Words of advise to those who can identify with me, with my frustrations over people’s reluctance to change their miserable ways, with our declining art world… DON’T waste time on people who sweat the small stuff, whose actions are consistently inconsistent with their words. DO waste time on people who always keep their eye on the ball—the bigger picture of life. Paul Jaisini’s invisible paintings are more than hype, more than your lame assumptions. Here’s one I got that’s pure gold: a cult! It started out as A JOKE OF MINE that was used against me. I told a then-good friend that he should come join our little “art cult” in a clearly lighthearted manner, and later he takes this idea I put in his head first and accuses me of being in an (imaginary) cult—the jokes on me eh?. But wait, aren’t cults religious? Our group consists of people around the world of different faiths (or none at all) so how could that ever work? If religion was about making fine (non-pop) art mainstream and bringing awesome, fresh, futuristic concepts to the collective consciousness, the world would not be so fucked up today because talent, creativity, originality and individuality would be the main focus, not superficial poppycock; those things would be praised and encouraged and supported in society by all institutions, not demonized and stigmatized. Here is one thing I CAN state as solid fact: only one person close to Paul Jaisini knows the TRUE story, or at least some of it: EYKG. Everything else that has ever been said about him is myth, legend, gossip, speculation, the worst of which is said by jealous non-artists (wannabes, clones, posers, hang-ons, unoriginal ppl in general) and anti-artists (religious psychos, squares, losers and -duh- stupid ppl). Sadly, people are unable to see the bigger picture by letting their egos run their lives or repeating after others as parrots. Commercial art, consumerism, and ignorance of the masses truly makes me want to curl up in a ball, not eat or drink or move until I die, just die in my sleep while dreaming of a better world, a world where real fine artists rule it with real fine art as they used to and life is beautiful once again…. Well I hope that settled THAT for now, or perhaps inadvertently made matters worse. I hope I didn’t sound too pissed from all these issues that keep popping up like penises on ChatRoulette… just got to me already! Can you tell? I had to put my foot down, stomp ‘em all! To be continued, still lots more ignorance and pettiness to battle… Till then peace out my bambini. MWAH! FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MANIFESTO GLEITZEIT 2015 PROLOGUE Paul Jaisini was like a messiah, as you wish, who saw/understood the impending end and complete degeneration of Fine art or Art become and investment nothing more than that. He predicted the bubble pops art when everybody would eventually become an artist, including dogs cats and horses, because they as kids followed the main rule: express yourself without skills or knowledge or any aesthetic concerns. J. Pollack started pouring paints onto canvases; Julian Schnabel, former cab driver from NY, suddenly decided he could do better than what he saw displayed in galleries, so he started gluing dishes on canvases; A.Warhol, an industrial artist who made commercial silk-screen for the factories he worked in, started to exhibit "Campbell’s soup" used for commercial adds… and later the thing that made him an "American Idol": by copying and pasting Hollywood celebrities (same type of posters he made before for movie theaters). When Paul Jaisini stood out against the Me culture in the US by burning all of his own 120 brilliant paintings (according to the then-new director of Fort Worth MoMa Museum, who offered hin an exhibition of his art in 1992, and later the Metropolitan Museum curator, Phillippe de Montebello, in 1994).Paul probably assumed all fellow true fine artists would join him or stand by him against corruption of the art world. And after 20 years of his stand-off…the time has finally come today. Many artists and humanitarians around the world took a place beside him. His invisible Paintings became a synonym for the future reincarnation of fine art and long lost harmony. The establishment is in panic! The "moneybags" (as Paul Jaisini named them) are in panic, because they invested BILLIONS of dollars in real crap made by craftsmen. Now they realize that the reputation of American legends of expressionism was nothing but a copy of Russian avant-garde" Kazimir Malevich, Vasiliy Kandinsky and tens of others from France and Germany.. US tycoon investors were spending billions on "Me more original, than you". "Artist Shit" is a 1061 artwork by the Italian artist Piero Manzoni. The work consists of 90 tin cans, filled with feces. A tin can was sold for £124,000, 180,000 at Sothebys, 2007. EPILOGUE Before I resume promoting and admiring a very important art persona on today’s international art arena, I’d like to clear up some BIG questions; people ask continuously and subconsciously, directly & indirectly: "Why does the name Paul Jaisini, flood the Internet in such "obnoxious" quantities that it’s started suppressing some other activities that my friends might share with the rest of the Internet’s Ego Me only Me www society? I can’t just answer this… so I’ll try to explain why I’m writing this: Jaisini’s followers keep posting art and info about, He IMHO the only hope in quickly decomposing visual fine art. "Paul Jaisini realized many years ago, in 1994, when he declared (at that time to himself only) the start of a New era, a New vision, that he is trying to redirect from the rat race, started by an establishment in post-war New York, long before the Internet culture. Sub related information: Adolf Gottlieb, Mart Rothko, etc (after visiting Paris France in 1933): "We must forget analytical art, we must express ourselves, as a 5 year old child would, without a developed consciousness. Forget about results – do what you feel, EXPRESS yourself with your own unique style" With this statement Mark Rothko starts to teach his students, degeneration of fine art begins, and the generation of war of styles took a start signal of the material race, greatly rewarded by establishment "individual" – eccentric craftsmen – show business clowns. Sub related Information: In the summer of 1936, Adolf Gottlieb painted more than 800 paintings, which was 20X more than he created in his whole art career as a painter, starting from the time of Gottlieb becomes a founding member of "The Ten" group in NYC "Group of Ten" was a very peculiar, enigmatic group… Based on a religious point of view;(where a human figure was prohibited from being created) GLOSSARY IN 1997, Paul Jaisini’s best friend Ellen Y.K.Gottlieb started a cyber campaign by promoting on a very young Internet, back then, Paul Jaisini’s burned paintings as Invisible Paintings, visible only through poetic essays. She and a handful of people saw his originals and were devastated that nobody could ever see them again. "We, his fans, believe that someday Paul will recreate his 120 burned paintings if he has any decency and moral obligation to his fans, who have dedicated decades to make it happen, for their Phoenix to rise from the ashes and the whole world will witness that all these years we spent to get him back to re-paint the Visuals again were not in vain," – said E.Y.K.Gottlieb in 2014 during the 20th anniversary celebration of Invisible Paintings to GIGroup in NYCity. So now, hopefully, this clears up why I and others do what we do – our "cyber terrorism" of good art, dedicated to Paul Jaisini’s return, which is & and was our mission & our goal. We post good art to fight "troll art" which is worthless pics, after being passed through 1-click filters of free web apps. We are, in fact, against this www pops pollution, done with "bubble art" by the out of control masses with 5 billon pics a day: Pics of cats, memes, quotes,national geographic sunsets and waterfalls, not counting their own daily "selfies: and whatever self-indulging Me-ego-Me affairs, sponsored happily by photo gadget companies like Canon, Nikon, Sony…who churn out higher quality madness tools at lower cost. This way Government taking away attention from the real world crisis of lowest morality & economical devastation. The masses are too easily re-engineered/manipulated by the Establishment PopsStyle delivered to them by pop music and Hollywood "super" stars. In 1992 Paul Jaisini’s Gleitzeit theory predict such a massive, pops self-entertain madness, following technological explosion, but not in illusive scales. Uber Aless @2015 NYC USA NOTE Date’s numbers and events can be slightly inaccurate. #gleitzeit #paul-jaisini #invisible #painting #art #futurism #art-news,
Posted by E_Y_K_G on 2015-03-28 04:43:10
Tagged: , smile ,
The post P.Jaisini-smiles-GIG-NYC2015 appeared first on Good Info.
0 notes
republicstandard · 7 years ago
Text
If Your Country Isn't A Shithole, Go Home.
Ash Sharp Editor
He finally did it, he called all the black countries shitholes. The most based President on the face of the Earth has done it again. Aside from once again controlling the media narrative for an entire week, Donald Trump has cracked open the toughest nut in politics- immigration. As you will see, pro-immigrant liberals around the world have walked into a trap, from which there is only one escape.
The liberals claim that Mr. Trump upholds white supremacy by pointing out that Norway has high living and education standards. In a strange omission, I have not seen any leftists leaping into the fray to claim that Norway is a Nordic model quasi-socialist country and therefore good; surely an administrative error to be rectified post-haste.
In fact we are told that shithole countries are the best. They are the most vibrant in culture. In fact, I am reliably informed from our allies on the left that the people and places that Donald Trump denounced are in many ways better than America.
Yes! Thank you once again, the peerless Dan Arel for making a poor water supply under a Democrat administration in Michigan the equivalent of living under a military junta. The general liberal wailing is well reported elsewhere, so let's skip the tears and dig right into the bones of this none-troversy. That's a controversy, but it's based on nothing. Wordplay, my friends. That is gold star writing talent, right there.
“Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement.  “Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by welcoming those who can contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation.”
That's the quite reasonable view of the Trump administration. Of course to the liberals, it is a racist position to only want immigrants who will be of benefit to your country. As we shall discover, the real racist position is not held by President Trump. Those who value black-skinned immigrants for their melanin content over any immigrant for their skill-set express a disturbing level of racism that cannot be ignored. We will come back to these degenerates later.
First, let's hear from the enlightened continent of Africa.
“The African Union Commission is frankly alarmed at statements by the president of the United States when referring to migrants of African countries and others in such contemptuous terms,” said Ebba Kalondo, the spokeswoman for the African Union. “Considering the historical reality of how many Africans arrived in the U.S. during the Atlantic slave trade, this flies in the face of all accepted behavior and practice.”
BOOM! There it is. You can't say that there are shithole country's in Africa because two centuries ago under half a million slaves were taken to North America. This is logic so flawless and pure I know a trader in Amsterdam who is willing to barter blood diamonds for it. Ms. Kalondo, let us be real. The historical reality is that despite the best efforts of colonialism, much of Africa remains barbarous. I do not use this word lightly. I am left few other words to describe how elderly ladies in Kenya are routinely raped, or the cannibal warlords of Liberia. You can't blame these things on the words of Mr. Trump.
The average IQ in Kenya is 80. The average IQ of a Liberian is 67.
Here's a South African TV presenter weighing in.
Good morning from the greatest most beautiful “shithole country” in the world!!!
— Leanne Manas (@LeanneManas) January 12, 2018
Yes, you're reading this right. The people of South Africa, where Boer farmers are undergoing a literal genocide to the musical score of shocking silence from world leaders, is not a shithole country.
Isn't it just amazing? On the one hand, communists like Dan Arel will call the United States of America a shithole (average IQ: 98) and on the other, he and African leaders will ignore exactly what is being critiqued. Oh, I guess it's fine to criticize America, because of slavery 200 years ago. It's racist to point out that Liberians are literally eating each other and Black South Africans are massacring the Whites right now.
The bizarre overstretch of leftist ideology has now made it possible to be bigoted against reality itself. No matter the crimes being committed, so long as the perpetrators are non-white, it is impossible to denounce them if you are a white person. That's racist and colonialist or... just whatever. Oh God, when we will be free of this utter twaddle?
If you are a developing nation that is riddled with AIDS, witchcraft, homophobic murders and warlords- you are a shithole. Sorry. No matter how much liberals in the West will deny it, it's the truth. Now, you can either recognize a harsh criticism for the truth that it is and work to fix it- or blame Whitey for being mean.
Here's Bill Kristol, who is always good value for money.
Two weeks ago a 26-year old soldier raced repeatedly into a burning Bronx apartment building, saving four people before he died in the flames. His name was Pvt. Emmanuel Mensah and he immigrated from Ghana, a country Donald Trump apparently thinks produces very subpar immigrants.
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 12, 2018
Bill values Pvt. Mensah not for his heroism -which we all honor and recognize- but his blackness. He has found a black migrant who did something selfless and heroic, and therefore all critique of shithole countries is deflected. His patriarchal white savior attitude stinks.
Nobody says that black people cannot succeed, except the leftists- who demand more handouts, more welfare. Fewer cops on the streets of Chicago. More lenient sentencing. The thing is, fools like Kristol laud the heroic actions of token blacks like Pvt. Mensah on one hand, and then deny people from the same background their agency. The poor black people whether immigrant or born-American cannot help themselves.
Yet, that is what Pvt. Mensah did when he enlisted. He decided to change his life for the better and gave his life in service of his fellow man- an example to all of us. He took responsibility for his own life and the life of those around him and sacrificed himself to save others from imminent death. The leftists rail against minorities who serve the state. The leftists would have Pvt. Mensah rotting on welfare instead.
Demographically speaking, Pvt. Mensah is anomalous. When the rumored Shithole Country remark was allegedly made, the conversation was about comparative demographics. Here is a question to all well-meaning liberals who have clutched their pearls and gasped about the racist in the White House. You have a choice to send your child to a school in Norway, or Haiti. Where do you send them?
That is what we are talking about here. Norway is a wealthy country that produces highly educated people. The idea of encouraging immigration from Norway (average IQ: 100) is to acquire these skilled people for America. It's not a difficult concept to get your heads around unless you are a leftist ideologue, who despite all evidence to the contrary considers all people completely interchangeable. In this mindset, it doesn't matter if you are a Wahhabist cleric with multiple wives or a chemical engineer from Dortmund. Nothing is changed about American society, regardless of who is allowed into the nation.
This sophomoric and myopic view is at the root of the seismic social and demographic problems afflicting Europe today. Cultural equivalency is a myth, and only a fool believes it. Western civilization is the preeminent force for the genuine progress of humanity on planet Earth, and it must be defended from such fools who would destroy it for the sake of their liberal guilt.
Finally, if we accept the argument that there are no shithole countries- or that it is America which is the shithole- then there is no reason for people to leave those countries. Moreover, there is no reason for migrants already in the United States to refuse to return home. I'm willing to accept the liberal argument in that case, the USA is terrible- much worse than South Africa, in fact. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
If Haiti, Liberia, and Venezuela are not shitholes, please feel free to unburden the American taxpayer of the responsibility of supporting you. Help the poor and needy American people to raise their nation out of the shithole it is in, and return home to your paradise land of origin. I'm sure you can crowdfund the ticket if you need to.
If you aren't from a shithole country; feel free to go home if it means that much to you. Nobody is stopping you from returning home. Consider this also. If you disagree with President Trump but are in the West fleeing a dictator, or poverty, or hardship; ask yourself; who is the bigot? Is the nation that took you in bigoted against you for criticizing the hell-hole you fled? Or is it you, for standing up for your shithole homeland despite all the evils in it?
Maybe you do come from a shithole country after all.
from Republic Standard http://ift.tt/2DdlVzw via IFTTT
0 notes
synergygolfsolutions · 7 years ago
Text
Remembering Ouimet: The Eddie Lowery story
His eyes welled. At any moment, tears were going to cascade down the 10-year-old boy’s ivory, cherubic cheeks. The trepidation flooded his face as swiftly as it did honestly.
He had worked so hard and for so long, believing in the impossible even when no one else did.
“I’ll stick with Eddie,” Francis Ouimet said one September day in 1913; his loyalty to Eddie resolute.
And just like that, little Eddie Lowery dried his eyes. He and Francis were going to finish what they started. Together.
Eddie Lowery was born in Newton, Mass., on Oct. 14, 1902 – the second of seven children from a poor Irish family. He is most widely remembered as the 10-year-old who caddied for Francis Ouimet – a 20-year-old amateur from meager means – when Ouimet took down Ted Ray and Harry Vardon in a playoff at the 1913 U.S. Open.
But what Eddie did those three days at The Country Club in Brookline, Mass., was much more than lugging around a bag full of clubs; the experience would forever change the trajectories of his and Ouimet's lives.
“My little caddie, Eddie Lowery … not much bigger than a peanut, was a veritable inspiration all around; and a brighter or headier chap it would be hard to find,” Ouimet wrote for The American Golfer.
“(Eddie’s) influence on my game I cannot overestimate.”
It was by sheer coincidence that Eddie came to caddie for Ouimet. Eddie and his brother, Jack, played hooky from school on Thursday – the day on which the first two rounds of the U.S. Open were slated – but his brother got caught and was sent back to school. The tenacious and venturesome Eddie, however, escaped and made his way to The Country Club.
"Eddie takes three street cars, skips school, shows up at Brookline and runs up to Francis," Mark Frost, author of “The Greatest Game Ever Played” described. "It's about 10 minutes to [Ouimet's] tee time. [Eddie] explains that Jack isn't coming ‘cause he had to go back to school. And Francis says, 'Well, thanks for coming to town,' and starts walking away. And Eddie says, 'I could caddie for ya.' And Francis says, 'Eddie, you're shorter than my bag, you can't do this.' And Eddie ends up convincing Francis that he's the guy who should carry his bag in the Open."
After Ouimet duck-hooks his first shot about 40 yards into the rough, Eddie “almost grabs him by the tie and says, 'Now listen, Francis, you gotta settle down. We're not going anywhere unless you focus and get your mind back on this next swing,' " Frost details.
Throughout the remaining 89 holes they would play together, Eddie repeatedly told Francis to “Keep your eye on the ball.” He also remarked, “Take lots of time; it’s only 10 o’clock now and you’ve got until six tonight. Get this one up, dead sure;” and “You’re going to get a 72.”
“The lad was so certain I was going to win that it would not have surprised me had he gone up to my opponents (Ray and Vardon) on the first tee and said: ‘When does your boat sail for England? You might as well begin to pack,’” Ouimet said in The American Golfer.
A hat was passed around after Ouimet’s win, and it is reported that somewhere between $50 and $150 was raised for little Eddie.
The relationship Ouimet had with Eddie in the '13 U.S. Open almost seems as if it were scripted out of Hollywood. The story of that 1913 U.S. Open was eventually made into a book (Frost's “The Greatest Game Ever Played”) and later adapted into a feature film, but by no means was 10-year-old Eddie Lowery – or his tenacity and influence on Ouimet’s win – make-believe.
“It was one of the great good fortunes of my life to come upon this story and realize that nobody else had written it yet,” Frost said. “Lots of people thought I made Eddie up.”
Not only was Eddie not made up, he was a large reason why director Bill Paxton tackled the project and turned it into the 2005 movie starring Shia LaBeouf (playing Francis Ouimet) and Josh Flitter (playing Eddie Lowery).
“When I read this, it’s quite a story,” Paxton said. "The relationship with a 10-year-old caddie, at the U.S. Open? Can you imagine?
“My father used to tell me stories and when I heard this one of Francis and little Eddie, it was like mother’s milk to me.”
Those three days that Eddie was on the bag helped Francis beat the world’s best players, which ultimately led to the first golf boom in America. It would also help shape how Eddie viewed himself and it would direct how he lived his life – like the gentleman Francis Ouimet was.
“For (Eddie), he was not the hero. Francis was,” said Lowery’s daughter, Cynthia Wilcox. “He was always grateful for what Francis did for him, sticking with him in that playoff. I am convinced that the reason he was so successful was because of that incident.
“My father’s success was based on his desire to live up to Francis Ouimet’s grace and dignity. … I think a lot about what my father’s life would have been like if (Ouimet) had not used him in the playoff. … I truly believe that it is because of Francis Ouimet’s selfless decision to stick with my father that made this life possible.”
After the U.S. Open, Eddie became a local celebrity and a fine golfer, himself. At age 16, he won the 1919 Massachusetts Golf Association Junior championship and then defended his title the next year. He also won the 1927 Massachusetts Amateur and was runner-up in 1931 and ’33. He became the caddie master at Woodland Golf Club, was a sports writer for the Boston Traveler and then worked his way into advertising where he first enjoyed financial success.
Lowery went on to become a multi-millionaire when he moved to California in 1937, joining the management of Van Etta Motors, which he subsequently bought and built into the largest Lincoln-Mercury dealership in America; he later acquired two additional dealerships.
He was often regarded as “Mr. San Francisco Golf,” as he remained intimately involved with the game and sponsored many amateur golfers, including Ken Venturi (1964 U.S. Open champion) and Harvie Ward (1955 and 1956 U.S. Amateur champion), who worked for Lowery at his dealerships.
Lowery was a member of San Francisco Golf Club, Cypress Point, Thunderbird, California Golf Club, Augusta National and Seminole and won several club championships. He became president of the Northern California Golf Association.
Lowery also served on the executive committee of the USGA. Lowery got into some hot water with the USGA when he claimed certain disallowable business expenses for tax write-offs, which in turn affected his sponsorship of Ward. And Ward, who had trusted Lowery's USGA expertise, had his amateur status revoked in 1957, at a time when he had won the previous two U.S. Amateur titles.
Lowery is also the man responsible for arranging what is considered the greatest fourball match ever in which amateurs Venturi and Ward faced off at Cypress Point against professionals Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson. The story of that day is chronicled in depth in Frost’s 2007 book “The Match: The Day the Game of Golf Changed Forever.” The two teams traded birdies and eagles the entire round, but Hogan and Nelson won, 1 up, when Hogan sank a 10-foot birdie putt at the 18th.
“Mr. Lowery never lost his colorful, profane working-man's Boston accent, despite the many years he spent selling Lincolns at his car dealerships in San Francisco and on the Monterey Peninsula,” former Cypress Point head professional Jim Langley wrote for Sports Illustrated. “You'd hear him on a clubhouse phone saying, ‘How many cahs did we sell today?’ If you went to his showroom looking to buy last year's model, he'd say, ‘I'm going to sell you a brand-new ... cah.' "
Lowery and Ouimet remained lifelong friends and visited one another often, including reuniting at the 1963 U.S. Open to celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Ouimet’s win.
Eddie also contributed significantly to the Francis Ouimet Scholarship Fund and was a sponsor of the Ouimet Museum.
The image of Lowery carrying Ouimet’s bag in 1913 was featured on a 25-cent stamp issued in 1988. Lowery was one of the pallbearers at Ouimet’s funeral when he died in 1967.
Lowery died in 1984 in California and in 1998 his widow, Margaret, endowed a Ouimet scholarship in his name for the scholar who is considered the best and most dedicated caddie. Mrs. Lowery died in 2000, and The Fund has endowed a Margaret Lowery Scholarship in her honor.
In 1999, a Ouimet and Lowery statue was unveiled at the World Golf Hall of Fame, and he and Francis were also inducted into the Caddie Hall of Fame.
“He lived the story of 20th century American golf. There's an effort to have Mr. Lowery put on the ballot for possible election into the World Golf Hall of Fame," Langley said in his Sports Illustrated piece. "There's already a statue of him there, with his lifelong friend Francis Ouimet. I'd love to see him get in. He was a good player, a member of the USGA executive committee, a benefactor for amateurs and a friend to many caddies.” 
Were it not for those four words uttered by Francis Ouimet that September day in 1913, little Eddie may not have stepped up in a big way – helping to shape the future landscape of golf in America.
Brought to you by Synergy Golf Solutions
0 notes
4seasonscountryclub · 7 years ago
Text
Remembering Ouimet: The Eddie Lowery story
His eyes welled. At any moment, tears were going to cascade down the 10-year-old boy’s ivory, cherubic cheeks. The trepidation flooded his face as swiftly as it did honestly.
He had worked so hard and for so long, believing in the impossible even when no one else did.
“I’ll stick with Eddie,” Francis Ouimet said one September day in 1913; his loyalty to Eddie resolute.
And just like that, little Eddie Lowery dried his eyes. He and Francis were going to finish what they started. Together.
Eddie Lowery was born in Newton, Mass., on Oct. 14, 1902 – the second of seven children from a poor Irish family. He is most widely remembered as the 10-year-old who caddied for Francis Ouimet – a 20-year-old amateur from meager means – when Ouimet took down Ted Ray and Harry Vardon in a playoff at the 1913 U.S. Open.
But what Eddie did those three days at The Country Club in Brookline, Mass., was much more than lugging around a bag full of clubs; the experience would forever change the trajectories of his and Ouimet's lives.
“My little caddie, Eddie Lowery … not much bigger than a peanut, was a veritable inspiration all around; and a brighter or headier chap it would be hard to find,” Ouimet wrote for The American Golfer.
“(Eddie’s) influence on my game I cannot overestimate.”
It was by sheer coincidence that Eddie came to caddie for Ouimet. Eddie and his brother, Jack, played hooky from school on Thursday – the day on which the first two rounds of the U.S. Open were slated – but his brother got caught and was sent back to school. The tenacious and venturesome Eddie, however, escaped and made his way to The Country Club.
"Eddie takes three street cars, skips school, shows up at Brookline and runs up to Francis," Mark Frost, author of “The Greatest Game Ever Played” described. "It's about 10 minutes to [Ouimet's] tee time. [Eddie] explains that Jack isn't coming ‘cause he had to go back to school. And Francis says, 'Well, thanks for coming to town,' and starts walking away. And Eddie says, 'I could caddie for ya.' And Francis says, 'Eddie, you're shorter than my bag, you can't do this.' And Eddie ends up convincing Francis that he's the guy who should carry his bag in the Open."
After Ouimet duck-hooks his first shot about 40 yards into the rough, Eddie “almost grabs him by the tie and says, 'Now listen, Francis, you gotta settle down. We're not going anywhere unless you focus and get your mind back on this next swing,' " Frost details.
Throughout the remaining 89 holes they would play together, Eddie repeatedly told Francis to “Keep your eye on the ball.” He also remarked, “Take lots of time; it’s only 10 o’clock now and you’ve got until six tonight. Get this one up, dead sure;” and “You’re going to get a 72.”
“The lad was so certain I was going to win that it would not have surprised me had he gone up to my opponents (Ray and Vardon) on the first tee and said: ‘When does your boat sail for England? You might as well begin to pack,’” Ouimet said in The American Golfer.
A hat was passed around after Ouimet’s win, and it is reported that somewhere between $50 and $150 was raised for little Eddie.
The relationship Ouimet had with Eddie in the '13 U.S. Open almost seems as if it were scripted out of Hollywood. The story of that 1913 U.S. Open was eventually made into a book (Frost's “The Greatest Game Ever Played”) and later adapted into a feature film, but by no means was 10-year-old Eddie Lowery – or his tenacity and influence on Ouimet’s win – make-believe.
“It was one of the great good fortunes of my life to come upon this story and realize that nobody else had written it yet,” Frost said. “Lots of people thought I made Eddie up.”
Not only was Eddie not made up, he was a large reason why director Bill Paxton tackled the project and turned it into the 2005 movie starring Shia LaBeouf (playing Francis Ouimet) and Josh Flitter (playing Eddie Lowery).
“When I read this, it’s quite a story,” Paxton said. "The relationship with a 10-year-old caddie, at the U.S. Open? Can you imagine?
“My father used to tell me stories and when I heard this one of Francis and little Eddie, it was like mother’s milk to me.”
Those three days that Eddie was on the bag helped Francis beat the world’s best players, which ultimately led to the first golf boom in America. It would also help shape how Eddie viewed himself and it would direct how he lived his life – like the gentleman Francis Ouimet was.
“For (Eddie), he was not the hero. Francis was,” said Lowery’s daughter, Cynthia Wilcox. “He was always grateful for what Francis did for him, sticking with him in that playoff. I am convinced that the reason he was so successful was because of that incident.
“My father’s success was based on his desire to live up to Francis Ouimet’s grace and dignity. … I think a lot about what my father’s life would have been like if (Ouimet) had not used him in the playoff. … I truly believe that it is because of Francis Ouimet’s selfless decision to stick with my father that made this life possible.”
After the U.S. Open, Eddie became a local celebrity and a fine golfer, himself. At age 16, he won the 1919 Massachusetts Golf Association Junior championship and then defended his title the next year. He also won the 1927 Massachusetts Amateur and was runner-up in 1931 and ’33. He became the caddie master at Woodland Golf Club, was a sports writer for the Boston Traveler and then worked his way into advertising where he first enjoyed financial success.
Lowery went on to become a multi-millionaire when he moved to California in 1937, joining the management of Van Etta Motors, which he subsequently bought and built into the largest Lincoln-Mercury dealership in America; he later acquired two additional dealerships.
He was often regarded as “Mr. San Francisco Golf,” as he remained intimately involved with the game and sponsored many amateur golfers, including Ken Venturi (1964 U.S. Open champion) and Harvie Ward (1955 and 1956 U.S. Amateur champion), who worked for Lowery at his dealerships.
Lowery was a member of San Francisco Golf Club, Cypress Point, Thunderbird, California Golf Club, Augusta National and Seminole and won several club championships. He became president of the Northern California Golf Association.
Lowery also served on the executive committee of the USGA. Lowery got into some hot water with the USGA when he claimed certain disallowable business expenses for tax write-offs, which in turn affected his sponsorship of Ward. And Ward, who had trusted Lowery's USGA expertise, had his amateur status revoked in 1957, at a time when he had won the previous two U.S. Amateur titles.
Lowery is also the man responsible for arranging what is considered the greatest fourball match ever in which amateurs Venturi and Ward faced off at Cypress Point against professionals Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson. The story of that day is chronicled in depth in Frost’s 2007 book “The Match: The Day the Game of Golf Changed Forever.” The two teams traded birdies and eagles the entire round, but Hogan and Nelson won, 1 up, when Hogan sank a 10-foot birdie putt at the 18th.
“Mr. Lowery never lost his colorful, profane working-man's Boston accent, despite the many years he spent selling Lincolns at his car dealerships in San Francisco and on the Monterey Peninsula,” former Cypress Point head professional Jim Langley wrote for Sports Illustrated. “You'd hear him on a clubhouse phone saying, ‘How many cahs did we sell today?’ If you went to his showroom looking to buy last year's model, he'd say, ‘I'm going to sell you a brand-new ... cah.' "
Lowery and Ouimet remained lifelong friends and visited one another often, including reuniting at the 1963 U.S. Open to celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Ouimet’s win.
Eddie also contributed significantly to the Francis Ouimet Scholarship Fund and was a sponsor of the Ouimet Museum.
The image of Lowery carrying Ouimet’s bag in 1913 was featured on a 25-cent stamp issued in 1988. Lowery was one of the pallbearers at Ouimet’s funeral when he died in 1967.
Lowery died in 1984 in California and in 1998 his widow, Margaret, endowed a Ouimet scholarship in his name for the scholar who is considered the best and most dedicated caddie. Mrs. Lowery died in 2000, and The Fund has endowed a Margaret Lowery Scholarship in her honor.
In 1999, a Ouimet and Lowery statue was unveiled at the World Golf Hall of Fame, and he and Francis were also inducted into the Caddie Hall of Fame.
“He lived the story of 20th century American golf. There's an effort to have Mr. Lowery put on the ballot for possible election into the World Golf Hall of Fame," Langley said in his Sports Illustrated piece. "There's already a statue of him there, with his lifelong friend Francis Ouimet. I'd love to see him get in. He was a good player, a member of the USGA executive committee, a benefactor for amateurs and a friend to many caddies.” 
Were it not for those four words uttered by Francis Ouimet that September day in 1913, little Eddie may not have stepped up in a big way – helping to shape the future landscape of golf in America.
Brought to you by 4 Seasons Country Club
0 notes
hamiltongolfcourses · 7 years ago
Text
Remembering Ouimet: The Eddie Lowery story
His eyes welled. At any moment, tears were going to cascade down the 10-year-old boy’s ivory, cherubic cheeks. The trepidation flooded his face as swiftly as it did honestly.
He had worked so hard and for so long, believing in the impossible even when no one else did.
“I’ll stick with Eddie,” Francis Ouimet said one September day in 1913; his loyalty to Eddie resolute.
And just like that, little Eddie Lowery dried his eyes. He and Francis were going to finish what they started. Together.
Eddie Lowery was born in Newton, Mass., on Oct. 14, 1902 – the second of seven children from a poor Irish family. He is most widely remembered as the 10-year-old who caddied for Francis Ouimet – a 20-year-old amateur from meager means – when Ouimet took down Ted Ray and Harry Vardon in a playoff at the 1913 U.S. Open.
But what Eddie did those three days at The Country Club in Brookline, Mass., was much more than lugging around a bag full of clubs; the experience would forever change the trajectories of his and Ouimet's lives.
“My little caddie, Eddie Lowery … not much bigger than a peanut, was a veritable inspiration all around; and a brighter or headier chap it would be hard to find,” Ouimet wrote for The American Golfer.
“(Eddie’s) influence on my game I cannot overestimate.”
It was by sheer coincidence that Eddie came to caddie for Ouimet. Eddie and his brother, Jack, played hooky from school on Thursday – the day on which the first two rounds of the U.S. Open were slated – but his brother got caught and was sent back to school. The tenacious and venturesome Eddie, however, escaped and made his way to The Country Club.
"Eddie takes three street cars, skips school, shows up at Brookline and runs up to Francis," Mark Frost, author of “The Greatest Game Ever Played” described. "It's about 10 minutes to [Ouimet's] tee time. [Eddie] explains that Jack isn't coming ‘cause he had to go back to school. And Francis says, 'Well, thanks for coming to town,' and starts walking away. And Eddie says, 'I could caddie for ya.' And Francis says, 'Eddie, you're shorter than my bag, you can't do this.' And Eddie ends up convincing Francis that he's the guy who should carry his bag in the Open."
After Ouimet duck-hooks his first shot about 40 yards into the rough, Eddie “almost grabs him by the tie and says, 'Now listen, Francis, you gotta settle down. We're not going anywhere unless you focus and get your mind back on this next swing,' " Frost details.
Throughout the remaining 89 holes they would play together, Eddie repeatedly told Francis to “Keep your eye on the ball.” He also remarked, “Take lots of time; it’s only 10 o’clock now and you’ve got until six tonight. Get this one up, dead sure;” and “You’re going to get a 72.”
“The lad was so certain I was going to win that it would not have surprised me had he gone up to my opponents (Ray and Vardon) on the first tee and said: ‘When does your boat sail for England? You might as well begin to pack,’” Ouimet said in The American Golfer.
A hat was passed around after Ouimet’s win, and it is reported that somewhere between $50 and $150 was raised for little Eddie.
The relationship Ouimet had with Eddie in the '13 U.S. Open almost seems as if it were scripted out of Hollywood. The story of that 1913 U.S. Open was eventually made into a book (Frost's “The Greatest Game Ever Played”) and later adapted into a feature film, but by no means was 10-year-old Eddie Lowery – or his tenacity and influence on Ouimet’s win – make-believe.
“It was one of the great good fortunes of my life to come upon this story and realize that nobody else had written it yet,” Frost said. “Lots of people thought I made Eddie up.”
Not only was Eddie not made up, he was a large reason why director Bill Paxton tackled the project and turned it into the 2005 movie starring Shia LaBeouf (playing Francis Ouimet) and Josh Flitter (playing Eddie Lowery).
“When I read this, it’s quite a story,” Paxton said. "The relationship with a 10-year-old caddie, at the U.S. Open? Can you imagine?
“My father used to tell me stories and when I heard this one of Francis and little Eddie, it was like mother’s milk to me.”
Those three days that Eddie was on the bag helped Francis beat the world’s best players, which ultimately led to the first golf boom in America. It would also help shape how Eddie viewed himself and it would direct how he lived his life – like the gentleman Francis Ouimet was.
“For (Eddie), he was not the hero. Francis was,” said Lowery’s daughter, Cynthia Wilcox. “He was always grateful for what Francis did for him, sticking with him in that playoff. I am convinced that the reason he was so successful was because of that incident.
“My father’s success was based on his desire to live up to Francis Ouimet’s grace and dignity. … I think a lot about what my father’s life would have been like if (Ouimet) had not used him in the playoff. … I truly believe that it is because of Francis Ouimet’s selfless decision to stick with my father that made this life possible.”
After the U.S. Open, Eddie became a local celebrity and a fine golfer, himself. At age 16, he won the 1919 Massachusetts Golf Association Junior championship and then defended his title the next year. He also won the 1927 Massachusetts Amateur and was runner-up in 1931 and ’33. He became the caddie master at Woodland Golf Club, was a sports writer for the Boston Traveler and then worked his way into advertising where he first enjoyed financial success.
Lowery went on to become a multi-millionaire when he moved to California in 1937, joining the management of Van Etta Motors, which he subsequently bought and built into the largest Lincoln-Mercury dealership in America; he later acquired two additional dealerships.
He was often regarded as “Mr. San Francisco Golf,” as he remained intimately involved with the game and sponsored many amateur golfers, including Ken Venturi (1964 U.S. Open champion) and Harvie Ward (1955 and 1956 U.S. Amateur champion), who worked for Lowery at his dealerships.
Lowery was a member of San Francisco Golf Club, Cypress Point, Thunderbird, California Golf Club, Augusta National and Seminole and won several club championships. He became president of the Northern California Golf Association.
Lowery also served on the executive committee of the USGA. Lowery got into some hot water with the USGA when he claimed certain disallowable business expenses for tax write-offs, which in turn affected his sponsorship of Ward. And Ward, who had trusted Lowery's USGA expertise, had his amateur status revoked in 1957, at a time when he had won the previous two U.S. Amateur titles.
Lowery is also the man responsible for arranging what is considered the greatest fourball match ever in which amateurs Venturi and Ward faced off at Cypress Point against professionals Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson. The story of that day is chronicled in depth in Frost’s 2007 book “The Match: The Day the Game of Golf Changed Forever.” The two teams traded birdies and eagles the entire round, but Hogan and Nelson won, 1 up, when Hogan sank a 10-foot birdie putt at the 18th.
“Mr. Lowery never lost his colorful, profane working-man's Boston accent, despite the many years he spent selling Lincolns at his car dealerships in San Francisco and on the Monterey Peninsula,” former Cypress Point head professional Jim Langley wrote for Sports Illustrated. “You'd hear him on a clubhouse phone saying, ‘How many cahs did we sell today?’ If you went to his showroom looking to buy last year's model, he'd say, ‘I'm going to sell you a brand-new ... cah.' "
Lowery and Ouimet remained lifelong friends and visited one another often, including reuniting at the 1963 U.S. Open to celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Ouimet’s win.
Eddie also contributed significantly to the Francis Ouimet Scholarship Fund and was a sponsor of the Ouimet Museum.
The image of Lowery carrying Ouimet’s bag in 1913 was featured on a 25-cent stamp issued in 1988. Lowery was one of the pallbearers at Ouimet’s funeral when he died in 1967.
Lowery died in 1984 in California and in 1998 his widow, Margaret, endowed a Ouimet scholarship in his name for the scholar who is considered the best and most dedicated caddie. Mrs. Lowery died in 2000, and The Fund has endowed a Margaret Lowery Scholarship in her honor.
In 1999, a Ouimet and Lowery statue was unveiled at the World Golf Hall of Fame, and he and Francis were also inducted into the Caddie Hall of Fame.
“He lived the story of 20th century American golf. There's an effort to have Mr. Lowery put on the ballot for possible election into the World Golf Hall of Fame," Langley said in his Sports Illustrated piece. "There's already a statue of him there, with his lifelong friend Francis Ouimet. I'd love to see him get in. He was a good player, a member of the USGA executive committee, a benefactor for amateurs and a friend to many caddies.” 
Were it not for those four words uttered by Francis Ouimet that September day in 1913, little Eddie may not have stepped up in a big way – helping to shape the future landscape of golf in America.
Brought to you by Southern Pines Golf & CC
0 notes
elmiragc · 7 years ago
Text
Remembering Ouimet: The Eddie Lowery story
His eyes welled. At any moment, tears were going to cascade down the 10-year-old boy’s ivory, cherubic cheeks. The trepidation flooded his face as swiftly as it did honestly.
He had worked so hard and for so long, believing in the impossible even when no one else did.
“I’ll stick with Eddie,” Francis Ouimet said one September day in 1913; his loyalty to Eddie resolute.
And just like that, little Eddie Lowery dried his eyes. He and Francis were going to finish what they started. Together.
Eddie Lowery was born in Newton, Mass., on Oct. 14, 1902 – the second of seven children from a poor Irish family. He is most widely remembered as the 10-year-old who caddied for Francis Ouimet – a 20-year-old amateur from meager means – when Ouimet took down Ted Ray and Harry Vardon in a playoff at the 1913 U.S. Open.
But what Eddie did those three days at The Country Club in Brookline, Mass., was much more than lugging around a bag full of clubs; the experience would forever change the trajectories of his and Ouimet's lives.
“My little caddie, Eddie Lowery … not much bigger than a peanut, was a veritable inspiration all around; and a brighter or headier chap it would be hard to find,” Ouimet wrote for The American Golfer.
“(Eddie’s) influence on my game I cannot overestimate.”
It was by sheer coincidence that Eddie came to caddie for Ouimet. Eddie and his brother, Jack, played hooky from school on Thursday – the day on which the first two rounds of the U.S. Open were slated – but his brother got caught and was sent back to school. The tenacious and venturesome Eddie, however, escaped and made his way to The Country Club.
"Eddie takes three street cars, skips school, shows up at Brookline and runs up to Francis," Mark Frost, author of “The Greatest Game Ever Played” described. "It's about 10 minutes to [Ouimet's] tee time. [Eddie] explains that Jack isn't coming ‘cause he had to go back to school. And Francis says, 'Well, thanks for coming to town,' and starts walking away. And Eddie says, 'I could caddie for ya.' And Francis says, 'Eddie, you're shorter than my bag, you can't do this.' And Eddie ends up convincing Francis that he's the guy who should carry his bag in the Open."
After Ouimet duck-hooks his first shot about 40 yards into the rough, Eddie “almost grabs him by the tie and says, 'Now listen, Francis, you gotta settle down. We're not going anywhere unless you focus and get your mind back on this next swing,' " Frost details.
Throughout the remaining 89 holes they would play together, Eddie repeatedly told Francis to “Keep your eye on the ball.” He also remarked, “Take lots of time; it’s only 10 o’clock now and you’ve got until six tonight. Get this one up, dead sure;” and “You’re going to get a 72.”
“The lad was so certain I was going to win that it would not have surprised me had he gone up to my opponents (Ray and Vardon) on the first tee and said: ‘When does your boat sail for England? You might as well begin to pack,’” Ouimet said in The American Golfer.
A hat was passed around after Ouimet’s win, and it is reported that somewhere between $50 and $150 was raised for little Eddie.
The relationship Ouimet had with Eddie in the '13 U.S. Open almost seems as if it were scripted out of Hollywood. The story of that 1913 U.S. Open was eventually made into a book (Frost's “The Greatest Game Ever Played”) and later adapted into a feature film, but by no means was 10-year-old Eddie Lowery – or his tenacity and influence on Ouimet’s win – make-believe.
“It was one of the great good fortunes of my life to come upon this story and realize that nobody else had written it yet,” Frost said. “Lots of people thought I made Eddie up.”
Not only was Eddie not made up, he was a large reason why director Bill Paxton tackled the project and turned it into the 2005 movie starring Shia LaBeouf (playing Francis Ouimet) and Josh Flitter (playing Eddie Lowery).
“When I read this, it’s quite a story,” Paxton said. "The relationship with a 10-year-old caddie, at the U.S. Open? Can you imagine?
“My father used to tell me stories and when I heard this one of Francis and little Eddie, it was like mother’s milk to me.”
Those three days that Eddie was on the bag helped Francis beat the world’s best players, which ultimately led to the first golf boom in America. It would also help shape how Eddie viewed himself and it would direct how he lived his life – like the gentleman Francis Ouimet was.
“For (Eddie), he was not the hero. Francis was,” said Lowery’s daughter, Cynthia Wilcox. “He was always grateful for what Francis did for him, sticking with him in that playoff. I am convinced that the reason he was so successful was because of that incident.
“My father’s success was based on his desire to live up to Francis Ouimet’s grace and dignity. … I think a lot about what my father’s life would have been like if (Ouimet) had not used him in the playoff. … I truly believe that it is because of Francis Ouimet’s selfless decision to stick with my father that made this life possible.”
After the U.S. Open, Eddie became a local celebrity and a fine golfer, himself. At age 16, he won the 1919 Massachusetts Golf Association Junior championship and then defended his title the next year. He also won the 1927 Massachusetts Amateur and was runner-up in 1931 and ’33. He became the caddie master at Woodland Golf Club, was a sports writer for the Boston Traveler and then worked his way into advertising where he first enjoyed financial success.
Lowery went on to become a multi-millionaire when he moved to California in 1937, joining the management of Van Etta Motors, which he subsequently bought and built into the largest Lincoln-Mercury dealership in America; he later acquired two additional dealerships.
He was often regarded as “Mr. San Francisco Golf,” as he remained intimately involved with the game and sponsored many amateur golfers, including Ken Venturi (1964 U.S. Open champion) and Harvie Ward (1955 and 1956 U.S. Amateur champion), who worked for Lowery at his dealerships.
Lowery was a member of San Francisco Golf Club, Cypress Point, Thunderbird, California Golf Club, Augusta National and Seminole and won several club championships. He became president of the Northern California Golf Association.
Lowery also served on the executive committee of the USGA. Lowery got into some hot water with the USGA when he claimed certain disallowable business expenses for tax write-offs, which in turn affected his sponsorship of Ward. And Ward, who had trusted Lowery's USGA expertise, had his amateur status revoked in 1957, at a time when he had won the previous two U.S. Amateur titles.
Lowery is also the man responsible for arranging what is considered the greatest fourball match ever in which amateurs Venturi and Ward faced off at Cypress Point against professionals Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson. The story of that day is chronicled in depth in Frost’s 2007 book “The Match: The Day the Game of Golf Changed Forever.” The two teams traded birdies and eagles the entire round, but Hogan and Nelson won, 1 up, when Hogan sank a 10-foot birdie putt at the 18th.
“Mr. Lowery never lost his colorful, profane working-man's Boston accent, despite the many years he spent selling Lincolns at his car dealerships in San Francisco and on the Monterey Peninsula,” former Cypress Point head professional Jim Langley wrote for Sports Illustrated. “You'd hear him on a clubhouse phone saying, ‘How many cahs did we sell today?’ If you went to his showroom looking to buy last year's model, he'd say, ‘I'm going to sell you a brand-new ... cah.' "
Lowery and Ouimet remained lifelong friends and visited one another often, including reuniting at the 1963 U.S. Open to celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Ouimet’s win.
Eddie also contributed significantly to the Francis Ouimet Scholarship Fund and was a sponsor of the Ouimet Museum.
The image of Lowery carrying Ouimet’s bag in 1913 was featured on a 25-cent stamp issued in 1988. Lowery was one of the pallbearers at Ouimet’s funeral when he died in 1967.
Lowery died in 1984 in California and in 1998 his widow, Margaret, endowed a Ouimet scholarship in his name for the scholar who is considered the best and most dedicated caddie. Mrs. Lowery died in 2000, and The Fund has endowed a Margaret Lowery Scholarship in her honor.
In 1999, a Ouimet and Lowery statue was unveiled at the World Golf Hall of Fame, and he and Francis were also inducted into the Caddie Hall of Fame.
“He lived the story of 20th century American golf. There's an effort to have Mr. Lowery put on the ballot for possible election into the World Golf Hall of Fame," Langley said in his Sports Illustrated piece. "There's already a statue of him there, with his lifelong friend Francis Ouimet. I'd love to see him get in. He was a good player, a member of the USGA executive committee, a benefactor for amateurs and a friend to many caddies.” 
Were it not for those four words uttered by Francis Ouimet that September day in 1913, little Eddie may not have stepped up in a big way – helping to shape the future landscape of golf in America.
Brought to you by Elmira Golf Club
0 notes
wrotesaid-blog · 8 years ago
Text
The American Interest Feed Features Reviews Podcast search This is your free article this month. Spencer Platt/Getty Images Published on: January 17, 2017 INAUGURATION Truth in the Age of Trump ELIOT A. COHEN No one who backed Trump has any excuse for being surprised by what he does. We all know who and what he is. Admittedly, we fled town for the Inauguration. Quite apart from the security headaches, the road closures, and the not-inconsiderable prospect of violent demonstrations the day of, or the days after the event, the prospect of it filled me with disgust. I wanted to be far away from the pleasant city that is our national capital. Donald J. Trump has repeatedly revealed himself as a lying, crooked, narcissistic ignoramus, incapable of generous thoughts or deeds, indeed, incapable of seeing beyond himself at all. The idea of that man living in Lincoln’s house is nauseating. But he is the President, so what is one to do? More particularly, what are conservative intellectuals to do? The most important thing is to speak the truth, indeed, to become somewhat fanatical on the subject. That means, to be sure, acknowledging such good as he or his administration may do—increased defense spending, a smack at excessive regulation, and stopping the persecution of the Little Sisters of the Poor or charter schools. More important will be calling him out every time he or his underlings lie: every time he says he has a plan when he does not, every time he jeers at a hero and denies having said any such thing, every time he claims to have created jobs to which others gave birth, or denies an inflammatory statement that he did make. And it means taking on the Reince Priebuses and Kellyanne Conways when they lie at 11 a.m. to cover up the outrageous remarks their boss tweeted out six hours before. Trump lies because it is in his nature to lie. One suspects that there is nothing inside this man that quivers, however slightly, at an untruth. It is not uncommon for politicians, to a greater extent than most people, to believe what they want to believe, or to change their take on reality depending on what is convenient for them. With Trump, however, this will to believe is pathological: his psyche is so completely besotted by Trump that there is no room for anything, or anybody else. We will not change him—no one can. His children may be able to soften the edges and his most trusted advisers may deflect him off his erratic courses, but nothing will teach him gravitas, magnanimity, or wisdom. Until he is impeached, thrown out of office in four years, succumbs to illness, or lasts through eight years, he is what we have learned he is, and will remain so. The beginning of wisdom will be to treat his office with respect, but him with none, because it will achieve nothing, and because as a human being he deserves none. He will remain erratic, temperamental, vengeful, and perhaps most of all, deeply insecure. A man who mocks John McCain, denounces Gold Star parents, snarls at an actor who spoofs him, and makes fun of a crippled reporter is someone whose core is empty, and whose need for approbation is unlimited because the void within him is so complete. Such is Trump. What of his underlings? His Cabinet officials are, after all, by and large Republican normal—some very good, some mediocre, some simply odd. All of his political subordinates either know or will discover that the corruption of power works not by making you do or say outrageous things (at first), but rather by inducing you to persistently shade the truth. They will, for example, find themselves pretending that we have a coherent policy toward Europe when we do not. They will excuse an unhealthy and possibly sinister relationship with Vladimir Putin as an exercise in realpolitik. They will tell themselves that they have gone to work for the man because they think they can affect him; they will learn—or more likely, their friends and associates on the outside will observe—that actually, he is affecting them. Very few will resign in outrage, because the compromises to their integrity will creep up on them. As Sir Thomas More puts it in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, they will be like the man who, having taken an oath, is “holding his own self in his own hands, like water” and when he opens his fingers, “needn’t hope to find himself again.” They will try to open their fingers just a little bit, and it will not work: the water will cascade out. Many of them will never find themselves again, but will instead spend the rest of their careers making excuses for things that once upon a time they understood were inexcusable. There will be exceptions: military men mostly, I suspect. Jim Mattis and John Kelly have seen the worst and the finest in human nature; contact with the likes of Trump will not defile them. Then again, there is General Flynn, the fine intelligence officer whose life in politics caused him to lead hysterical chants of “Lock her up!” There may be younger people who come through cleanly, mostly in corners of the government where they can avoid the pitch that will stick to others higher up. And no doubt, there will indeed be selfless patriots simply stepping up to the plate who swallow their disgust for a time but feel its sour taste and do not let it dissipate. All of them, sooner or later, will find themselves at dinner parties where someone will say, “Donald Trump is a louse. He cheats people, he is a bully, he knows nothing, cares little for our law or our history, and he is ruining the reputation of his office and our country. And those are not opinions: they are demonstrable facts.” The table will go silent as heads turn towards the political appointee at the table, and he or she will have to say something. And lying in bed the next morning, they will have to reflect on what they said the night before. And they will strain to explain it all to their grandchildren twenty years from now. It would be unjust and unreasonable to hound political appointees to this administration when they go in, or to persecute them when they go out. The reputational hazard they will run is real, however, and some of them will eventually regret having succumbed to the lures of ambition or the conceit of self-value that brought them in. But in any case, our hope or desire to encourage the best of them should not cause us to cut any of them any slack. No one who backed Trump has any excuse for being surprised by what he does; no one who joins his administration can ever be allowed to claim that they did so in ignorance. We all know who and what he is. And the rest of us? “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” goes the old saw, and it is truer than ever. Churchill, as always, best laid out the right frame of mind. “Never give in. Never, never, never. Never yield in any way, great or small, large or petty, except to convictions of honor and good sense.” The age of Trump will pass. The institutions will contain him and the laws will restrain him if enough people care about both, and do not yield to fear of him and whatever leverage he tries to exert from his mighty office. He may summon up internet trolls and rioters, attempt to sic the IRS or the FBI on his opponents, or simply harass individuals from the Oval Office. But political history tells us that would-be authoritarians usually come to unpleasant ends, their moments pass, and the mobs that cheered them on will come to denounce them just as vehemently. Trump has started the process of his administration’s self-destruction by repeatedly and gratuitously alienating one group after another—the intelligence community, journalists, and African Americans for starters, and that is just in the few weeks before his inauguration. He will continue in ways we cannot yet imagine.
0 notes