#but then the terrible depression of 2014 struck

[watchingroger]

Since it is that time of year, have some Christmas Cabin Pressure fic. There a few bits in these that I'm desperate to re-write but I'm! Not! Going to!

Erfurt - sets up Christmas fic - the whole gang is here, it's very silly.

“Everything alright, Arthur?”

“Yes! Uh, yes, everything’s fine, I think. I think… I think the passengers quite like me.”

“What on earth gives you that idea?” A smirk pulled at Douglas’s lips.

“Well they keep trying to touch my bottom.” Arthur blushed. “And I understand it’s because they like my bottom and I should probably be - be flattered but it’s - well - it’s my bottom, isn’t it? I should decide if people get to touch it.”

'Tis The Season - Christmas Day - Martin & Douglas friendship/pre-slash

He had lost heroically at Trivial Pursuits, having spent most of his life obsessively memorising flight manuals and operational procedures to the detriment of almost all other knowledge, but he still felt the warmth in his chest from the way the whole room had cheered when he got the pink cheese. He had bristled at the time, making a show of being irritated at being treated like a child, but secretly he enjoyed that he was still in some ways the baby. He glanced across at Douglas, and wondered what he had done all day.

There's New Year's Eve fic as well but you'll have to wait for that. Or you could just click through on A03.

[patrickxcromwell]

INTRODUCING — patrick cromwell.

The Basics.

Full Name: Patrick Cromwell né Goodwin Nickname(s): Pat Face Claim: Andrew Scott Pronouns and Gender: cisman (he/him) Birthday: October 21st, 1976 Zodiac: libra ☉ libra ☽ gemini ➶ Hometown: Aurora, WV How long have they been in town?: 2 years Sexuality: Homosexual Housing: Suburbs Occupation: currently unemployed, non-practicing veterinarian Family: Arthur Goodwin (father — deceased), Harriet Goodwin (mother)

The Personality.

Patrick is a man who’s used to keeping his head down, mostly because he’s done so all his life. He grew up in an environment that led him to keep to himself and pretend to be someone he's not for as long as he can remember. His overall demeanor is a little awkward and reserved, maybe even strange to some, but behind the fidgeting and pulled up shoulders hides a gentle soul that has been through a lot. He tries to always be friendly and forthcoming, even if he’s not someone who talks a lot, he’ll go out of his way to hold a door or pick something up for someone before they can even lean down. Trust doesn’t come easily to Patrick though and he tends to keep people at an arm’s length in order to protect himself and others. He doesn’t like sharing a lot about his life or identity either but that’s mostly because he’s not used to being able to. Bearing secrets has become a habit he finds hard to shake but even the thickest and highest wall has to start chipping at some point.

The Biography.

Trigger Warnings: parental death, death of a spouse, depression, alcoholism

Patrick grew up on a small, run-down farm in Aurora, West Virginia and was born into a family that had barely enough money to put food on the table

His upbringing was anything but gentle and while his mother tried her best to offer him protection and shelter for as long as she was able to, he had to at least try (or pretend) to adapt to a life full of hard work and barely any ways to develop a personality of his own

His father was hard on him and yet wanted the best for him which translates to: he mostly wanted to raise him to be the “men” he and his own father were

Patrick was anything but that though, always a little too tender and unable to do what was expected of him, either because he cared too much about the animals living with them on the farm or simply wasn’t strong enough to work the way his father needed him to

He was always a bit of a dreamer instead, someone who liked to lay out in the sun to daydream of a life that was entirely different from the one he was leading

His love for animals was ultimately what would get him out of the small town

When his father passed when he was only eighteen, he had to promise his mother to do what he wanted to do for once and in turn, she sold the farm and moved into a small house in Aurora, while Patrick moved to Pennsylvania to start college with no money and more debt than he could’ve ever imagined BUT he pulled through

He got into veterinary medicine, working hard to get good grades, all while trying to make some money as a waiter at a local restaurant to keep a roof over his head

It was then when he met the man that'd be his first love and eventually became his husband, Matthew Cromwell.

They were polar opposites and yet, somehow completed each other. They moved in together and started to build a life together, getting married as soon as they were able to on a beautiful day in June, 2014 with Patrick taking on Matthew's name - an almost liberating moment for him.

But it'd only be a few years from then until tragedy struck.

Matthew loved the outdoors, while Patrick liked to stay in more, so it wasn't out of the ordinary for Matthew to take solo hiking trips without his husband in tow to unwind.

Patrick had a weird feeling about it from the start but ultimately let him go, a moment he regrets to this day.

Matthew died in what Patrick can only assume was a terrible accident that'd be the start of a series of traumatic events for the widower.

Since they couldn't retrieve Matthew's body and false accusations were quick to be made by both neighbors and Matthew's estranged family, Patrick was accused of having something to do with his husband's disappearance.

After a months long trial that'd drain Patrick emotionally and financially and left him with little to no time to properly work through his grief, he was suddenly all by himself and without an alibi.

Apparently, Matthew had a hefty life insurance that not even Patrick had known about until then, making him a suspect, considering it'd be paid out to him.

Ultimately, charges were dropped due to lack of evidence but Patrick was left shaken and a sum of money he wasn't exactly comfortable with.

The two of them had built a good life together after all, with Patrick working as a veterinarian and Matthew being a neurosurgeon but that didn't matter much to him now, not when he was stuck in that life without his best friend and partner to share it with.

Patrick's mother begged him to move back home and start working again after not being able to do so for over a year but Patrick insisted that he'd just need some more time to heal.

After trying his best to stay put and failing, he used the extra money along with their savings to get some space and moved into a house in a small town called Fairford, trying to settle into a new life but with no drive and no routine due to his mental state and grief still weighing him down, Patrick doesn't really see the point in even trying. Instead, he's currently stuck in a loop of sleeping most of the day and drinking too much with no real motivation to break the circle, all while trying to seem put together enough.

His mother and few remaining friends tell him to finally start living again but even after close to five years without his husband, Patrick has been unable to do so.

He also still wears his wedding ring, which tends to lead to people asking questions about his spouse but he's learned to dodge them most of the time.

You can find his full bio here.

The Connections.

friends

drinking buddies

someone he might actually talk to about his ongoing inner turmoil (good luck tho lmao)

anything really!

[percywinchester27]

A lot like ‘Us’ (Part-3)

Word count: 3.8K

Pairing: Sam X Reader AU

Warnings: Some angst, some fluff, mention of depression

Series Summary: Y/N Y/L/N is eager and honestly, still in awe that she managed to get herself an acceptance from Stanford Law School. On the face of it, her life seems as put together, mysterious and independent as one might hope for. On the insides, she carries the burden of past that haunts her till date. Seemingly, she’d left it all behind; that is until she sets foot in the class of the Law School’s youngest, most promising professor.

A/N: The story employs two different timelines. The present timeline for the story takes place in 2014. Please let me know what you guys think :)

Beta: @deanssweetheart23​​ I love you, Athina <3

A lot like ‘Us’ masterlist

Monday morning rose brighter than it had a right to be; to the point that the sun was stabbing you in the eyes. You had been over and over the plan in your head throughout the weekend. By now, you were absolutely sure that you had mapped every second of the day and nothing could go out of hand.

The plan went sideways almost as soon as it started.

You dropped your bag at the threshold of the lecture room with a loud crash. All of the last row turned to look at who was that much of a klutz. You did not meet anyone’s eye as you took a seat at the very end of the top row. Maybe that would make you inconspicuous.

It did not.

“Y/N!���

Madison slid next to you on the bench, followed by her brood of friends. Lacey and the other two, whose names you didn’t remember.

“How are you, Sweetie?” Madison asked sympathetically. “You looked awfully ill when you left the other day. We were so worried about you! Weren’t we, Mer?”

Meredith- you remembered her name now- did not look worried in the least.

“What happened?” Madison asked.

“I was just really faint,” you answered automatically, having anticipated this. “I’m feeling much better now. Thank you so much.”

Madison looked relieved. “I’m so glad, Y/N. I wanted to check on you over the weekend, but I didn’t have your number or knew where you lived. You have to give me your number right away.”

You did, and she texted you immediately.

“Awesome!” she said. “Now you have my number, too.”

You tried to smile. “Hey, if it’s not too much, could you tell me what I missed in the two days?”

Madison became animated instantly. “Well, lets see. After you left, there was advanced legal writing by professor Mills, then Supreme Court Litigation by Professor Mcleod and Organisation and transactions law after that. Most of Friday was free except for another lecture by Professor Mills. I have the notes. Once you put your email id on the class database, I’ll forward mine to you.”

“That’s seriously more than I can ask from you,” you said, feeling small. 

She placed her hand on top of yours. “You’re not asking. I’m offering.”

“Thank you!” You said, looking down.

Madison huffed. “You thank me too much, Y/N! Besides, you really didn’t miss any of the fun.”

“What do you mean?”

“Professor Winchester didn’t show up either,” Lacey giggled. “Didn’t we turn up fifteen minutes early for his class on Thursday? And the man never came.”

Your stomach lurched, a feeling you hadn’t quite experienced in years had you feeling lightheaded. 

“Well, he didn’t completely disappear,” said the blonde. “He did turn up for the last half an hour of his lecture on Friday and outlined the syllabus of the semester.”

“He looked stiff and serious. Nothing like his first day here. And even that day he stormed off, remember?”

“Oh yeah,” Madison nodded. “Right after you left, Y/N. It was a bit weird.”

You swallowed nervously, your forehead already clammed up. What was it? Was it fear or worry that you felt for Sam? You had been so wrapped up in your chaos that you hadn’t stopped to consider about Sam, assuming that he must have grown passive and wouldn’t care about the past anymore.

Sam had looked warm and at ease with himself that day, happy even, while you had only survived all these years. You’d be lying to yourself, if you said that the image of Sam on the podium, smiling at the students hadn’t felt like a knife in your gut.

But if he had not turned up for classes either… did that mean….

There was noise at the front and you saw Sam on the podium. He looked every bit as dressed up and neat as he had on your first day, if not a bit more severe. 

He greeted the class curtly, and instantly jumped to the lesson. You tried not to stare, but it was hard to look away. It was harder still to keep looking. His features seemed more angular now, and he was definitely leaner than when you had first set your eyes on him. Today he was dressed in a dark grey suit and no tie, the button at his throat was undone.

He spoke for an hour about the merger of disputes and cases where it had benefited the original plaintiffs and not once did his eyes stray towards the corner of the class where you sat. It was as if he was deliberately avoiding that very portion of the classroom. He wasn’t genial today. A good teacher, just like he always had been, but absolutely formal. When the class ended, he retrieved the attendance sheet from a kid in the first row and exited the class.

“Well, that was quite intense,” whooshed Meredith. “Hadn’t pegged him for the serious sort.”

Blonde hair giggled at the double entendre, and you almost gagged. 

“He’s actually quite good,” Madison murmured, uncharacteristically serious. “He knows what he is talking about.”

Absentmindedly, you nodded. Not that you had paid much attention to the lecture, what with your heart struck in your throat.

The classes that followed weren’t as eventful as the morning and you were more than grateful about it. The other professors all seemed so knowledgeable and expert. You had enough on your mind by the time you left the university, your plate already full of assignments.

When you got home, Meg was sprawled on one of the two sofas that came with the house and were perched in the living room.

“Hey,” you said tentatively.

Meg raised an eyebrow, clearly surprised that you were initiating a conversation after a whole week of thoroughly avoiding her. 

“Hey,” she said. 

You placed your bad and laptop on the side table at the entrance and went to sit on the empty sofa. “I’m sorry about not greeting you earlier… I was going through some stuff.”

“Clearly,” she snorted.

The hurt must have shown in your eyes, because she straightened up into a sitting position.. “I’m not offended,” she said. “Locking myself in my room and avoiding human contact like it’s the fucking plague is my monthly PMS schedule. I’m not mad or anything.”

“Oh, alright,” you breathed out.

Meg looked amused. “Your face is like an open book,” she said. “If you keep that up, you’re going to be a terrible lawyer.”

You didn’t fight her on it. It was a problem… it always had been. Over the years mostly it had been a blank and your boss had commented on your excellent poker face… but clearly even the dumb expressive face was back with all the feelings.

“I don’t know what you’re studying,” you changed the topic.

“MS, Applied physics.”

“Damn. That sounds hard.”

Meg chuckled. “You really think that, don’t you? You look terrified.”

You rearranged your expression into what was just polite interest. Enough with Meg’s expert face reading class.

“You wanna grab dinner?” Meg asked.

“Sure,” you said. “What’re we doing?”

“I made some stir fry. I didn’t know if you’d be up for dinner, though.”

You felt terrible about skipping the meals and in turn her company over the past week. 

“No worries,” she said, getting up. “I’ll just toss some pasta and we’re good to go.”

“Hey, Meg?” You asked, “I see you’ve stocked up the pantry. It’s incredibly kind of you. I might drive to the supermarket tomorrow after classes, why don’t you let me know if there’s anything you want.”

She looked at you with some surprise and a hint of actual liking. “Sure. We can make a list over food.”

“Great,” you smiled.

The rest of the week passed without any more surprises, and you took your time to settle in… getting to know Stanford- both, the University and the town. You attended all lectures regularly and gave your hundred percent effort to every assignment.

In classes, you listened with utmost concentration… all except one. Civil Procedure wasn’t a lecture, it was slow seething torture. Watching Sam talk on the podium, interacting with students simply made it hard to breathe. The walls of the lecture room converged in on you while you gasped for air. On Sam’s part, he ignored you completely. It was as if you didn’t exist at all. Over the course of the week, his stiff, formal stance loosened and you could see more and more of the guy who had introduced himself on the first day. You didn’t know what you had been expecting from him? That one day he would suddenly look at you with hatred and throw you out of the class? That he’d lose his mind and yell at you? Ask you the questions that you didn’t want to answer?

But even for all that, he’d have to acknowledge your presence. Look at you. Somehow the ignoring and pretending that you didn’t exist was so, so much worse. It was killing you. Every second of the class, you fought your tears. However, you did not miss a single class. 

Apart from those two hours everyday, you were doing well, all things considered. On Thursday, you packed more food than just your lunch, and after classes, walked to the Green Library. It was just as breathtaking as it had been on the first day. You set out to find that one table that felt right. After a quarter of an hour of testing and teasing, you finally found a desk that looked oh so inviting. It wasn’t the one below the tall, arching windows, but rather a small desk niched between the bookshelves. It was perfect.

You unloaded your bag, and set to work with the assignments that had been set for the class by Professor Mills. You personally thought Jody Mills was a total badass. She took up cases that others were too scared to touch. Her assignments didn’t require you to reference too many books, so you could make yourself comfortable in the chair. Your mind wandered as the time passed. There were a lot of things to be thought through. For starters, if you had to afford living here, you needed a job. Your savings would last a couple of months at most.  The expense of moving across the country then having to pay for the lease of the apartment had taken a massive toll on your bank account. By the time holiday season began, you’d be as broke as the china in your grandma’s old cabinet.

Earlier, you had put in an application at the Student’s employment centre for oncampus jobs. You weren’t hopeful, given the number of applications they received, but you sure meant to check in on them next week in hopes that something suitable might have come up.

It was past 8 in the evening when you finally wrapped your stuff up, somewhat satisfied with how your assignment had turned out. You lowkey congratulated yourself on finishing it a week before the deadline as you made your way back home, crashing the minute you found your bed.

********************

18th July 2008

“Y/N! There’s someone here to see you!” Jo hollered from somewhere in the living room.

Thankfully the door to the room you were sharing with Jo was open.

“Coming!” You yelled back, wondering who could it possibly be. Maybe it was the postman with your grandma’s letter. She was a weird old lady who still loved writing handwritten letters. Gramps had been to the war and their love story had blossomed over letters sent across borders. Even though gramps had passed away many years ago, she still got that rosy look on her face whenever she talked of him. You wanted a love story like hers. Was it too much to ask for?

You made your way down the steps two at a time, excited for the letter. Maybe she had sent cookies along with it. Oh, how you loved her.

On the bottom step, you stopped. Sam Winchester was standing in the hallway, one hand balancing a lot of books, the other scratching the back of his neck, looking adorable in old jeans and an open button up over his t-shirt.

“Hey!” He said.

You were wearing a loose shirt without a bra over a pair of boy shorts, with hair falling over your shoulders. Needless to say, you were mortified. 

“Give me two minutes,” you muttered and rushed back upstairs. 

As you were pulling on a pair of leggings, it occurred to you how dumb the interaction had been. He was here to see you and neither had you invited him in nor asked him why he was here.

To add to your embarrassment, when you returned downstairs, he was still standing at the bottom of the stairs five minutes later, exactly where you had left him.

“Why’re you still standing here? Please come in!” You urged, scandalised that you had kept a guest waiting like that. Gran would have tutted so hard had she been here.

Sam followed you into the living room. Jo was lounging on the smaller sofa chain and you glared at her. She could have easily invited him in when she opened the door.

But no! How else would Y/N suffer in life?

Jo gave you the evil grin and waved to Sam. 

“Would you like something to drink?” You asked, not meeting his eyes.

“I’ll have coffee!” Jo ordered and you threw her the stink eye again. 

You gave Sam a chagrined look. “I’ll put the pot on the stove for her anyway. Do you want coffee?”

He looked like he was trying very hard to smile. “Black please. With half a spoon of sugar.”

You tried to calm your nerves as the pot boiled. Being a nervous wreck wasn’t going to help your case.

When you brought the two mugs of coffee outside, Sam was reading one of the books he had bought along and Jo was nowhere to be seen.

“Where’s Jo?” You asked, carefully placing the steaming mug before him on the table.

Sam shrugged. “She said she suddenly felt sleepy. And that you should drink her coffee because you both like it the same way.”

Oh, that sly girl.

“So, what brings you here?” You asked, taking a seat next to him on the sofa.

Sam smiled shyly. “You said you could use a second pair of eyes for the application.”

He had come all the way from wherever he stayed just to help you with the applications? 

“Really?” 

“Sure.” He tilted his head, the bangs on his forehead sliding to one side. He just had such beautiful hazel eyes. You have to avert your gaze so you wouldn’t just blatantly stare at him.

You excused yourself a second time and pulled out all your application stuff. Forms, copies of essays, documents and everything. It would be absolutely stupid to not make the most of this opportunity. 

Sam took his time with all of it, going through each paper carefully and you counted your breaths to keep away the anxiety. At least he wasn’t laughing at how ridiculous your applications were. That was something. When he was done, he slowly put the papers down and looked up at you.

“Where else have you applied?” He asked.

You told him.

“You didn’t think of applying to any major universities?”

You shook your head. “I didn’t think I had a chance… and I don’t even think I was cut out for those.”

Sam reached out to place his hand on top of yours. A tingling sensation went up your spine. “Y/N! This looks great. Your essays are top notch. You should apply to Ivy Leagues.”

“I’ve already missed deadlines for them… and there are some good universities on my list as well.”

“But you deserve better!” He insisted.

You shrugged. “I don’t have that sort of money, and before you say scholarships, I don’t have those types of recommendations either. I come from a small town. People who are born there, spend their whole lives in the same house. They are happy with what they have.”

“Are you happy with what you have?” He asked, the light from the setting sun hitting his face, illuminating those eyes so they looked like burning topaz.

“I’m happy,” you said, looking at your lap where his hand rested on yours. He seemed to have forgotten about it. “But I know I can do better… for myself and my Gran.”

You made the mistake of looking up then… into his eyes, and they were closer than you had expected them to be. As if, he had no control over it, his hand reached out to touch your hair, the fingertips caressing your cheek on their way there. Slowly, but surely, he drew your face towards his… and you went, willingly. His lips had barely grazed yours when there was a loud noise in the hallway.

You sprang apart. 

“Y/N!” It was Jo.

Ordinarily, you’d have flicked your tongue at her or something for interrupting like that. Afterall, she was the one who kept egging on you to get lucky, and the one time you had… that too with Sam frigging Winchester, she had to come barging into the room. Uhgg… Jo was going to get it.

But her face was completely white, and her hand, which was holding the phone, was shaking.

“Y/N,” she whispered again. Your neighbour called. It's your grandma… she passed away last night. 

********************

You woke up in a cold sweat to the sound of the blaring alarm.

Gran!

The worry felt so fresh, you had to remind yourself that it had been seven years since she had passed away. Grief was peculiar like that… even after years and years of feeling it, some days it just felt fresh and new. Sad memories opened up the box of more memories, not all of them sad. The thought of gran was always accompanied by a warm feeling and memory of sunlit kitchen, and freshly baked bread.

This… dream or whatever it was had triggered more than just that… you could almost feel the whisper of Sam’s lips on yours. You had suppressed it so long that the feeling was almost forgotten now and how it ached knowing that you would never feel it again. The raw, desperate part of you tried to cling on to that feeling, the memory of his touch. It was three in the night, no one could blame you for wanting this comfort of your own memories. As painful as they were when you were completely in your senses, in this darkness, they were all yours to do what you pleased with them. However, like a dream, the memories kept evading your grasp. The more you tried to hold on it, the further away it slipped. Sleep eluded you completely after that.

Needless to say, you were tired and sleepy and irritated by the time the last lecture for the week commenced. You hadn’t memorised the lecture schedule yet…. you only knew when the Civil Procedure class was. First lecture on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and the last lecture of Thursday and Friday. Lacey had mentioned something about Sam having to travel to the City for work on the first three days. 

Sam was dressed more informally today. He was without a coat and glasses, hair just a little out of order… less sleek.

“Oooohhh looks like the professor had a rough night!” Lacey giggled.

“You don’t know that,” Madison shushed. “Maybe he’s single.”

“Oh, c’mon!” Lacey rolled her eyes. “He lives in the faculty residence on Alverado row. And his house is definitely a family house, not a bachelors pad… So that means he at least has a woman.”

You caught your breath. Alverado row was right behind your Santa Ynes street, where you lived. Literally right behind, less than a block away. You knew a majority senior faculty staff resided there, but it had never crossed your mind...

“I don’t see no ring,” snarked Rebecca, Madison's blonde friend, who was sitting a row ahead of you to the left.

You quickly looked. She was right… there was no ring. Your heart skipped a beat.

“Doesn’t have to be a wife,” Lacey made a face. “Could be just a girlfriend.”

“Whatever,” Rebecca rolled her eyes. “Doesn’t mean we can’t try our luck.”

It stung, listening to them talk about it stung more than you wanted to admit even to yourself.

“Before we start today's lesson, I have a question for you,” Sam said, calling everyone’s attention and the gossip promptly stopped.

“Basic Property damage,” he said. “The plaintiff has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the defendant is liable. The only issue of debate which remains is the amount of damages to be recovered. Before the last hearing, new evidence comes to light about a completely unrelated matter where the plaintiff has unintentionally harmed the defendant. If you were playing the part of the DA, what would be your obvious course of action.”

‘Settlement’ you muttered to yourself, just loud enough for the few people around you to hear.

“Anyone?” Sam asked, and on cue, Rebecca raised her hand.

“Settlement!” She called out.

“That’s correct,” Sam said, “It should occur to you faster than lightning to draw out a settlement. Good job there. That was quick.”

Next to her, Madison was looking at her friend incredulously. Then she turned around and gave you a sorry look. The boy sitting on her opposite side, the blond one, who had snickered at you on the first day also raised an eyebrow.

You didn’t care one way or another if Rebecca got the praise for your answer. You were simply relieved that you got that answer right… and that you were able to concentrate in the class better than you had been able to uptil now.

Perhaps that was the reason that it caught your attention, the quickest flick of Sam’s chin in your direction, before he stiffly averted his gaze. When the class ended, few students rushed to Sam’s desk, while you made to leave the room.

“Hey!”

You turned to see the blond dude standing right next to you.

“Y/N, isn’t it?” He asked.

You nodded.

“Brad,” he offered his hand. “Brad Rowan.”

“Nice to meet you.” you murmured, shaking his hand whilst glancing at the door. 

“So, we have a party tomorrow evening,” he said, grinning with too much confidence. “Down at the western dorms. Everyone cool is coming. You should, too.”

“Thank you,” you said politely. “But I already have plans for the weekend.”

“Better than spending time with me?” He winked, stepping ever so slightly in front of you.

You were firm this time. “Yes.”

“Oh, let her be, Brad.” It was Madison, who had come sauntering down the aisle. “If she says she’s busy, she probably is. We’ll miss you, Y/N!”

You threw her a grateful look… Madison didn’t seem to catch it.

You said your goodbyes to her and Brad and left the room quickly.

Maybe it was your imagination, but out of the corner of your eye, you saw Sam’s gaze flicker towards you… if only for one moment.

********************  

A/N 2: The next chapter is Sam’s POV ;) So we’ll finally know what’s up with him, huh ;)

PLEASE let me know what you think of this story?

If you want be tagged, you can send me an ask or add yourself to the taglist here.

Or here’s my side blog @percywinchester27-writes. You can give that blog a follow and turn the notifications on to know about updates.

ALLU taglist:

@feelmyroarrrr​  @gabavaldman​  @im-a-light-child​  @cosicas-cuquis​  @bllyjianne​  @hoboal87​  @i-is-for-inspiring​  @daughterleftbehind​  @wackiekebab​  @mylovelydame21​   @dancing-the-hellfire-rumba​  @superbadassnatural​  @bellastellaluna​  @babypink224221​  @badlittlehabit99​  @anathewierdo​  @sams-bubblegum-bitch​  @damnitnowimobsessed  @fandomoverdose666​  @superstarmarvel​  @atc74​  @transparentfestivaltiger​  @rebel-author-chick​  @death-unbecomes-you​  @cookiechipdough​

[joachimnapoleon]

Meet the Bonapartes: Louis (1/4)

I’ve been horrible about keeping up with my projects this year, but I’ve had a flurry of motivation lately so I’m trying to take advantage of it. So here is Part 1 of my write-up on Louis Bonaparte!

[Here are links to Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 on Pauline] 

***

Louis Bonaparte was born in Ajaccio, Corsica, on 2 September 1778, the fifth surviving child of what would be eight surviving children born to Carlo Buonaparte and Letizia Ramolino. His childhood name was Luigi, later changed to Louis after the Buonaparte family settled in France and "Frenchified" their names.

At the age of 12, Louis went with his older brother, Napoleon--at the time a lieutenant of artillery--to Auxonne, where Napoleon was stationed. Lieutenant Bonaparte's accommodations were spartan; Louis found himself "sleeping on the floor in a closet next to Napoleon's bed, with a single table and two chairs as their only furniture." Napoleon developed a paternal feeling for Louis, who was nine years his junior, and gave him additional tutoring in math, geography, and history while also paying for his schooling in Auxonne. "I can easily see that he will turn out a better fellow than any of the four of us," he wrote glowingly to Joseph that year. "But then none of us had so fine an education." The homesick Louis, meanwhile, wrote to Joseph, hinting that he'd be glad to return home, if Joseph would merely ask.

You have only to say the word, and I shall remain here. You have only to say the contrary, and I shall come home. You must know well that after Napolione it is you I love and cherish the most. 

But Joseph didn't ask, and so Louis continued his education with Napoleon, who secured him a place in the artillery school of Chalons. Napoleon continued to praise his younger brother's progress to Joseph, writing on 6 September 1795 that

I am pleased with Louis; he answers my expectations; he is good, and of my own making: ardour, talent, health, ability, punctuality, and kindness--he has everything.... there is no man more active, clever, and insinuating. He could do in Paris whatever he liked.

After Louis left Châlons, Napoleon added him to his ever-growing number of aides-de-camp. He distinguished himself during the Italian campaign, fighting in the vanguard alongside Lannes at Piacenza and taking part in the storming of Pizzhighettone. "This brave young man," wrote Napoleon to Carnot, " deserves all the consideration that you may be so good as to show him." Sent briefly to Paris at the end of July 1796, Louis was promoted by the Minister of War to captain, and given a gift of a set of pistols. Returning to Italy, he continued to serve bravely, delivering a message on horseback at Arcola under a hail of bullets as men fell all around him, and later helping Marmont to drag Napoleon back to safety after the general fell into a ditch.

From all indications, Louis seemed to have a bright future ahead of him. But unbeknownst at the time to either Louis or Napoleon, the Italian campaign would spell the beginning of what would end up being a permanent decline in the health of Louis. The reasons for this are uncertain, though most historians agree that Louis contracted some sort of venereal disease in Italy that ultimately shattered his health. Historian Frederic Masson writes:

Until the end of the first campaign of Year V, Louis showed a strong constitution: an amiable comrade and bon vivant, cheerful enough to be cited at game and table, he claimed his share of the entertainments of the staff; but, either in Milan he had sought pleasures dearly paid for by a terrible illness, which he treated 'with all possible levity' and in such a fashion that his health would have been ruined by it; or that he carried within him a principle of rheumatic gout which transformed, in a short time, his physical temperament and moral character, he fell ill at Forli on 16 Pluviôse (4 February 1797)... and was obliged to seek care in Bologna, then in Milan, without being able to follow his brother to the Styrian campaign. He emerged from this malady withered, morose, melancholic, constantly occupied with his health, and persuaded that it was damaged.

Seeing Louis at Mombello after the campaign, Joseph was struck by the changes in his brother, now riddled with anxiety and depression. At Mombello, Louis kept largely to himself, going for long walks alone, reading, and writing.  

At some point during this period, he fell in love with a niece of Josephine. Napoleon promptly nipped any potential marriage aspirations on his brother's part in the bud by having the girl removed from Madame Campan's school and married off his adjutant, Lavalette. This only caused Louis to plunge further into depression. Napoleon insisted that Louis accompany him to Egypt, in spite of his brother's protestations that his health would not be up to such a campaign. Aside from his recent illness, he was also still recovering from an accident, having been thrown from an overturned coach and injured his knee.

Louis found his brief time in Egypt miserable. "I suffered a great deal on our passage," he wrote Joseph on 6 July 1798, "this climate kills me." He was less than impressed with the desert tribesmen:

They are horrible savages, and yet they have some notion of gold and silver! a small quantity of it serves to excite their admiration. Yes, my dear brother, they love gold; and they pass their lives in extorting it from such Europeans as fall into their hands; and for what purpose!--for continuing the course of life which I have described, and for teaching it to their children. O, Jean Jacques! could he but see these men, whom he calls "men of nature," he would shudder with shame and surprise at having been able to admire them!... How many misanthropes would be converted if chance should conduct them into the midsts of the deserts of Arabia.

Napoleon sent Louis back to France in October of 1798. He was to deliver dispatches to the Directory, as well as some captured standards. Louis dragged the journey out for five months, ending spending three weeks visiting his mother in Ajaccio; he finally arrived in Paris on 11 March 1799. Among his first endeavours was to request a promotion which Napoleon had not mentioned to the Directory; the War Minister granted it anyway, and Louis was made a major on 30 July. He did not participate in the Brumaire coup, but Napoleon granted him another promotion in its aftermath anyway; he was now a chef de brigade of the 5th Dragoons. He sat out the ensuing campaign against Austria, taking the waters and writing poetry as Napoleon triumphed at Marengo.  

Napoleon still remained largely oblivious to Louis's character defects for the time being, and, in 1801, devised the idea for a marriage that would--he thought--bring the Bonaparte and Beauharnais families closer together: Louis would marry Hortense, the daughter of Josephine.

It would not be a happy marriage.

***

Sources:

Atteridge, A. Hillard. Napoleon’s Brothers, 1909.

Broers, Michael. Napoleon: Soldier of Destiny. 2014.

The Confidential Correspondence of Napoleon Bonaparte with his Brother Joseph, Vol I, 1856.

Copies of Original Letters from the Army of General Bonaparte in Egypt, Intercepted by the Fleet Under the Command of Admiral Lord Nelson, 1798

Masson, Frédéric. Napoleon et sa Famille, Vol I (1796-1802), 1907.

Roberts, Andrews. Napoleon: A Life. 2014.

[bloodthirstymoonstone]

Square One (ooc ramble)

So I thought I’d make a quick post talking about my continued journey into getting my Spicy Mental Health™ treated and how all that’s going. TLDR, I may have isolated the problem as to my noticeable decline with attention span over the past year or year and a half, but the good thing is that there’s probably a very easy way to fix it! Which is definitely good to know!

It gets pretty long winded and vent-y, too, though, so be warned. This is just a Real Ass Scoot Moment With Scoot Being Real, so keep that in mind.

So here’s a realization I made quite recently about my medication. For the longest time (I’m talking nearly 10 years or so) I assumed I didn’t have ADD, I just had anxiety and depression which was mimicking those symptoms. I believed this strongly, and for years despite getting legitimately diagnosed back in middle school (I think I was 13), before my anxiety diagnosis when I was 16. I think this is due in part to a REALLY BAD reaction to the drug Ritalin, which is notorious for making you feel like you’ve drank 10 coffees all at once. I honestly think that experience traumatized me so badly I truly thought I just didn’t have ADD at all.

I also probably believed this, in part, due to the anxiety medication I was on later, which did a great deal more to helping my condition. I won’t say which ones I was on because that would be TMI, but when I moved to Boston in 2016, I was on three different medications to treat my anxiety and depression. One was ancient and I’d been on it since I was first diagnosed back in 2009. One that was prescribed later when my Rock Bottom™ years started (I’m guessing 2011-2012). And then one I got at the tail end of my Rock Bottom™ years, in March of 2014. That last one might have been the one that Defeated The Evil and go the monkey of rampant, unchecked depression off my back for good, as well as a few key lifestyle changes.

Sometime when I moved here, I got a psychiatrist that, in retrospect, was fucking terrible for me. She barely listened to me at all, would shut me down when I came up with solutions she didn’t like, and ultimately discouraged me so much that I stopped doing anything more than going to her to get refills, and totally stopped going to therapy all together. I didn’t want to talk to anyone about my problems anymore, including her, because it was just so discouraging going to her about anything that she tainted the whole process for me. She shamed me for my weight, for not being social and making friends in a city and a part of the country I was totally unfamiliar with, and just never ever seemed to listen to me.

The most egregious case of this is when she fucked with my medication. Remember that list I just gave on the three types of meds I was on when I moved up here? Yeah, now I’m just on the last one. She took me off of the first two in 2016 (I think? Maybe it was 2017 -- my memory is shit), completely against my wishes, and she went totally cold turkey with it, too. I went to her, telling her that I ran out of those two maybe 10 days or so ago and though I wasn’t experiencing any withdrawal symptoms yet, but I’d really like to get back on the combination that had already taken me so far, and she literally refused. Saying “Oh, well, you’ve been off them both for so long already, so let’s see how it goes. I really don’t think you need to be on that much.”

It struck me as weird and panic inducing, even then, but she was adamant about it, saying that she didn’t want to risk me getting Serotonin Syndrome from taking so much medication for depression at once. Which, alright, fair enough, but she didn’t even try to ween me off of them. She just cut me off. But I trusted her judgement as a professional and certainly didn’t want to get sick or even die from taking too much medication, so I listened to her. And I never had a huge, unprompted depressive episode, so hey, maybe things were alright! 

There’s a catch though. The second drug I was introduced to, approximately in 2011? Remember that? Yeah, guess what. I did my own research recently and came to find out that it’s also been known to aid significantly in patients that have ADD but don’t want to be put on stimulants like Ritalin. Because if you have anxiety as well as ADD, it makes you painfully aware of that racing heart sensation. For the past 2+ years, I’ve felt my attention span slipping in ways I couldn’t understand or control, all because someone who didn’t really know me (remember, I’d only moved to this region a few short months before I even saw her) decided to play God with my life and not listen to my totally justifiable fears. 

I feel like all that time, all those abandoned threads and plot ideas, all the shit that I blamed myself for because I just couldn’t understand why it was so hard to pay attention suddenly!!! Is all her fault. I listened to everything she told me to do and then got so conditioned to never questioning her or talking to her about my problems anymore, that I didn’t even raise the difficulties I was having that were adversely affecting my life for what seemed at the time to be no reason at all. I feel cheated and angry. I might have cried a little bit when I realized it. 

The good news in this is that, 1) I don’t have her as a psychiatrist anymore THANK GOD. Last I heard, I think she was leaving the practice (probably because she was treating other patients as terribly as she was treating me), but she’s definitely no longer with the business I frequent. I’ve only met with my new psychiatrist once, and he already seems so much more kind than her, and I’m grateful for him. And 2) getting back on the medication that I was yanked off of should be an easy enough process. I really just have to talk to my new guy and tell him what I want. I’m not interested in going back on the first, because afaik, it wasn’t doing much for me anyways, and maybe serotonin syndrome actually is a problem I should be worried about taking all three at once. But at least I’ll have the two that helped get me through Job Corps and the most stressful move of my life helping me out again.

More than that, I’ve started going to therapy again, and that’s a huge relief as well. I miss my old therapist, but she seems to have moved to another office of the same company that’s slightly further away, but I love the new woman I go to see. She’s so friendly and easy to talk to, and she’s also from out of town, so we get to crack jokes about New England Drivers™, which is always fun, lol. More than that, she’s helped me see that there are good qualities to me instead of All The Things I Want To Fix, like my creativity, sense of humor, and passion for caring about and defending my friends and those I care deeply about. 

If we’re being honest, when I look back at these past years, it still kind of hurts. I can see quite clearly the break where my dwindling attention span started impacting my life and my presence in the RP community (technically it happened before I went indie, which means you guys have been dealing with 2 Braincell Scoot this whole time... My deepest apologies), and how it just kept getting worse and how frustrated I was with myself and things I couldn’t change about it. 

But that’s also the good thing about all this. I can and will get better, hopefully sooner rather than later, and I hope you guys will be around to reap the benefits. I love you guys, and hopefully I’ll be able to get to some replies soon! Either on this blog or any of the three others. 

[donalddahmer]

132

I’m in love with everyone I meet. I start to fall out of love with them almost immediately, thats why I hate fast talkers.

I can’t buy my own drugs so I buy time

Discipline makes me feel in control

Trunk thinking

Lets just say I’m having urges again. They include: walls beyond the spot wet and dry wall railing & rods

I have a spot on my lip but I didn’t get to kiss a stranger instead its now a painful reminder of what shoulda coulda woulda

I want to see them drunk but with their friends. Then I can voyeur and exit accordingly versus escorting myself and company outta my peoples.

I hate drunk personas. What does that mean other than you hate yourself and voted Tory because fundamentally you think cultural appropriation isn’t that bad and Macklemore deserved Best Rap Album, 2014.

I think I’m in love or I know like pretending I am

I don’t care if you love me  need you to be in love with me or it’s for the birds

Don’t let sex take away from your masturbation. You need both to honestly unlock that 100% sexy feeling.

It’s all been done before echoes my cancelled lecturer. It’s about a don’t think just do attitude at some point. That’s where the free jazz starts. The good good. The ‘freedom begins here’.

I keep scrolling celebrities lives to see if they living but they’re just as done with lockdown as we are. I’ve never been bored on my own. No I’m bored: I’m bored due to everyone else’s boredom affecting me.

I take two 11:11 wishes today because I’m feeling extra empty

I miss the physical indication of knowing somoene’s excited to see me, and the sensitive shyness when you realise we’ve gone from soft to hard. Coy cocks its head, how do you want it? How you gonna give it.

I agree, out of 5 is better than out of 10 because 10 point stars are ugly and confusing. 5 gets to the point quicker and cleaner.

I like hard and fast but I can give you slow and smooth

Checking for and checking on are two different things; one has surpassed the other and that’s what’s wrong with the world.

I miss going to New York and all I got was this lousy carpet burn from wood floor on my left little toe, and no finish. It was Spike Lee hot that day. The kind of heat where you couldn’t have sex without ice cubes. Don’t touch me I have a flight to catch in the morning and I can’t combust until after I graduate.

I’d like to have an obsessive personality but I feel I’m already there by proxy

It’s none of my business what you think of me until I care to ask you so. Then and only then having run your mind or mouth please answer me directly, respectfully.

Why does everyone want to be my bestie but not my friend?

Repeat after me: a bill is 100, a bag is a grand and, this just in, a score is 20. Therefore with inflation from 1999 Bills Bills Bills by Destiny’s Child would now be Bags Bags Bags. Destiny full grown.

We stopped seeing each other and they got a terrible white dyke hair cut so I want to thank them for making it easier but we are no longer talking, naturally. They aren’t a white dyke so it makes it even worse/better.

I think I don’t feel accomplishment until I’ve learn something, like a new word definition. That’s my wont.

The floor is cloaked in my hair and my cat’s hair so everything feels alright

It used to turn me on that if we weren’t in a pandemic I could have him how I please and he wouldn’t have that Mango Hell anymore. Now too much of a life lie has been lived that we may as well believe too.

How To Keep Up With Yourself or Keeping Up With Kyourself. I’ve never watched a full episode of that show but I know all the drama. Now THAT’S scandalous.

I turned down the Forbes list in 2020 and I’m glad I know how to listen to myself

My mum is constantly seeking more polite ways to tell me off and I can love her for that alone

How do you figure out your style without trying on a few coats first - perhaps even along the way?

I love when someone uses their favourite word but it hasn’t quite settled into their vocabulary yet like when A said to me “I like that you knoll”.

She was at the kind of age that confuses men. Legally barely legal. Her harnessed ambiguity scared me and she knew it. I remember the power I used to have too and how it could so swiftly be dangerous both the knowing and not fully caring. Youth only holds that kind of power for so long: cherish it all, bet it all, run it all!

Do you ever fear getting to know your inner self because beneath the hubbub its just vacuous hollow, no white noise, just stroked hum.

I finished a book today, I instantly feel better. You have to get through things to succeed in this lifetime.

Sometimes I let me pen run as much as my mouth/mind does. This was just one of those days.

-

Do you still want to collaborate? I don’t want to do anything. I’m in heaven and depressed

COMPRESSION

-

I don’t know how to have a meltdown with a to do list. I need something to hitch meat to so I can rest awhile. Rest is all we’ve been able to un done so perhaps hide is a better word. Shapeshifter at large. Ghost in residence. They’ve been cutting their eye after me for days. Sometimes thrice past my rims. I tell them take a seat, stay awhile, but they scurry struck by my comforting whimsy. Where I’m from you lend every lost soul a pillow. Here, take my arm as a nook, let my hands hold your cheek awhile. You look like you’ve been puffing. Let me hold your breath awhile. I know things have been tight. Shush awhile;. Sleep, take good flight.

WHEN DAEMONS DANCE MY HEART GROWS WINGS

[pleasereadmeok]

Interview with Matthew Goode on his role in The Crown - 

Now I am sitting in a London hotel room in front of the actor playing Snowdon in season two of Netflix’s The Crown. And Matthew Goode is wearing a hat, probably the one he has in ITV’s The Wine Show, the programme in which he and his mate Matthew Rhys josh and gush over vintages brought to them in a “hilltop Italian villa” — a for-real version of Brydon and Coogan’s The Trip. The bibulous old rogue Snowdon would have appreciated the wine and the banter, but what would he have said about his future impersonator’s ever-on hat?

“He was a nightmare,” says Goode, who admits to rather liking Snowdon. “I spoke to one of the guys who used to help him when he was a photographer, and he said, ‘I can’t use the expletive, but it describes an area of a woman’s body — that’s who he was.’ It was so annoying. He could be charming and brilliant, then in two seconds’ time behave like the most disgusting person in the entire world.”

Snowdon was 76 when I met him and although he had been divorced from Margaret for nearly 30 years, he still behaved like minor royalty. His servants, I noted, called him m’lud. In the period depicted in The Crown, however, Snowdon was New Britain on the march, storming the palace gates to modernise the monarchy. That early model, the pre-peerage Tony Armstrong-Jones, might even have admired Goode’s hat.

Having once compared Margaret to a Jewish manicurist (he was part Jewish himself), he would certainly have enjoyed Goode’s outspokenness, a trait that has got the actor into trouble in interviews before — which may be why his publicist is sitting behind me. She keeps her counsel, however, probably having already realised that Goode’s chance of appearing in the next honours list is about as likely as The Crown ushering in a republic.

A file of background notes passed on by The Crown’s producers persuaded Goode that Snowdon’s faults were sourced in an unhappy childhood. His mother, Anne Messel, showed him little affection, referring to him as her “ugly son”, doling out her love instead to the two boys from her second, longer-lasting marriage to an earl. He was sent to boarding school at eight and at 16, while at Eton, contracted polio (there is a touching moment in The Crown when he hides his stick when Margaret turns up at his studio). Anne, rather than nurse him at home, packed him off to Liverpool Royal Infirmary, but she never visited him.

“Exactly what that kind of damage does to a child I have no idea, but emotionally and psychologically, quite a lot, I would imagine,” says Goode. “I think it’s why he married Princess Margaret. I think he did it to please his mother rather than himself.”

Demonstrating that he was good enough to marry into royalty? “It’s far more complicated than that, I’m sure, but it’s one of the solutions.”

The Snowdons were soon into an 18-year marriage notable for its private rowing and public putdowns. Yet, says Goode, the royal family loved their new recruit and always blamed Margaret for any trouble. “He was terribly funny as well. So with this incredibly acerbic, nasty, vitriolic, spiteful side comes this flamboyant, wonderfully debonair, extremely funny, witty man.”

The pair, he summarises, were “very charismatic, very smart and vile”, but what we can be sure of was that the sex between them was spectacularly good — although not good enough to dissuade their lusty libidos from straying beyond marriage. Soon both were having affairs. Within weeks of the marriage, another woman, Camilla Fry, had given birth to Snowdon’s illegitimate daughter, sired, the show suggests, during a three-in-a-bed encounter with her and her bisexual husband, Jeremy.

“When I first met Noo,” Goode says, referring to Vanessa Kirby, who plays Margaret, by her nickname, “I was quite terrified because I was a fan of the first series. I was a little star-struck, I suppose, and I thought it might make for uncomfortable love scenes, but we ended up just finding it hilarious. It was a really good giggle. She’s brilliant. She’s really dynamic as an actress and really fun to work with because she’ll bat it back. She listens, really listens, and responds.”

Perhaps it is because of their rapport that they manage to convey how alike the princess and her parvenu husband were. They were control freaks (that cap business) and poisonous to those who would not be controlled. They were rebels, but also lovers of status. As Goode points out, Armstrong-Jones may have been the first commoner in 40 years to marry the daughter of a monarch, but he was also dead posh. In fact, Goode’s dialect coach encouraged him to “dial back” the vowels, lest people found them confusing.

Since his breakthrough role as wealthy Tom in Woody Allen’s Match Point in 2005, and certainly after his Charles Ryder in Brideshead Revisited three years later, Goode has played mainly posh boys. He was brought up in Devon the son of a geologist and his wife, a nurse, but did go to a private day school. Yet Goode is not quite acting aristocracy and since this cannot be because of his talent, or his looks — dark hair, blue eyes, 6ft 2in — this may be something to do with his habit of speaking his mind. In an interview in 2010 he complained about being left with “nowhere to go” by the director of Brideshead. When Tom Ford’s excellent A Single Man came out, he criticised the Weinsteins for featuring Julianne Moore rather than him with Colin Firth in the advertising, thus downplaying the central gay relationship. In 2013 he said he had been working “a lot of scale”, meaning the minimum rate.

Then, on This Morning last year, he said he did not think the modern Bond films were working as well as the old ones. The papers, which had tipped him as Daniel Craig’s successor, declared he had blown his chances.

“I’m way over the hill, darling, what are you talking about?” he responds, although he is 39 and only a few years older than Craig when he started. “I didn’t mean it in a bad way.” What he meant was that there could be two Bond franchises, one contemporary Bond and another set in the Sixties. “It’s just an idea. But apparently you can’t have an opinion.”

Recent years have been kinder to him professionally. In 2014 he joined Downton Abbey as Henry Talbot, the racing diver who sped off with Lady Mary. Around the same time he won a regular gig on The Good Wife in America. The Wine Show is about to return to ITV, with Goode joined by a new drinking buddy, James Purefoy. There are, of course, still disappointments. Cast as a morphine-addicted ex-public schoolboy in Agatha Christie’s Ordeal by Innocence, Goode now finds that the three-parter has been pulled from the BBC’s Christmas schedules after sexual allegations against his co-star Ed Westwick (who robustly denies them).

Goode says there are two ways of looking at it. The first is that the BBC has spared the cast some awkward interview questions. “But some would also say that they should have stood by Ed. Possibly. I mean, I don’t know. I’m not the controller of the BBC.”

So, is he in favour of the postponement? “I’m not really in favour of anything because I don’t have to make that decision. I believe you’re innocent until proven guilty.”

But has the BBC prejudged the matter by pulling the show? “No, not now, because there are three allegations now.”

Goode has lived with the mother of his three children, Sophie Dymoke, for 12 years. When she became pregnant with their first daughter, she gave up her life in the fashion industry in New York. He was thrilled to be able to return with her to film The Good Wife, but by then her heart was no longer in her career. Is he guilty about that?

“Of course I am. Of course I am. She has to put up with living with some f***wit who doesn’t really live in reality occasionally and has some slight psychological problems occasionally through work. She’s retrained as an interior designer and she’s so talented at it.”

What psychological problems? “Well, this [show] is part of it. If you tie all of your hopes to the net product of your work, then you’re going to get depressed because sometimes you feel like you’re working really well and then you watch it and you go, ‘I am terrible.’ I don’t watch my stuff any more.”

I assure him he is excellent in The Crown, but it was a one-off gig. Series three will be recast with older actors (he thinks Paul Bettany would be a good choice). “Peter Morgan [the writer] said, ‘I’ve just written the most fantastic argument for Tony and Margaret in series three.’ I was, like, ‘Oh good. What a thrill for the next guy.’ ”

He got the part days after Lord Snowdon died in January this year, 15 years after Margaret. His death avoids any unpleasant collisions in restaurants and Goode hopes that none of his children will want to spit in his face. He reports that Matt Smith was introduced to Prince William at a function before the first series was shown. The prince said he had heard he was playing his grandfather, Prince Philip. “And Matt was, like, ‘Yeah, yeah, anything to say about that?’ And William just said, ‘LEGEND.’ ”

“I think as we come towards where we are now, it will be slightly uneasy and slightly problematic. I think it could open up a few wounds that people are still a little bit grieving over and feeling complicated about. Poor old Charles is probably going to get it in the neck. Maybe it’s a good thing that I’m out of there already.”

In one way, however, Lord Snowdon did members of the royal family a favour. The show’s slogan is that “the crown always wins”. In the Snowdon case, monarchic tradition was unable to prevent Margaret and her husband from divorcing and pursuing happiness with others. Perhaps without their example, Charles, Anne and Andrew might still be all miserably married. The Snowdons were trailblazers!

“Were they the first? They were. Yes, they were! So, the trailblazers. Trailblazers is a word that suits them extremely well,” Goode says enthusiastically.

And for that, let us all take off our caps to Lord Snowdon.

The Crown series two is available on Netflix from December 8

[love-god-forever]

Salvation Testimony: God Accompanied Me Through Those Dark Days

By Zhao Zhihan

On the evening of August 13, 2014, I went out running some errands, but a sudden rain caused me some delay, so it was about 12 a.m. when I returned. On my arrival at the gate of my community, I met my elder sister and two brothers-in-law. “Why are they here at this late hour?” I felt confused. But before I could understand the situation, my sister sobbed and said, “How come you came back so late? We’re so worried about you. Your husband just met with a serious car accident and is badly injured.

Now, he is being transferred to the city hospital. Our brother called and asked you to go there …” “What? A car accident?” I simply couldn’t believe my ears. “How is this possible? I just saw him calling our son at dinner. How come he …” Seeing my bemused look, my two brothers-in-law explained the whole accident to me in detail, and told me, “The doctors of the county hospital said his chances of survival are poor, and that even if he could survive, it is very possible that he would be in a vegetative state for the rest of his life.” After I heard their words, my heart began to thump violently and I burst into tears, feeling as if heaven had come crashing down. At that moment, I really didn’t know how to deal with such a terrible situation.

Because it was too late, we couldn’t get a cab to the city hospital. I got extremely anxious and feared that I would not be able to see my husband in his last moment. Just when I was in helplessness, Job’s testimony struck me. When he encountered trials, he didn’t sin through his words or complain to God. Instead, he praised Jehovah God’s name and finally bore resounding testimony to God. I also remembered Abraham’s story. When he was a hundred years old, God bestowed upon him a son, but later asked him to make his son a burnt offering to Him. Although Abraham bore great pain in his heart, he was still able to obey God’s words. When God saw Abraham’s genuine heart, He not only didn’t ask his son of him, but even blessed him, and made his progeny as numerous as the stars of the heaven, and as plentiful as the sand on the sea shore. At the thought of this, I immediately prayed to God, “Oh God, my husband’s accident upset the balance of my mind. I’m so worried about his condition now. But thinking of Job’s and Abraham’s reverence and obedience to You, I know I should emulate them. Oh God, please protect my heart so that I won’t complain to You. I’m willing to submit to Your sovereignty and entrust my husband’s life to You.” After prayer, my anxiety slowly subsided.

Afterward, my brothers-in-law found a cab; when we arrived at the city hospital, it was about 5 a.m. Learning that my husband had been wheeled into the ICU, I anxiously went to ask the doctor about his condition. He said with a sigh, “His injury is too serious. Even if he could survive, he is very likely to become a vegetable. So, you’d better prepare yourself for the worst. Besides, you need to prepare at least 200 thousand yuan for the treatment.” Hearing his words, I nearly died of shock, thinking: “200 thousand yuan? If the treatment fails, I may lose both him and money. In that case, how are my son and I going to live without the backbone of the family? Even if he could survive, he would become a vegetable, and how should I support my family by myself?” These thoughts pressed down on me so hard that I couldn’t even breathe. I had no idea what I should do, and leaned against the wall weakly, feeling as if everything had gone black before my eyes.

In helplessness, I went before God and poured out my sufferings to Him: “Oh God, my stature is too small, so facing this situation, I feel particularly weak and don’t know what to do. Oh God, please enlighten me and guide me …” While praying, I thought of God’s words, “Like all things, man quietly and unknowingly receives the nourishment of the sweetness and rain and dew from God. Like all things, man unknowingly lives under the orchestration of God’s hand. The heart and spirit of man are held in the hand of God, and all the life of man is beheld in the eyes of God. Regardless of whether or not you believe this, any and all things, living or dead, will shift, change, renew, and disappear according to God’s thoughts. This is how God rules over all things.” Right, God is the source of man’s life and our life is bestowed by Him. Be they men or all things, their life and death are all in God’s hands. This is a reflection of God’s authority. Therefore, as a created being, I ought to obey God’s orchestration. When Moses guided the Israelites out of Egypt, there was no food for them to eat in the wilderness. At that moment, Jehovah God supplied them with quail and manna. As long as they listened to God’s words and obeyed Him, there would be abundant supply of food from God. However, some people lacked genuine faith in God. They feared that there would be no food the next day, so they preserved some manna, which, however, all became rotten the next day. From this story, I understood that, God is the Creator, who supplies and nourishes us mankind, and that as long as we sincerely obey Him and trust Him, we’ll obtain His continuous supply. At the thought of this, my depression and tension eased a lot.

Then I went to the ICU, only to see my husband’s body covered in bruises; his ears were bleeding because of a fracture of his skull. Apart from that, he had several other injuries: lung damage, three broken ribs, fractures to his right femur and five toes of his left foot. “When he went to work this morning, he was so happy and vigorous; and when he made a call to our son at dinner, he was still safe and sound. But now he is lying on the sickbed with life hanging in the balance.” At this thought, I felt so painful as if a needle had stabbed into my heart.

On the third day, my husband’s situation suddenly turned worse. His breathing became faint, and his complexion was extremely sallow like that of a dead man. Our relatives were all crying, saying that he wouldn’t make it. Looking at my husband, I felt utterly helpless. The thought that I might forever lose him threw me into deep grief. At that time, I remembered a hymn of experience, “God’s Ways Cannot Be Fathomed”: “You span heaven and earth, who knows the compass of Your deeds? We see but one grain on a sandy beach, quietly wait at Your disposal.” I silently sang the hymn in my heart and thought: “God is the Creator, who dominates the change of all things as well as the laws of nature. His authority and ability are beyond the limitation of geography and space. When the Lord Jesus came to do His work, He quieted the wind and the sea just by saying a word. And with one word, He resurrected Lazarus, who had been dead for four days. These facts all display that the authority of God’s words is immeasurable. Only God possesses such authority; He seizes the key to Hades and determines man’s life and death; He is able to raise the dead and bring something from nothing.” Pondering this, I gained some faith in God, believing that whether my husband could survive or not was in the hand of God, and I was willing to entrust his life to God.

The next morning, my son and I went to the ICU asking the nurses about my husband’s condition. When they told us that he was a little better than before, I shed grateful tears, quietly offering thanks and praise to God in my heart.

However, one week later, my husband still hadn’t come around. His doctor told me, “If he still remains unconscious, you’ll have to transfer him to another hospital, and I advise you to prepare some money for his future surgeries.” Then, the doctor pointed at a patient and continued, “This patient’s injuries are less serious than your husband’s. But after more than ten days of treatment, his edema hasn’t subsided and he is still in a coma. So we have to transfer him to another hospital.” Hearing these words, I was desperately worried that my husband wouldn’t wake up. “I’ve taken out a huge overdraft to pay the hospital bill. How could I raise so much money for the following surgeries? What if I delay his treatment because I fail to raise enough money?” At this thought, I was overwhelmed by anxiety and fear.

On the tenth day, his doctor said to me, “I’ve contacted a hospital for you. If your husband can’t come around these two days, you’ll have to transfer him, because he must have an operation on his femur in 5 days; otherwise, he would be disabled for the rest of his life. You need to prepare about 400 thousand yuan for his surgery as soon as possible.” Meanwhile, my relatives and the traffic police were looking for the culprit, but there were no results. My friends and relatives knew I was short of money, but they just offered a few words of comfort without the intention to help me. In desperation, I went before God crying and prayed to Him, “Oh God, though my husband hasn’t awoken yet, I know You’re protecting him. Today the doctor again asked us to transfer him to another hospital and prepare a large amount of money for his surgery. Now I feel utterly desperate and have no way to go. Please open up a path for me.” After prayer I calmed down a lot, and thought: “These days, I’ve personally seen God’s wondrous deeds through praying to Him and getting close to Him. It is entirely thanks to God’s blessing that my husband narrowly escaped death. So I believe that, as long as I truly rely on God, He will help me.” Then I consulted with my family members to find a solution.

To my surprise, when I went home to raise money, my uncle told me that he was willing to help me, and I also learned that the culprit had been found. At that time, my son phoned me and said excitedly, “Mom, dad has woken up. The doctors told me that we don’t need to transfer him, and they are scheduling him for surgery. Please come here quickly …” The good news made me weep for joy, and I continuously thanked God and praised His wondrous deeds.

Before the operation, the doctor asked me to sign the guarantee and the notice of critical condition, saying: “Though your husband has woken up, he is quite weak because of his injuries. The surgery will take a long time and he will be put under a general anesthetic. So the risk is he may never wake up. We’ve met such cases before. You’d better have a careful consideration before making the decision.” The doctor’s words made me so agitated that I didn’t know what choice I should make. Yet after a while, I thought: “The patient who is less injured still remains unconscious despite all the treatment, and needs to be transferred to another hospital. My husband, however, under the protection of God, has woken up and is still alive. Isn’t this God’s wonderful deeds?” At the thought of this, I no longer hesitated, and signed the guarantee while quietly praying to God, “Oh God, I believe that my husband’s life and death are determined by You, not the doctors. I sincerely rely on and look to You.”

My husband’s operation went very smoothly, which was a weight off my mind. Seeing my husband out of danger, the doctors all said this was a miracle, while I clearly knew that all of this was due to God’s blessing. However, my husband lost his memory after the surgery. He even didn’t remember me and often threw a tantrum like a baby. This made me distressed and worried. The doctor said, “It’s hard to say whether he’s able to get his memory back. When he becomes better, you may take him to the rehabilitation center.” In those days, I was brooding over this thing, and couldn’t eat or sleep. As I was at my wits’ end, a passage of God’s words sprang to my mind: “Which is to say, where a person goes after they die and are reincarnated, whether they are male or female, what their mission is, what they will go through in life, their setbacks, what blessings they enjoy, who they will meet, what will happen to them—no one can predict this, avoid it, or hide from it. Which is to say, after your life has been set, in what happens to you, however you try and avoid it, by whatever means you try and avoid it, you have no way of violating the life course set out for you by God in the spiritual world.” From God’s words, I understood this: “None of us can predict what we will go through in our life. Whether it is affliction or blessing, they are both a good chance for us to mature in life. In those miserable days, I’ve learned how to rely on God and look to God, and how to hand over my difficulties to God and obey His arrangement. In desperation, through pondering God’s words, I obtained some true knowledge of His authority. More importantly, I’ve personally tasted God’s love. He was with me all the time; every time I needed assistance, He would guide me to overcome those difficulties in time. But for God’s guidance, I would have lived in misery. If I hadn’t experienced those environments, I would never have true knowledge about God, and my knowledge of His authority would forever be doctrines.” Having realized this, I thanked God from the bottom of my heart for His reinforcing my shortcomings and supplying my life with these environments. I resolved to rely on God to walk the way ahead, and I believed He would guide me by my side.

After staying in the city hospital for 21 days, my husband was transferred to another hospital. In his recovery, I prayed to God every day, taught him how to speak, and helped him recover his memory. To my surprise, he gradually learned how to control his temper and remembered some relatives. Seeing him getting better and better day by day, I was overwhelmed with joy. Even his doctor felt amazed, saying, “How incredible! I can’t believe that he’s made such a quick recovery. This is indeed a miracle! The patient in the next room also had a car accident like your husband, but he has been in a coma for half a year after the surgery. It’s hard to say whether or not he could make it. You are really so lucky.” Hearing these words, I continuously thanked God in my heart.

After being discharged from the hospital, my husband recovered more quickly than before. He was able to walk with crutches and basically recovered his memory. One day, I told him what happened when he was in hospital, how I relied on God, and how God guided me through those dark days. He was moved to tears, saying, “Once I make a full recovery, I’ll share my experiences with others so that they can know God’s wonderful deeds.” Hearing what he said, I continuously offered thanks to God.

Through this special experience, I truly saw God’s miraculous deeds and appreciated this: God is the Lord of all things; He indeed commands the life and death of everyone; His authority and power are beyond any created or non-created being. As God’s words say, “Man’s life originates from God, the existence of the heaven is because of God, and the existence of the earth stems from the power of God’s life. No object possessed of vitality can transcend the sovereignty of God, and no thing with vigor can break away from the ambit of God’s authority. In this way, regardless of who they are, everyone must submit under the dominion of God, everyone must live under God’s command, and no one can escape from His control.”

[hirstories]

Hola!

Hello there! Just wanted to drop a few words here. I’m alive and mostly well—the heat is terrible here in Florida. I drove 3,200 miles (scratching that one off the bucket list). We’re currently finding a place to live. If everything goes well I should be back sometime in September.

Thank you everyone who has PM’d me via FF.net, AO3 or in Tumblr. I should be writing back to everyone soon.

A few things:

FMA BB 2017. I’m going to be focusing in editing the story I have written for the FMA Big Bang 2017 (#fmabb17) which I wrote before May 2017. After Coveted, I needed to write something that wasn’t angsty or depressing. I do swing like a pendulum in my taste for stories so my big bang story is packed with lots of silly humor. I had the idea for this particular story since 2014. The original concept was angsty (big surprise there) anyway I was watching Sailor Moon Crystal and that’s when a new idea struck. The story details will be provided soon—definitely by July 13, 2017 which is when the FMA BB 2017 drafts are due. I don’t get to write silly/humorous stuff a lot but when I do…XD

Convergence. Now that Coveted has been finished, I’ll be rewriting and finishing Convergence. I do apologize to everyone who has been waiting on this story. The chapter upload will be slow since I will be editing my FMA Big Bang entry, but I will be uploading chapters for sure. After November, the chapter uploads should increase. Please keep in mind that each chapter for Convergence is massive and with the editing they will be even bigger (40-60 pages, single spaced).

Insidious. I’m actually quite shocked that people have been asking/requesting this story. I will be picking it up in 2018, most likely after I am at least 75% done with Convergence. I had to take a long break from Insidious because that story was affecting me more than I expected (yeah I chewed more than I could handle). I will finish the story and it’ll be more shocking than the first run. Ask and you shall receive…

I will keep you updated every chance I get. For those who celebrate the Fourth of July, I hope you have a great day.

[newyorktheater]

Bobby Steggert LMSW

Bobby Steggert, actor headshot

Ragtime, 2009 in his Tony-nominated performance as Mother’s Younger Brother

Ivan Hernandez and Bobby Steggert in Yank, 2010.

Big Love, 2015

Bobby Steggert, Frederick Weller, Grayson Taylor and Tyne Daly in Mothers and Sons, 2014

Two years ago, Bobby Steggert, a Tony-nominated actor with extensive credits on and Off Broadway (Ragtime, Big Fish, Yank! etc) , surprised the theater community by announcing that he had switched careers. In an article on Medium, he explained that he was in the middle of getting a degree in social work from Columbia University. “My master’s degree will be a piece of paper, but my life as an artist will make me a great social worker, this I know.” Since July of 2019, Bobby Steggert LMSW has been serving as a psychotherapist in private practice and a staff therapist at the Institute for Human Identity Therapy Center,. Three-fourths of his clients, he tells me, are “actors, singers, dancers, directors, writers, or designers,” and (his staff biography says) he comes to the therapy relationship with “warmth, humor, and a solution-focused approach.” He seemed the right person to ask about the specific mental health needs of theater artists during this stressful period, and he readily agreed to speak with me.

Have you had any new thoughts about your switching careers since you wrote that piece in Medium in 2018?

Time and retrospection have been even more clarifying. I think that what I struggled with most of all near the end of my performance life was a lack of meaningful purpose when not employed. This is obviously part and parcel of any freelance career, but a lot of that sense of purposelessness was within me, and in my inability or unwillingness to find sustainable and grounding purpose in other parts of my life. As a result, I focus quite a bit on finding purpose with clients, and how they can foster these essential elements of a satisfying life, even within the extreme limitations of a time like today.

Based on your own experience as a therapist, and that of your therapeutic colleagues, has there been a general uptick of mental health issues over the past few months?  

Most definitely. I think that we are in a time of great anxiety as a culture and so of course that trickles down to individual experiences. There are a lot of people who are experiencing heightened anxiety and depression, and, as a result of that, dealing with an increase in substance abuse and also relationship issues and, of course, issues with unemployment and loss of income.

My colleagues and I have gotten quite a few inquiries from people who want to enter therapy. I am at capacity so I try to find other therapists for people who call me in order to get them treatment as soon as possible.

People are struggling pervasively because we have been challenged with unbelievable limitations. When you don’t have community and you don’t have a sense of purpose and you don’t have a source of income, those are definite recipes for mental health struggles.

I understand that every person is individual, but are there issues specific to (common in) theater artists during this time of pandemic and unemployment, or ways in which theater artists feel these stresses in a different way?

The most devastating thing about this crisis for theater makers is that there is really nowhere to turn for alternative employment in live performance. Theater artists are singularly gifted in creating work that is shared and felt in one communal, physical space, and in this moment, it’s practically an impossibility. We are all making major sacrifices right now, but theater artists have their hands tied in a way that is unique, and any adjustment to other work is felt as a true loss to one’s core sense of contribution.

What advice or words of comfort have you been giving to artists — or could you give to artists now?

The irony is that so many artists buy the line that they have “no real world skills” and yet they are the most creative, adaptive, and flexible people around. They are made for shifting and unexpected circumstances. They understand the vicissitudes of a highly inconsistent industry, which uniquely prepares them for a highly inconsistent time. I try to remind my clients that their fantastic relationship and communication skills alone make them highly qualified for any temporary adjustments to employment or living situations that are required of them right now. I also like to remind my clients that they are excellent at making meaning – that’s what artists do – and one major thing we have control over now is to make conscious, growth-oriented meaning out of our experiences, even when they’re terrible. And while many can’t make meaning through work right now, they can make it through their relationships, parts of their identities outside of the profession, their bodies through health and self-care, and their creative voices, whether broadcast to the world or quietly to themselves.

What about theatergoers rather than theater makers? Are you aware of ways in which the lack of live in-person theater has had a tangible, diagnosable effect?

I am not sure if I could call it diagnosable but I do think that humans benefit greatly from gathering in groups and physical spaces and in experiencing collective energy together. I think that is why theater is so special. That’s a huge reason why people, for example, attend church. Without that live shared energy, I think that is why people are suffering from loneliness even when staying connected to fiends and family through the Internet.

So what can people do about this?

I think it depends on people’s risk level and how far they are willing to go to be in contact with other humans, but I have suggested to my clients to find as many opportunities as possible to meet friends in the park or to be around other people in outdoor settings as a way to feel more physically connected to other humans.

It’s interesting that you talked earlier about finding purpose, because that of course is the main characteristic of your Tony-nominated role as Mother’s Younger Brother in “Ragtime.” Is that just a coincidence?

In retrospect, I think that as an actor the roles you play can teach you about yourself, and I do attribute that experience to be the seed of an investigation for myself as to how I could find more sustainable purpose than I was able to find as an actor who too often has to wait around for invitations to participate n what they do. Another role really taught me something — Will in “Mothers and Sons.” He was a young man who was so integrated into himself as a gay person. That character taught me that I needed to do more work to embrace the fullness of my own sexual identity.

So you’re saying that your roles helped shaped you as a person?

Very much so. When you inhabit them you take on their energy and you take on their psychology and if you are open to it , that character can teach you new things about yourself.

I admired your performances, and was struck by how much vulnerability you allowed your characters. Feel free to disagree with my premise, but, if you agree, was that vulnerability deliberate, a reflection of your own nature, or just a result of the roles for which you were cast? And is that quality a help or a hindrance or irrelevant to  your new career?

I do agree with the premise. The purpose I did find as an actor was to expose the complexities of the human condition in a way that was raw and that was vulnerable. I think that is because I am naturally a more emotional and more vulnerable person. I think that quality inspires others to be more vulnerable, and so I find it very helpful as a therapist. I’m asking others to become more vulnerable and through that vulnerability to understand themselves and to experience life more deeply.

But do people seeking therapy want vulnerability, or rather somebody who seems confident and authoritative?

I think that the most important quality in a therapist is that the person feel safe with them. That sense of safety can help them to open up and to be braver in their own introspection. [My vulnerability] changes shape because as a therapist there are certainly boundaries, but at the same time I try to exist in a therapeutic relationship with total openness and with a certain kind of vulnerability that I hope can inspire others to be the same.

Where can people go for help?

I have two layers of an answers to that question. Specifically for theater people who are looking for mental health help, I think that the Institute for Human Identity is a great option because they have a lot of availability for therapists who are in the arts or who understand what it is to be in the arts. Another resource is the Actors Fund, which has a wonderful list of therapists who are also in some way connected to the arts. Those are the two places I would send theater people if they are looking to talk to someone.

On another layer, I think the best way to deal with stress especially under these circumstances is to find a physical practice, because being connected a one’s body is sometimes the best option. So I am finding that people are turning to yoga or exercise or mindful meditation.

But what if the theater person doesn’t have any money? As you said, most are unemployed now.

That is really rough. The Actors Fund also provides grants to people who are unemployed. There are also much more affordable options, such as a therapeutic apps called TalkSpace.

Is there anything about theater that you’ve used to help your clients – or yourself – cope with the stresses of the current situation? 

I find it oddly comforting to think about Shakespeare’s time, in which London theaters closed several times due to the plague. He mentions the plague in several of his plays, including The Tempest and King Lear. And during the two year period between 1592-1594 when he couldn’t write plays, he turned to poetry. He adapted just like we all must.

If possible for us to telescope out of this very moment, and while acknowledging all of the suffering and hardship we are enduring, we can be reminded that human history is full of enormous disruptions to life as usual, and yet we keep moving forward, because we have to. Live theater will never leave us – and we will inevitably return to the day when we gather again to take in stories in ways that no other storytelling can replicate.

  Centers for Disease Control: Coping with Stress

Bobby Steggart, Actor Turned Therapist Q & A: Theater Artists Are Suffering Two years ago, Bobby Steggert, a Tony-nominated actor with extensive credits on and Off Broadway (Ragtime, Big Fish, Yank!

[diemkay]

Coronavirus Diaries: March 21

A while ago someone on Twitter suggested keeping a diary. I haven’t written here in a while, busy with changing countries, careers, and learning and adapting a lot. But this feels like a good time to start again. It’s hard to think or do much else, and it seems like a learning opportunity in the process. 

I vaguely remember talking to my grandmother in December, asking if she’d seen the news about it in China. Now here we are, past the “just a flu bro” stage and into the trough of depression and resignation. 

Examine your own morality

I liked this point from Cassie Kozyrkov, a data scientist at Google, on how to apply sound principles from decision science to your own life:

If you’re not in the habit of investigating your own morality, now is as good a time as ever to face questions like, “Under what circumstances, if ever, am I willing to put a stranger’s life at risk? How much risk?” (If you’ve ever driven a car around others or gone outside when you have the sniffles, I’m sorry to inform you that you’ve already risked strangers’ lives.)

It’s terrifying for me to see people not respond to this, still unaware of the severity.

Young does not mean immune

A (presumably Italian) doctor writing under anonymity for Newsweek last week was diplomatic:

Catching the virus can mess up your life in many, many more ways than just straight-up killing you. “We are all young"—okay. "Even if we get the bug, we will survive"—fantastic. How about needing four months of physical therapy before you even feel human again. Or getting scar tissue in your lungs and having your activity level restricted for the rest of your life. Not to mention having every chance of catching another bug in hospital, while you’re being treated or waiting to get checked with an immune system distracted even by the false alarm of an ordinary flu. No travel for leisure or business is worth this risk.

Now, odds are, you might catch coronavirus and might not even get symptoms. Great. Good for you. Very bad for everyone else, from your own grandparents to the random older person who got on the subway train a stop or two after you got off. You’re fine, you’re barely even sneezing or coughing, but you’re walking around and you kill a couple of old ladies without even knowing it. Is that fair? You tell me.

“Young and unafraid of Coronavirus? Good for you. Now stop killing people”

This US doctor also speaking anonymously was more blunt: 

“It first struck me how different it was when I saw my first coronavirus patient go bad. I was like, Holy shit, this is not the flu. Watching this relatively young guy, gasping for air, pink frothy secretions coming out of his tube.

The ventilator should have been doing the work of breathing but he was still gasping for air, moving his mouth, moving his body, struggling. We had to restrain him. With all the coronavirus patients, we’ve had to restrain them. They really hyperventilate, really struggle to breathe. When you’re in that mindstate of struggling to breathe and delirious with fever, you don’t know when someone is trying to help you, so you’ll try to rip the breathing tube out because you feel it is choking you, but you are drowning.”

Image via SkyNews: Coronavirus: Italy's hardest-hit city wants you to see how COVID-19 is affecting its hospitals

Lack of global coordinated response

It’s confusing to figure out whether your government is doing the right thing, or over/under-reacting to the situation. And the lack of well-coordinated global response to this outside of scientific research is even more confusing. 

Dennis Carroll, virologist (and the former head of a USAID program that sought to identify animal viruses that might infect humans and to head off new pandemics):

In 2005, during the avian influenza, George W. Bush was on the phone routinely with leaders around the world about how to coordinate a global response. Barack Obama did the same in 2009 for the second H1N1 pandemic and in 2014 for the Ebola epidemic. You saw presidential leadership step up and act as a catalyst for forging a global way forward for a global problem. It has been absolute silence in this White House.

Populism here and across Europe and elsewhere has fragmented the global networks, which had been so instrumental in being able to bring together a global approach to problems like this. I’ve not seen any reports coming out of the White House that showed that as China was struggling to bring the virus under control, our president reached out to President Xi to talk about how to coordinate action. I’m stunned by the absolute absence of global dialogue for what is a global event. In Europe right now, you would never believe that there was a European Union. From where I sit, it looks like every country is making this up as they go along. Italy isn’t coordinating with Brussels. Brussels isn’t coordinating with Germany. There’s no coherent regional approach to this problem in Europe, even though they have a platform for doing it.

The Man Who saw the Pandemic Coming

Yuval Noah Harari noted the same thing: it took the G7 over a week to get on a conference call, and not much came out of it. 

People share worse fake news than organizations

Who needs deepfakes and AI-generated images and text when you have plain text? According to an article by the FT, attackers are returning to old-school, text message-based spam campaigns to spread coronavirus disinformation. And it's working. When everyone’s emotionally volatile, the means don’t have to be that sophisticated.

On other platforms, I can’t even image what the shit show looks like on Facebook if Mark Zuckerberg did a press conference to say this:

"We are seeing hoaxes that are basically encouraging people who are sick to not get treatment, or to not act in ways that are going to protect the people around them, or in some ways to do things that will be actively harmful," he said. "There is one hoax going around that, if you think you have this, drink bleach and that will cure it. That’s terrible. That’s obviously going to lead to imminent harm if you do that."

On the other hand, Morocco is arresting people for spreading fake news. Soon in a country near you:

The most recent arrest was of a 48-year-old woman who was taken into custody on Wednesday after denying the existence of the coronavirus on her YouTube channel and urging her compatriots to ignore precautionary measures.

[douglasacogan]

Attorney General Sessions laments state recidivism data and impact of Johnson ACCA ruling

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today delivered these remarks to the National Sheriffs' Association Annual Conference, and his comments covered lots of criminal justice ground that I do not recall him previously speaking about directly. The speech is worth reading in full because of all it reveals about how AG Sessions' looks at crime and criminals, and here are just some of the comments that caught my attention:

This is a difficult job, but when rules are fairly and consistently enforced, life is better for all — particularly for our poor and minority communities.  Most people obey the law. They just want to live their lives. They’re not going to go out and commit violent crimes or felonies.

As my former boss, President Reagan used to say, “Most serious crimes are the work of a relatively small group of hardened criminals.”  That is just as true today as it was back then.  That’s why we’ve got to be smart and fair about how we identify criminals and who we put behind bars and for how long....

I want to call your attention to something important.  A few weeks ago, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics released a new report on the recidivism rate of inmates released from state prisons in 30 states.  This is the longest-term study that BJS has ever done on recidivism and perhaps the largest.  It was designed by the previous administration. The results are clear and very important. The results are of historic importance.  The reality is grim indeed.

The study found that 83 percent of 60,000 state prisoners released in 2005 were arrested again within nine years.  That’s five out of every six.  The study shows that two-thirds of those — a full 68 percent — were arrested within the first three years. Almost half were arrested within a year — one year — of being released.

The study estimates that the 400,000 state prisoners released in 2005 were arrested nearly 2 million times during the nine-year period — an average of five arrests each.  Virtually none of these released prisoners were arrested merely for probation or parole violations: 99 percent of those arrested during the 9-year follow-up period were arrested for something other than a probation or parole violation.

In many cases, former inmates were arrested for an offense at least as serious — if not more so — as the crime that got them in jail in the first place. It will not surprise you that this is often true for drug offenders.

Many have thought that most drug offenders are young experimenters or persons who made a mistake.  But the study shows a deeper concern.  Seventy-seven percent of all released drug offenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within nine years.  Presumably, many were arrested for drug crimes also.  Importantly, nearly half of those arrests were for a violent crime. We can’t give up....

This tells us that recidivism is no little matter.  It is a fact of life that must be understood.  But overall, the good news is that the professionals in law enforcement know what works in crime.  We’ve been studying this and working on this for 40 years.

From 1964 to 1980, the overall violent crime rate tripled.  Robbery tripled. Rape tripled.  Aggravated assault nearly tripled. Murder doubled.  And then, from 1991 to 2014, violent crime dropped by half. Murder dropped by half.  So did aggravated assault.  Rape decreased by more than a third, and robbery plummeted by nearly two-thirds.

That wasn’t a coincidence.  Between that big rise in crime and that big decline in crime, President Reagan and the great Attorney General Ed Meese went to work.  There was the elimination of parole, the Speedy Trial Act, the elimination of bail on appeal, increased bail for dangerous criminals before trial, the issuing of sentencing guidelines, and in certain cases, mandatory minimum sentences.

We increased funding for the DEA, FBI, ATF, and federal prosecutors. And most states and cities followed Reagan’s lead.  Professionalism and training dramatically increased in local law enforcement.  These were the biggest changes in law enforcement since the founding of this country.  These laws were critical to re-establishing public safety.

When a criminal knows with certainty that he is facing hard time, he is a lot more willing to confess and cooperate with prosecutors.  On the other hand, when the sentence is uncertain and up to the whims of the judge, criminals are a lot more willing to take a chance....

The certainty of a significant and fixed sentence helps us get criminals to hand over their bosses, the kingpins and the cartel leaders — and helps remove entire gangs and criminals from the street.  Left unaddressed these organizations only get richer, stronger, more arrogant and violent placing whole neighborhoods in fear.

Law enforcement officers understand that. Sheriff Eavenson and NSA have been critical allies in the fight to preserve mandatory minimums for a long time — and I want to thank you for your strong advocacy.  Many doubt their value.  Maybe this is obvious, but a recidivist can’t hurt the community if he is incarcerated.  A lot of people who would have committed crimes in the 1990s and 2000s didn’t because they were locked up.  Murders were cut in half after 1980....

Look, our goal is not to fill up the prisons.  Our goal is to reduce crime and to keep every American safe.  We should not as a policy keep persons in prison longer than necessary. But clear and certain punishment does in fact make America safer....

One of the most important laws that President Reagan signed into law was the Armed Career Criminal Act.  That’s the law that requires a minimum 15- year sentence for felons caught with a firearm after their third robbery or burglary conviction.

These are not so-called “low-level, nonviolent drug offenders” who are being picked on.  These are criminals who have committed multiple serious offenses.  In 2015 — after 30 years on the books — one critical line of the law was struck down by the Supreme Court as being too vague.

But because of this impactful ruling, every federal prosecutor lost one of their most valuable tools and they ask me for help regularly.  Just one example is Jeffrey Giddings of Oregon.  He had more than 20 convictions since 1991. He was let out of jail after the Court ruling and only 18 days later shot a police officer and held two fast food employees hostage.  He has now been sentenced to another 30 years in prison.  And the last thing he did before being put back in jail was to lash out in a tirade of profanity at police....

More than 1,400 criminals — each convicted of three felonies — have been let out of jail in the three years since the Court ruling.  And so far, more than 600 have been arrested again.

On average, these 600 criminals have been arrested three times since 2015.  A majority of those who have been out of prison for two years have already been arrested again. Here in Louisiana, nearly half of the released ACCA offenders released because of this court ruling have already been rearrested or returned to federal custody....

In this noble calling, all of us in this room are leaders. The NSA is fulfilling its responsibility in this regard. We must communicate sound principles to our policy leaders and to the American people when it comes to reducing crime:

A small number of people commit most of the crimes;

Those who are jailed for crimes are very likely to commit more crimes—often escalating to violent crimes — after their release; and

Congress and our legislatures must consider legislation that protects the public by ensuring that we incapacitate those criminals and deter others

And so the point is this: we should always be looking for effective and proven ways to reduce recidivism, but we must also recognize that simply reducing sentences without reducing recidivism unfairly creates more victims.

This Department of Justice under President Trump is committed to working with you to deliver justice for crime victims and consequences to criminals. We want to be a force multiplier for you.

The President has ordered us to back the women and men in blue and to reduce crime in America. And that’s what we intend to do. We embrace that mission and enforce the law with you.

There is a bit of rich irony to the Attorney General extolling the importance and value of "clear and certain punishment" just before lamenting a SCOTUS ruling that struck down a punishment as too vague to be clear or certain in any way.  That irony aside, I am not at all surprised to see him highlight the depressing new data, first blogged in this prior post, revealing terrible recidivism numbers among those released from state prisons in 2005.  I am not sure from where the ACCA-post-Johnson-release recidivism data comes, but I am sure all these numbers fuel the AG's belief that we should always be inclined to (over-)incarcerate in efforts to improve public safety.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247011 http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2018/06/attorney-general-sessions-laments-state-recidivism-data-and-impact-of-johnson-acca-ruling.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

[benrleeusa]

Attorney General Sessions laments state recidivism data and impact of Johnson ACCA ruling

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today delivered these remarks to the National Sheriffs' Association Annual Conference, and his comments covered lots of criminal justice ground that I do not recall him previously speaking about directly. The speech is worth reading in full because of all it reveals about how AG Sessions' looks at crime and criminals, and here are just some of the comments that caught my attention:

This is a difficult job, but when rules are fairly and consistently enforced, life is better for all — particularly for our poor and minority communities.  Most people obey the law. They just want to live their lives. They’re not going to go out and commit violent crimes or felonies.

As my former boss, President Reagan used to say, “Most serious crimes are the work of a relatively small group of hardened criminals.”  That is just as true today as it was back then.  That’s why we’ve got to be smart and fair about how we identify criminals and who we put behind bars and for how long....

I want to call your attention to something important.  A few weeks ago, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics released a new report on the recidivism rate of inmates released from state prisons in 30 states.  This is the longest-term study that BJS has ever done on recidivism and perhaps the largest.  It was designed by the previous administration. The results are clear and very important. The results are of historic importance.  The reality is grim indeed.

The study found that 83 percent of 60,000 state prisoners released in 2005 were arrested again within nine years.  That’s five out of every six.  The study shows that two-thirds of those — a full 68 percent — were arrested within the first three years. Almost half were arrested within a year — one year — of being released.

The study estimates that the 400,000 state prisoners released in 2005 were arrested nearly 2 million times during the nine-year period — an average of five arrests each.  Virtually none of these released prisoners were arrested merely for probation or parole violations: 99 percent of those arrested during the 9-year follow-up period were arrested for something other than a probation or parole violation.

In many cases, former inmates were arrested for an offense at least as serious — if not more so — as the crime that got them in jail in the first place. It will not surprise you that this is often true for drug offenders.

Many have thought that most drug offenders are young experimenters or persons who made a mistake.  But the study shows a deeper concern.  Seventy-seven percent of all released drug offenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within nine years.  Presumably, many were arrested for drug crimes also.  Importantly, nearly half of those arrests were for a violent crime. We can’t give up....

This tells us that recidivism is no little matter.  It is a fact of life that must be understood.  But overall, the good news is that the professionals in law enforcement know what works in crime.  We’ve been studying this and working on this for 40 years.

From 1964 to 1980, the overall violent crime rate tripled.  Robbery tripled. Rape tripled.  Aggravated assault nearly tripled. Murder doubled.  And then, from 1991 to 2014, violent crime dropped by half. Murder dropped by half.  So did aggravated assault.  Rape decreased by more than a third, and robbery plummeted by nearly two-thirds.

That wasn’t a coincidence.  Between that big rise in crime and that big decline in crime, President Reagan and the great Attorney General Ed Meese went to work.  There was the elimination of parole, the Speedy Trial Act, the elimination of bail on appeal, increased bail for dangerous criminals before trial, the issuing of sentencing guidelines, and in certain cases, mandatory minimum sentences.

We increased funding for the DEA, FBI, ATF, and federal prosecutors. And most states and cities followed Reagan’s lead.  Professionalism and training dramatically increased in local law enforcement.  These were the biggest changes in law enforcement since the founding of this country.  These laws were critical to re-establishing public safety.

When a criminal knows with certainty that he is facing hard time, he is a lot more willing to confess and cooperate with prosecutors.  On the other hand, when the sentence is uncertain and up to the whims of the judge, criminals are a lot more willing to take a chance....

The certainty of a significant and fixed sentence helps us get criminals to hand over their bosses, the kingpins and the cartel leaders — and helps remove entire gangs and criminals from the street.  Left unaddressed these organizations only get richer, stronger, more arrogant and violent placing whole neighborhoods in fear.

Law enforcement officers understand that. Sheriff Eavenson and NSA have been critical allies in the fight to preserve mandatory minimums for a long time — and I want to thank you for your strong advocacy.  Many doubt their value.  Maybe this is obvious, but a recidivist can’t hurt the community if he is incarcerated.  A lot of people who would have committed crimes in the 1990s and 2000s didn’t because they were locked up.  Murders were cut in half after 1980....

Look, our goal is not to fill up the prisons.  Our goal is to reduce crime and to keep every American safe.  We should not as a policy keep persons in prison longer than necessary. But clear and certain punishment does in fact make America safer....

One of the most important laws that President Reagan signed into law was the Armed Career Criminal Act.  That’s the law that requires a minimum 15- year sentence for felons caught with a firearm after their third robbery or burglary conviction.

These are not so-called “low-level, nonviolent drug offenders” who are being picked on.  These are criminals who have committed multiple serious offenses.  In 2015 — after 30 years on the books — one critical line of the law was struck down by the Supreme Court as being too vague.

But because of this impactful ruling, every federal prosecutor lost one of their most valuable tools and they ask me for help regularly.  Just one example is Jeffrey Giddings of Oregon.  He had more than 20 convictions since 1991. He was let out of jail after the Court ruling and only 18 days later shot a police officer and held two fast food employees hostage.  He has now been sentenced to another 30 years in prison.  And the last thing he did before being put back in jail was to lash out in a tirade of profanity at police....

More than 1,400 criminals — each convicted of three felonies — have been let out of jail in the three years since the Court ruling.  And so far, more than 600 have been arrested again.

On average, these 600 criminals have been arrested three times since 2015.  A majority of those who have been out of prison for two years have already been arrested again. Here in Louisiana, nearly half of the released ACCA offenders released because of this court ruling have already been rearrested or returned to federal custody....

In this noble calling, all of us in this room are leaders. The NSA is fulfilling its responsibility in this regard. We must communicate sound principles to our policy leaders and to the American people when it comes to reducing crime:

A small number of people commit most of the crimes;

Those who are jailed for crimes are very likely to commit more crimes—often escalating to violent crimes — after their release; and

Congress and our legislatures must consider legislation that protects the public by ensuring that we incapacitate those criminals and deter others

And so the point is this: we should always be looking for effective and proven ways to reduce recidivism, but we must also recognize that simply reducing sentences without reducing recidivism unfairly creates more victims.

This Department of Justice under President Trump is committed to working with you to deliver justice for crime victims and consequences to criminals. We want to be a force multiplier for you.

The President has ordered us to back the women and men in blue and to reduce crime in America. And that’s what we intend to do. We embrace that mission and enforce the law with you.

There is a bit of rich irony to the Attorney General extolling the importance and value of "clear and certain punishment" just before lamenting a SCOTUS ruling that struck down a punishment as too vague to be clear or certain in any way.  That irony aside, I am not at all surprised to see him highlight the depressing new data, first blogged in this prior post, revealing terrible recidivism numbers among those released from state prisons in 2005.  I am not sure from where the ACCA-post-Johnson-release recidivism data comes, but I am sure all these numbers fuel the AG's belief that we should always be inclined to (over-)incarcerate in efforts to improve public safety.

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/british-spy-skripal-hoax/

The British Spy Skripal hoax

by Scott Humor

In regards to the British government-staged hoax around the persona of retired British spy Sergey Skripal: If TV police dramas told us anything it’s the principle of Corpus delicti, or “no body, no crime.” It’s the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.

Since February, the British government has been staging a bizarre theater employing dozens of actors dressed in police and firefighters uniforms and colorful hazmat suits, all to make the appearance of a crime being investigated.

Just one fact is enough to understand that an entire “the Skripals poison crime” has never took place. This so called “nerve agent” has never been placed on the OPCW list of banned chemical weapons because it has never existed.

It’s non-existence was confirmed by Dr Robin Black, until recently he was a head of the detection laboratory at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Porton Down). He wrote in his review: “… emphasizes that there is no independent confirmation of Mirzayanov’s claims about the chemical properties of these compounds: Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)

Just like “Novichok” has never existed, no one was poisoned, nothing has happened. It’s a staged provocation and a hoax.

It is a typical war game scenario, in which the game “viruses,” or bits of fake information, were planted years ago, and now being used as “evidence” in a staged “crime.” They tell us that nothing proves today crime as a thirty-year-old newspaper article.

Just accept that everything the British government says is a lie.

For those who want to understand methods and techniques involved in staging these sort of augmented reality war game operations, I refer to my war games illustrated manual, “Pokemon in Ukraine.” The aim of any war game is to engage non-players in it. First step is to con people into accepting that staged events as real, or as Zakharova names this process “a legitimization of previously fabricated information.”

It’s been a month since the hoax around the British spy Skripal started. We still have no hard evidence that an alleged attack ever took place. We don’t have the victims. No third party medical tests, no CC footage of the victims, no official meetings with the victims, no samples of alleged poison; the list goes on and on.

During the briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 15, 2018, she said:  “Britain has not provided any data to anyone,” The truth is obviously being concealed. No one is providing information about the incident to anyone.”

In her interview to the newspaper Argumenti (Arguments), Zakharova said that either the British disclose all the facts, or “it’s all lies, from the beginning to the end.”

This stance of the Minister of Foreign Affairs demonstrates a tectonic shift from a willingness of Russia’s government to play along and accept war games as real, as it was in case of a staged war in Ukraine in 2014.

On Sunday, I received an email from a famous military defense attorney, Christopher Black, which I am posting here with his permission.

Chris wrote to me a few questions from a defense lawyer.

“Questions to the British Prime Minster from a citizen:

You state Skripal and daughter were poisoned – then where are they? Where are photos of them? Where are the medical reports stating what is wrong with them and their present condition?

You state Russians did this – fine then, where are the persons that administered it, how did they do it, where did they do it and when did they do it?

You state Russians are involved – but you have not put out any profile of any suspects nor have you put out a dragnet for any likely suspects who, if you are right and they did do this, are still then roaming around the country doing who knows what.

You state this is a national emergency and have police and army in strange suits on some streets but you have not put police and army elements at the airports and ports to try to catch the culprits to prevent them leaving the country.

Having failed to do these obvious things the only conclusion to be drawn is that you are lying to the British people.

We reject Russia was involved for obvious reasons. Therefore we cannot accept the rest of their claims either without evidence. All we know is that two people are claimed to have been poisoned. that is all we know – a claim.”  Chris

He also added: “Where is the evidence that an nerve agent was used at all aside from there say so? Now, they have people chasing their tails arguing whether it is this agent or that agent, the various affects of them etc. etc, when we have no evidence that a nerve agent was used.”

“We have no evidence anything ever took place. Litvinenko – photos of him in a hospital bed every week for months. As for these two – we don’t even know if they exist, or were eliminated, or who knows what.”

“Again, I think this line of inquiry is pointless unless and until we see evidence of a nerve agent was used at all.

We should not accept any element of their story. We have to question every element of their story – for once you accept one part of it you will be stuck with the rest.”

I only want to add that at the end of this SITREP you can find a list of articles and research papers conducted by extremely smart and knowledgeable people and directed to the government of the UK, all telling them what they did and said wrong. I have to say with my deepest regret that what all these wonderful people have done is to provide the British government with free research and resources to stage another chemical attack hoax, only on much larger scale. 

It’s nothing new for the British government to make similar accusations against Russia. Actually the United Kingdom has a long history of using its chemical weapons against Russians, while there is NO evidence that Russians had even used chemical weapons against the British Crown subjects.

Boris Johnson walks in Churchill’s footsteps by accusing Russia in using and stockpiling chemical weapons.

The British Chemical Warfare against the Russians

One of the earliest used chemical weapon in human history was cacodyl oxide. It was proposed as a chemical weapon by the British Empire during the Crimean War against Russia, along with the significantly more potent blood agent, cacodyl cyanide.

During the invasion of Russia by the British Empire and its allies, France, Sardinia and the Ottoman Empire, in 1853-1856 known as the Crimean war,  the British army used sulfur dioxide during the siege of Sevastopol in August 1855. In May 1854 the British and French fleets bombarded Odessa with some “stinky bombs” containing some kind of poisonous substances.

During the invasion of Russia in 1918-1922, the Allied troops of the British, American, Canadian and French armies under the British command used the chemical weapons in Archangelsk in February 1919, and in August 27, 1919, near the village of Yemtsa, 120 miles South of Arkhangelsk, British artillery opened fire on the positions of the Red Army fighting with the foreign invaders. After the explosions green cloud covered the position of the Russian troops, Russian soldiers trapped in a cloud vomited blood and then fell unconscious and died. The British forces used CW called adamsite (dihydrophenarsazine).

“The strongest case for Churchill as chemical warfare enthusiast involves Russia, and was made by Giles Milton in The Guardian on 1 September 2013. Milton wrote that in 1919, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret “M Device,” an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine [DM]. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it “the most effective chemical weapon ever devised.” Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. “If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda.”

According to Giles Milton, the author of Russian Roulette: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin’s Global Plot (2013): “Trials at Porton suggested that the M Device was indeed a terrible new weapon. The active ingredient in the M Device was diphenylaminechloroarsine, a highly toxic chemical. A thermogenerator was used to convert this chemical into a dense smoke that would incapacitate any soldier unfortunate enough to inhale it… The symptoms were violent and deeply unpleasant. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant and crippling fatigue were the most common features…. Victims who were not killed outright were struck down by lassitude and left depressed for long periods.”

The use of chemical weapons against Russians was supported in this by Sir Keith Price, the head of the chemical warfare, at Porton Down.

A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious. The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped.“

“Because an enemy who has perpetrated every conceivable barbarity is at present unable, through his ignorance, to manufacture poisoned gas, is that any reason why our troops should be prevented from taking full advantage of their weapons? The use of these gas shell[s] having become universal during the great war, I consider that we are fully entitled to use them against anyone pending the general review of the laws of war which no doubt will follow the Peace Conference.”

This was how Churchill justified the use of the chemical weapons during the Atlanta invasion of Russia in 1919, claiming that it was Russians, who “perpetrated every conceivable barbarity,” despite the fact that it was Russia who was invaded by the Allied armies and Russian people who were killed in millions.

How is the invasion of 1919 similar to what the British government is doing today? How did the British government justify its use of the chemical weapons against Russian villages? What exactly Russians did to deserve this?

Churchill ordered General Ironside, in command of the Allied forces, to make “fullest use” of the chemical weapon because:  “Bolsheviks have been using gas shells against Allied troops at Archangel.”

But where would Russians get those weapons?

John Simkin in Winston Churchill and Chemical Weapons writes:

“Someone leaked this information and Churchill was forced to answer questions on the subject in the House of Commons on 29th May 1919. Churchill insisted that it was the Red Army who was using chemical warfare: “I do not understand why, if they use poison gas, they should object to having it used against them. It is a very right and proper thing to employ poison gas against them.” His statement was untrue. There is no evidence of Bolshevik forces using gas against British troops and it was Churchill himself who had authorised its initial use some six weeks earlier.”

The British repeated their use of chemical weapons against Russians on 27th August, 1919. when British Airco DH.9 bombers dropped gas bombs on the Russian village of Emtsa. According to one source: “Bolsheviks soldiers fled as the green gas spread. Those who could not escape, vomited blood before losing consciousness.” Other villages targeted included Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. During this period 506 gas bombs were dropped on the Russians. [John Simkin ]

But that wasn’t the end of the war crimes of the British Crown against Russia. After withdrawal of the British troops in October 1919,  the remaining chemical weapons were considered to be too dangerous to be sent back to Britain and therefore they were dumped into the White Sea. The last time someone in Russia came across the British chemical weapons was in 2017 a man from Archangelsk found several British shells with iprit, which remains potent after one hundred years.

So, the British government has a proven historical record of laying false accusations on Russia accusing Russia in using chemical weapons anagst the British subjects, while using it against Russians. .

How was the 1919 false flag operation organized?

Excerpt from a book Churchill’s Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia, 1918-1920 By Clifford Kinvig, page 128

“On January 27,  major Gilmore, a forward commander there, reported that “the enemy used a certain percentage of gas shells with no effect.” Ironside realized that this was a significant development, if only small in scale, and immediately notified the War Office: “Reports that 3 gas shells fired by enemy; my 1 gas officer has gone up to investigate.  This is first suggestion of enemy using gas in any form, but if it is verified I shall ask for some gas officers and means of repair for masks.  There is a plentiful supply of latter here.”

Three gas shells were hardly a major event, and Ironside’s reaction, it will noted, was entirely defensive. Not so the response from Churchill. The same day, without waiting for confirmation, he made this “first use” clear to the nation at large in a formal press statement and at the same time notified Ironside that the ship would be sailing in the middle of the month, loaded with gas shells for his various artillery pieces.  Ironside still demurred, asking for instructions, since he had not yet verified the report that the Bolsheviks had indeed used the weapon.  Plainly, the general had residual inhibitions. The clearest of directives from the War Office, however, soon followed. On 7 February the COGs at Archangel, Murmansk and Constantinople received a message in cipher from the Director of Military Operations: “Fullest use is now to be made of gas shell with your forces, or supply by us to Russian forces, as Bolsheviks have been using gas shells against Allied troops in Archangel.” The Secretary of State had wasted no time.

“Some critics have claimed that Churchill, in his keenness to use gas, falsely charged the Bolsheviks with using it first.”

The false flag attack was very simple. There were two unconfirmed reports that poisonous gas shells were used against the British forces. The press carried the reports, prompted by the War Office. Same day, the Director of Military Operations issued the order to  use the chemical weapons.

When it became known, and people started accusing Churchill and the Allied forces command in using chemical weapons against Russians under false pretence,  Churchill issued a memorandum

Churchill’s 1919 War Office Memorandum May 12, 1919

“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”

Before the WWII the Britain also used chemical weapons in Afghanistan, India, and Mesopotamia.

————————————————————————————————————-

LINKS TO RELATED SOURCES AND RESEARCH

An open letter to the British MP from my old friend and sometimes editor Gerold Rupprecht:

“Dear Prime Minister Theresa May,

I ask you to quickly reverse course and create a constructive relationship with the Russian government.

I watched your speech in parliament with dismay, regarding the Skripal nerve-gas attempted assassination case declaring a verdict decided before proper investigation.

Mr. Skripal was not ordered to death or life in prison, but 13 years in jail by a Russian military court, subsequently released in a swap with the USA and pardoned, making the hypothesis of Mr. Putin or anyone else in Russian government ordering his execution preposterous.

You seem to be unapologetically denying objective reality in the best tradition of George Orwell’s “doublethink” (in his book 1984) where only appearances, not reality, matter.

A simple drive by shooting, stabbing or accident is much easier to arrange and almost impossible to trace. It is not as if Mr. Skripal was hard to have access to (he was still a Russian citizen, had a passport and a pension to collect).

The CIA preferred to contract out the assassination of  Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussain in Beirut to local “Christian” allies, never mind the more than 80 innocents killed in the process. Assuming Russians wanted Mr. Skripal dead, arranging a robbery and stabbing is probably a lot easier. It is self-evident there is no good reason Russians would want him dead.

Your criminal and intelligence experts all understand the above.

Do you honestly want us to believe there is a secret lab in Russia with crazy scientists that instead of doing tests on rats prefer high profile political activists , that they like to try out polonium, nerve gas, sarin, dioxin, mercury, toxic flowers and unknown poisons, just before important political events such as Russia’s presidential election March 18th, 2018?

The mentioned gas “Novichok”, was manufactured in Uzbekistan in a factory that was later cleaned up by a US company. Coincidence?

I refuse to think that you are not too bright or poorly read. One has to make a determined effort to not be capable of logical thought and not be informed about the basic facts of the case.

Operation Gladio and the strategy of tension showed the NATO terror organization, responsible for the Bologna train station bombing and other false flag massacres such as the Baader-Meinhof Red Army faction or Red Brigades in Italy (not the Soviet KGB). Never mind Operation Northwoods.

The same kind of people who committed the “Gladio” crimes would be my prime suspects (MI6, CIA, Ukraine’s SBU, any combination of the aforementioned). Each one of these events was followed by an enormous mult-national propaganda campaign. If you have forgotten, it is willful ignorance on your part.

It appears as if you want to maintain the long established track-record of bloody false-flag operations in pursuit of political objectives, to give a pretext to an illegal military aggression.

After the CIA, which tried to kill Fidel Castro more than 600 times they would never kill a Russian in the UK, out of respect for international law?

People who have no problems blowing up a large train station, bringing down three buildings in Manhattan, would they have any hesitation to kill an ex-spy to justify further hostile actions against another country to preserve their dominance?

You may want a quick reminder,

“Professional standards require intelligence professionals to lie, hide information, or use covert tactics to protect their “cover,” access, sources, and responsibilities. The Central Intelligence Agency expects, teaches, encourages, and controls these tactics so that the lies are consistent and supported (“backstopped”). The CIA expects intelligence officers to teach others to lie, deceive, steal, launder money, and perform a variety of other activities that would certainly be illegal if practiced in the United States. They call these tactics “tradecraft,” and intelligence officers practice them in all the world’s intelligence services” -Hulnick & Mattausch, “Ethics and Morality in U.S. Secret Intelligence”

It seems the web of lies is falling apart, the attempts to backstop previous lies are getting desperate.

Your government’s official narrative is the height of idiocy.

Changing course to improve relations with Russia can and will improve your political support. It is obvious you have much to gain as well as your countrymen.

Sincerely,

Gerold Rupprecht

—————————————————————————

NEWS IN BRIEF AND USEFUL LINKS

On Not Being Refuted – Several million people have now read my articles on the lack of evidence of Russian government guilt for the Salisbury attack.

Findings of 2016 Iranian study on novichok derivatives sent to OPCW

First Recorded Successful Novichok Synthesis was in 2016 – By Iran, in Cooperation with the OPCW

 The brief history of British spies, “virgin queen worshipers,” and their bizarre occult traditions in the “Anatomyzing Divinity,” Jay Dyer Interview with Author James Kelley. Starts at 50 minutes. Both are renowned authors in the Eastern Orthodox Theology

The curious case of the Salisbury poisonings

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Rossiya’24 TV channel on Saturday: “Neither in the territory of the Soviet Union, nor in the Soviet era, nor in the Russian Federation has ever been performed research named directly or codenamed as Novichok,” she said.

‘I Think Skripal Attempted Murder Staged by US, UK Intel’ – Political Scientist

“Russia Did It!” Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com, 

Zerohedge reposted the article.

Some readers comments are very helpful, like Looney’s timetable of alleged events pointing to a complete absurdity of the UK government’ claims.

JohninMK provided excerpts from Craig Murray’s articles on the matter. 

Russian to Judgment

Of A Type Developed By Liars

Former MI6 spy Steele to give evidence in ‘dossier’ libel case

US training Syria militants for false flag chemical attack as basis for airstrikes – Russian MoD

Moscow expels 23 UK diplomats & shuts British Council in response to ‘provocative moves’

‘Not proxy’: Lavrov says US, British, French special forces ‘directly involved’ in Syria war

TASS just posted a statement that this agent was never developed or manufactured in Russia.

‘It’s nonsense’ to think Russia tried to poison Skripals ahead of elections & World Cup – Putin

Section II. Militarily Significant Aspects of Chemical Agents

——————

Scott Humor

Director of Research and Development

author of The enemy of the State

POKÉMON IN UKRAINE: Tactical War Game Introduction MANUAL (War Game Manuals Book

In case you have forgotten what happened in Ukraine, this book should refresh your memory with the incredibly precise and humorous chronicles: ANTHOLOGY OF RUSSIAN HUMOR: FROM MAIDAN TO TRUMP

Follow me on twitter

[nancyedimick]

Is the Supreme Court allergic to math?

The Supreme Court in 2012. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

Yes, says Oliver Roeder,  in an interesting essay at fivethirtyeight.com. At least some of the justices, he suggests, have “a reluctance — even an allergy — to taking math and statistics seriously,” as evidenced most recently by their questions and comments at the Oct. 3 oral argument in the Supreme Court’s Gill v. Whitford “partisan gerrymandering” case.

As he himself acknowledges, he’s hardly the first to make the suggestion; there’s a rather substantial library of academic commentary on “innumeracy” at the court (and, more generally, throughout the judiciary). But I think he’s correct in pointing out the rather serious consequences this might have in the particular context of the court’s deliberations in Gill.

I have long been struck by the fact that it is unfortunately well within the norms of our legal culture — among lawyers, judges, law professors and law students — to treat mathematics and related disciplines as kinds of communicable diseases with which we want no part.  I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a student or colleague or member of the bar say something like, “Oh, math! I don’t do math — that’s why I went to law school!” It is well known that the surest way to place three-quarters of your audience into shutdown mode in a law school class or legal conference is to introduce a formula, or a graph, or the results of some calculation.

Gill, as most of you are probably aware, involves a challenge to the Republican-dominated Wisconsin legislature’s 2011 redistricting map, a map that, according to the three-judge panel below, was both intended to, and did, systematically disadvantage Democratic voters and advantage Republican voters across the state. As evidence of the intent of the map’s drafter to “secure Republican control of the legislature for the decennial period,” the court noted that the redistricting committee had prepared a number of different maps, and that the one finally chosen was the one that, in the opinion of those who had constructed it, was, statistically speaking, the one most likely to produce a Republican-dominated legislature.

As evidence of the discriminatory effect, the court found that it was “clear that the drafters got what they intended to get” — a map that made it “more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats.” In the 2012 election, Republicans won 48.6 percent of the statewide vote, which gave them 61 percent of the seats in the state’s 99-seat assembly, and in the 2014 election, Republicans took 52 percent of the statewide vote and ended up with 64 percent of Wisconsin State Assembly seats. [Put differently, when the Democrats received 51.4 percent of the statewide vote in 2012, they ended up with 39 assembly seats; when the Republicans received around the same percentage (52 percent) in 2014, they ended up with 63 seats — a 24-seat disparity.]

Of course, one would hardly expect perfectly proportional results — 52 percent of the overall vote leading to 52 percent of the legislative seats — from any districting map; and “partisan gerrymandering” is, to some degree at least, an inherent feature of any system (like the one that pertains in most states) that puts the legislature in charge of constructing the maps. So the case, in essence, poses the question: How much is too much? And how do we know whether and when it’s too much?

Now, I’m not sure I agree with Roeder when he says that the case “hinges on math”; one could imagine the court declining to engage with the “how much is too much?” question on any number of grounds (such as the plaintiff’s standing to raise the claim, or the “justiciability” of political gerrymandering claims in general).

But it is certainly true that “how much is too much?” questions often (and sometimes only) can be profitably analyzed with the aid of mathematical tools. If you want to know if a building exceeds the local building-height limit, you pull out a ruler. It’s useful to have some way to measure the extent to which the Wisconsin map does, or does not, entrench Republican control by giving Republican votes greater “weight” than Democratic votes.

COMMENTERS PLEASE NOTE: You do not have to remind me that when they are in power, Democrats “do the same thing.” I recognize that; that is precisely what makes this case so important. Power will attempt to entrench itself by all possible means, and that is as objectionable when coming from either direction on the political spectrum. This is not a partisan issue; it is one that anyone who cares about democratic processes should care about; it it’s not your ox being gored today, it will be tomorrow, I promise you.

The court below used a number of such measures, all of which demonstrated the bias incorporated into the Wisconsin maps: the “mean-median” index, the “partisan bias” measure, and the much-discussed (and terribly-named) “efficiency gap” (EG). The EG measures the number of “wasted votes”; votes that would not have affected the outcome of the election had they not been cast. [For example, all votes for a candidate who received less than a majority are “wasted” in this sense, as are all votes for the winning candidate in excess of the 50 percent+1 needed to secure the election.] All elections will have large numbers of  wasted votes; the question, though, is whether the map is skewed in a manner that systematically wastes more Democratic votes than Republican votes (as the court below found that it was).

There are any number of questions one might have about how this phenomenon can be measured, and how particularly egregious violations of nonpartisanship can be identified. But the transcript of the oral argument here makes for rather depressing and disheartening reading. To my eyes, the argument shed less light than usual on the hard questions in the case, and the attitude of several of the justices towards the measurement question ranged, as Roeder suggests, from bemused befuddlement to outright hostility. Justices A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch pressed the challengers on whether any metric could ever serve as a constitutional bright line, and  Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was particularly dismissive of what he called — rather oddly — “sociological gobbledygook” in the challengers’ arguments:

[If] you’re the intelligent man on the street and the Court issues a decision, and let’s say the Democrats win, and that person will say: Well, why did the Democrats win And the answer is going to be because EG was greater than 7 percent, where EG is the sigma of party X wasted votes minus the sigma of party Y wasted votes over the sigma of party X votes plus party Y votes. And the intelligent man on the street is going to say that’s a bunch of baloney. … And that is going to cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this Court in the eyes of the country.

That strikes me as a bit disingenuous. There are any number of opinions that the court (and the courts) issue that would leave the “intelligent man on the street” scratching his head, because of the presence of what we might call “legal gobbledygook,” and if Roberts is suggesting that the court’s use of objective mathematical indices of partisan asymmetry would be especially troublesome to the man on the street, I’m not convinced.

I think that perhaps Alito put his finger on what really troubles these metric skeptics: the fear that they will look ridiculous at some point down the road for having chosen a flawed measuring stick:

… gerrymandering is distasteful. But if we are going to impose a standard on the courts, it has to be something that’s manageable and it has to be something that’s sufficiently concrete so that the public reaction to decisions is not going to be the one that the Chief Justice mentioned, that this three-judge court decided this, that — this way because two of the three were appointed by a Republican president or two of the three were appointed by a Democratic President.

[Over the past 30 years] judges, scholars, legal scholars, political  scientists have been looking for a manageable  standard. All right. In 2014, a young researcher (Eric McGhee) publishes a paper, in  which he says that the leading measures previously,  symmetry and responsiveness, are inadequate. But I have discovered the key. I have  discovered the Rosetta stone and it’s — it is  the efficiency gap. And then a year later you bring this  suit and you say: There it is, that is the  constitutional standard. It’s been finally —  after 200 years, it’s been finally discovered in this paper by a young researcher …

Now, is this the time for us to jump into this? Has there been a great body of scholarship that has tested this efficiency gap? It’s full of questions. Mr. [Eric] McGhee’s own amicus brief outlines numerous unanswered questions with — with this theory.

It’s a legitimate concern, I suppose; as in many areas of the law where courts are presented with non-legal “expert” testimony, they should be wary of jumping too quickly into the fray, choosing one contested side over another given that they generally do not possess the tools with which to evaluate the pros and cons of the testimony presented.

But I do hope the court does not rest on this to abdicate its responsibility to craft some meaningful and manageable measures of partisan interference with the electoral process.

Many years ago, John Ely provided, notably in his book “Democracy and Distrust,”what I continue to regard as the most persuasive solution to the fundamental dilemma posed by the institution of (undemocratic) judicial review in a democracy, and the conflicts arising from allowing the most unrepresentative branch of the government the power to overturn actions taken by the more democratic branches. Ely argued, in essence, that the court’s appropriate role is that of referee in the electoral arena. Ordinary electoral processes can be relied on to self-correct, without the need for judicial intervention, most attempts by lawmakers to act outside of constitutional boundaries, except in those circumstances where either (a) those actions corrupt the electoral process itself and are, as a consequence, self-sustaining and uncorrectable, or  (b) the majority is withholding from the minority the protections it affords to itself. Electoral politics can’t correct these problems, which are inherent in the nature of representative democracies, and courts must step in.

The Warren court’s “one man-one vote” decisions of the 1960s and 1970s were, in Ely’s view, paradigmatic examples within the first category. Judicial interference in the reapportionment cases was justified because systematic bias favoring rural voters in state legislatures would never self-correct, because the legislatures were composed of those who had directly benefited from the bias, and the court had to intervene.

And so, too, in the Gill case; Wisconsin’s Democratic voters cannot, through their votes, correct the bias in the Republicans’ favor, because the map was drawn precisely to dis-enable them from being able to do that. It will be a sad day indeed if the court turns away from its constitutional obligation to keep the electoral process a fair one because its collective eyes glaze over at the sight of a mathematical symbol or formula.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/19/is-the-supreme-court-allergic-to-math/

[wolfandpravato]

Is the Supreme Court allergic to math?

The Supreme Court in 2012. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

Yes, says Oliver Roeder,  in an interesting essay at fivethirtyeight.com. At least some of the justices, he suggests, have “a reluctance — even an allergy — to taking math and statistics seriously,” as evidenced most recently by their questions and comments at the Oct. 3 oral argument in the Supreme Court’s Gill v. Whitford “partisan gerrymandering” case.

As he himself acknowledges, he’s hardly the first to make the suggestion; there’s a rather substantial library of academic commentary on “innumeracy” at the court (and, more generally, throughout the judiciary). But I think he’s correct in pointing out the rather serious consequences this might have in the particular context of the court’s deliberations in Gill.

I have long been struck by the fact that it is unfortunately well within the norms of our legal culture — among lawyers, judges, law professors and law students — to treat mathematics and related disciplines as kinds of communicable diseases with which we want no part.  I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a student or colleague or member of the bar say something like, “Oh, math! I don’t do math — that’s why I went to law school!” It is well known that the surest way to place three-quarters of your audience into shutdown mode in a law school class or legal conference is to introduce a formula, or a graph, or the results of some calculation.

Gill, as most of you are probably aware, involves a challenge to the Republican-dominated Wisconsin legislature’s 2011 redistricting map, a map that, according to the three-judge panel below, was both intended to, and did, systematically disadvantage Democratic voters and advantage Republican voters across the state. As evidence of the intent of the map’s drafter to “secure Republican control of the legislature for the decennial period,” the court noted that the redistricting committee had prepared a number of different maps, and that the one finally chosen was the one that, in the opinion of those who had constructed it, was, statistically speaking, the one most likely to produce a Republican-dominated legislature.

As evidence of the discriminatory effect, the court found that it was “clear that the drafters got what they intended to get” — a map that made it “more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats.” In the 2012 election, Republicans won 48.6 percent of the statewide vote, which gave them 61 percent of the seats in the state’s 99-seat assembly, and in the 2014 election, Republicans took 52 percent of the statewide vote and ended up with 64 percent of Wisconsin State Assembly seats. [Put differently, when the Democrats received 51.4 percent of the statewide vote in 2012, they ended up with 39 assembly seats; when the Republicans received around the same percentage (52 percent) in 2014, they ended up with 63 seats — a 24-seat disparity.]

Of course, one would hardly expect perfectly proportional results — 52 percent of the overall vote leading to 52 percent of the legislative seats — from any districting map; and “partisan gerrymandering” is, to some degree at least, an inherent feature of any system (like the one that pertains in most states) that puts the legislature in charge of constructing the maps. So the case, in essence, poses the question: How much is too much? And how do we know whether and when it’s too much?

Now, I’m not sure I agree with Roeder when he says that the case “hinges on math”; one could imagine the court declining to engage with the “how much is too much?” question on any number of grounds (such as the plaintiff’s standing to raise the claim, or the “justiciability” of political gerrymandering claims in general).

But it is certainly true that “how much is too much?” questions often (and sometimes only) can be profitably analyzed with the aid of mathematical tools. If you want to know if a building exceeds the local building-height limit, you pull out a ruler. It’s useful to have some way to measure the extent to which the Wisconsin map does, or does not, entrench Republican control by giving Republican votes greater “weight” than Democratic votes.

COMMENTERS PLEASE NOTE: You do not have to remind me that when they are in power, Democrats “do the same thing.” I recognize that; that is precisely what makes this case so important. Power will attempt to entrench itself by all possible means, and that is as objectionable when coming from either direction on the political spectrum. This is not a partisan issue; it is one that anyone who cares about democratic processes should care about; it it’s not your ox being gored today, it will be tomorrow, I promise you.

The court below used a number of such measures, all of which demonstrated the bias incorporated into the Wisconsin maps: the “mean-median” index, the “partisan bias” measure, and the much-discussed (and terribly-named) “efficiency gap” (EG). The EG measures the number of “wasted votes”; votes that would not have affected the outcome of the election had they not been cast. [For example, all votes for a candidate who received less than a majority are “wasted” in this sense, as are all votes for the winning candidate in excess of the 50 percent+1 needed to secure the election.] All elections will have large numbers of  wasted votes; the question, though, is whether the map is skewed in a manner that systematically wastes more Democratic votes than Republican votes (as the court below found that it was).

There are any number of questions one might have about how this phenomenon can be measured, and how particularly egregious violations of nonpartisanship can be identified. But the transcript of the oral argument here makes for rather depressing and disheartening reading. To my eyes, the argument shed less light than usual on the hard questions in the case, and the attitude of several of the justices towards the measurement question ranged, as Roeder suggests, from bemused befuddlement to outright hostility. Justices A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch pressed the challengers on whether any metric could ever serve as a constitutional bright line, and  Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was particularly dismissive of what he called — rather oddly — “sociological gobbledygook” in the challengers’ arguments:

[If] you’re the intelligent man on the street and the Court issues a decision, and let’s say the Democrats win, and that person will say: Well, why did the Democrats win And the answer is going to be because EG was greater than 7 percent, where EG is the sigma of party X wasted votes minus the sigma of party Y wasted votes over the sigma of party X votes plus party Y votes. And the intelligent man on the street is going to say that’s a bunch of baloney. … And that is going to cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this Court in the eyes of the country.

That strikes me as a bit disingenuous. There are any number of opinions that the court (and the courts) issue that would leave the “intelligent man on the street” scratching his head, because of the presence of what we might call “legal gobbledygook,” and if Roberts is suggesting that the court’s use of objective mathematical indices of partisan asymmetry would be especially troublesome to the man on the street, I’m not convinced.

I think that perhaps Alito put his finger on what really troubles these metric skeptics: the fear that they will look ridiculous at some point down the road for having chosen a flawed measuring stick:

… gerrymandering is distasteful. But if we are going to impose a standard on the courts, it has to be something that’s manageable and it has to be something that’s sufficiently concrete so that the public reaction to decisions is not going to be the one that the Chief Justice mentioned, that this three-judge court decided this, that — this way because two of the three were appointed by a Republican president or two of the three were appointed by a Democratic President.

[Over the past 30 years] judges, scholars, legal scholars, political  scientists have been looking for a manageable  standard. All right. In 2014, a young researcher (Eric McGhee) publishes a paper, in  which he says that the leading measures previously,  symmetry and responsiveness, are inadequate. But I have discovered the key. I have  discovered the Rosetta stone and it’s — it is  the efficiency gap. And then a year later you bring this  suit and you say: There it is, that is the  constitutional standard. It’s been finally —  after 200 years, it’s been finally discovered in this paper by a young researcher …

Now, is this the time for us to jump into this? Has there been a great body of scholarship that has tested this efficiency gap? It’s full of questions. Mr. [Eric] McGhee’s own amicus brief outlines numerous unanswered questions with — with this theory.

It’s a legitimate concern, I suppose; as in many areas of the law where courts are presented with non-legal “expert” testimony, they should be wary of jumping too quickly into the fray, choosing one contested side over another given that they generally do not possess the tools with which to evaluate the pros and cons of the testimony presented.

But I do hope the court does not rest on this to abdicate its responsibility to craft some meaningful and manageable measures of partisan interference with the electoral process.

Many years ago, John Ely provided, notably in his book “Democracy and Distrust,” what I continue to regard as the most persuasive solution to the fundamental dilemma posed by the institution of (undemocratic) judicial review in a democracy, and the conflicts arising from allowing the most unrepresentative branch of the government the power to overturn actions taken by the more democratic branches. Ely argued, in essence, that the court’s appropriate role is that of referee in the electoral arena. Ordinary electoral processes can be relied on to self-correct, without the need for judicial intervention, most attempts by lawmakers to act outside of constitutional boundaries, except in those circumstances where either (a) those actions corrupt the electoral process itself and are, as a consequence, self-sustaining and uncorrectable, or  (b) the majority is withholding from the minority the protections it affords to itself. Electoral politics can’t correct these problems, which are inherent in the nature of representative democracies, and courts must step in.

The Warren court’s “one man-one vote” decisions of the 1960s and 1970s were, in Ely’s view, paradigmatic examples within the first category. Judicial interference in the reapportionment cases was justified because systematic bias favoring rural voters in state legislatures would never self-correct, because the legislatures were composed of those who had directly benefited from the bias, and the court had to intervene.

And so, too, in the Gill case; Wisconsin’s Democratic voters cannot, through their votes, correct the bias in the Republicans’ favor, because the map was drawn precisely to dis-enable them from being able to do that. It will be a sad day indeed if the court turns away from its constitutional obligation to keep the electoral process a fair one because its collective eyes glaze over at the sight of a mathematical symbol or formula.

  Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/19/is-the-supreme-court-allergic-to-math/