#if he made the abridging decisions he did a very good job

[slimeandsadness]

It's funny that there was chatter about Becoming YouTube and Benjamin Cook yesterday. I almost mentioned in the tags that Ben Cook is also relatively well known in the Doctor Who fandom (mainly for his work in Doctor Who Magazine and being RTD's correspondent in the book The Writer's Tale), then in The War Games in Colour (released today) he's credited as the editor.

[arahul-abyssia]

Festive

Writing number 4 for Nintember (@starprincesshlc , @jklantern )! To hopefully escape the pit of Emotions��� that was the first three stories, here's some hopefully much much much lighter, more slice-of-life-ish fare.

This does correspond to prompts 16-20, but I got caught up in Real Life for a while, so it's going up mega-late, and also it's kinda... abridged from its original concept, and less polished. 'Tis the way the cookie hath crumbled this year...

~~ Horse, Color, Hats, World, Music ~~

Layna awoke to a loud and repetitive hooting in her ear. She blearily turned her head to the side to find a pair of black-framed bright red eyes staring at her with interest. It took several moments of staring before she was mentally present enough to avert her gaze, sit up, and look out the window at the horizon. As she had expected, the sun had only barely risen fully above it.

She turned back to her greeter. “Relos! How many times do I have to tell you not to wake me up?”

Relos merely, and quite literally, hooted with laughter and flew off out of her room. Layna knew it was futile to keep telling him not to wake her, not because of any obligation or the masterful internal clock of his, but because he knew she didn’t like it and he was a mischief-mongering imp.

Normally, she’d roll over and try to get a few more minutes of sleep, but that day was the first of one of the best weeks of the entire year, and she didn’t want to miss a single moment. She quickly pulled herself from her bed, cleaned and dressed herself, grabbed the pack she had prepared the night before, and hurried downstairs, hoping to get through the delightfully aromatic kitchen and out the door before--

“Aaaalwaaaalrwaaa!”

Standing between Layna and the door was the soft pink-and-cream form of Infra, who was gazing up at her with strikingly accusatory eyes, her hands on her hips.

“Yes, Infra, I know I haven’t eaten.”

“Laaalruuwaar!”

“It’s the first day of the festival and I want to do as much as I can! I’ll get something from one of the vendors.”

“Luulrwarraalyaaa!”

“Ugh…! Fine, if it’ll make you happy.”

Begrudgingly, she returned to the kitchen and sat at the table, as Infra went to the stove, gingerly placed an assortment of breakfast foods onto a plate, and set it before Layna, smiling at her with fairy-pink eyes that had nary a semblance of her previous visage. Unlike the rest of Pokémon in her family’s home, who were all quite content to leave the human part of the family to do as they pleased, the Audino practically operated like another mother to her, as if she needed a third one on top of her human two (who also were often subject to Infra’s mothering). Somehow, she had learned how to do a whole plethora of human home tasks and chores, and she never let Layna leave home in the morning without ensuring that she’d eaten. An outside observer might wonder why a Pokémon was apparently her morning caretaker, and not either or both of her mothers, but with both of them having jobs that began long before dawn, it was simply how things were in their house.

She had to admit that Infra was a surprisingly good cook. This evaluation, however, was not based upon the food that she was at that moment rapidly stuffing into her mouth, but rather upon the numerous meals from days where she wasn’t dead-set on going elsewhere as soon as possible. That morning’s breakfast, while certainly of Infra’s normal calibre, was given no time to rest upon Layna’s taste buds, and may as well have been tasteless for all she cared.

As soon as the last bite of egg left her fork, she jumped to her feet, practically threw the plate and silverware into the sink, and darted for the door, calling out as she left, “‘Kthankyoubyyyyeeeeee!”

Infra was not impressed with her, as projectile kitchenware was dangerous and eating that quickly would likely give her a stomachache, but she’d have time later to worry about such things. Her next task was to prepare food for the rest of the Pokémon scattered about the house, who all were beginning to come to consciousness, probably due to the clatter of cutlery, and she set about with the same dutifulness and joy she always did.

Layna, of course, hadn’t even a single neuron focused upon Infra’s judgment, as she was far more concerned with sprinting down a steep road with wanton abandon, the countless colors and lights and tents and tarps of the festival visible in the distance. It had already entered full swing, always beginning with the dawn, and she wanted to explore as much as she could. She had considered bringing along some of the Pokémon, but not long later decided to bring them along later in the day instead. She did not know why she made this decision, nor did she care.

The streets that had been blocked off for the festival were already bustling with people and Pokémon alike, almost each and every one nearly as energized as Layna was. She promptly began to wander the streets, turning and spinning and looking about enough that she ought to have made herself sick, but this had not lasted for even five minutes before she was drawn to a larger vendor stall by an overpowering floral and fruity aroma.

As should be expected, an impossibly wide variety of flowers and fruits were on display, some having been made presentory and others still being attached to their plants, with countless more options upon the boards hanging from the awning.

“Well, hello there, young miss!” said one of the farmers behind the stand. “How can we help ya?”

“Oh, I’m just looking right now, sir.” She paused a moment, then was overtaken by a rather sudden curiosity. “There are so many flowers and berries here, how do you manage to pick and move them all?”

The farmer chuckled. “We have a lot of help, ‘specially around this time of year. Lot of it comes from extra hands, but it would still be impossible without the help of all our Pokémon, like ol’ Sitrus here.”

At this, he gestured to a Mudsdale beside him, which Layna had somehow managed to miss entirely.

“She’s lovely! And so… big…! I’ll bet she must be really strong, too!”

“More ‘n any of us could’ve expected! And she’s friendly, too; wanna pet her?”

Layna’s eyes immediately lit up. “Would I?!! I mean, uh, if she’ll let me…!”

The farmer laughed and brought the horse forward, and Layna tentatively reached up and placed a hand on her face. Sitrus took a moment to consider her latest contact, then, judging her satisfactory in that esoteric way few can ever decipher, leaned in to her touch. She giggled and stroked her a few times more, noting her fur’s strange combination of roughness and softness, before pulling her hand away. Sitrus, in turn, snorted a puff of hot air at Layna’s face before backing into the shade again.

“Aw, that means she likes you! Well, let me or any one of us know if ya want anything.”

“Will do, thank you!” Layna had no intention to buy anything at that time, not when there were countless other things to do and find and see at the festival. She proceeded to bury her face in several of the flowers around the stall, enveloping herself in their different, yet undeniably pleasant, scents, before scampering off to find some other point of interest.

She could have easily checked the maps of the festival area, which were scattered on boards and holographic signs all about the city and even available online, but this sounded boring and unfun, so she did not. Upon her winding, meandering, unfocused path through the streets were innumerable stalls and stands and attractions to take note of--more fruits and vegetables, tickets to special shows on later days, a ferris wheel to ride with someone else later, foreign cuisine and sweets--but it was not until she overheard the faint but unmistakable sound of music that she was drawn in once again.

Upon the boardwalk was a small stage with a frighteningly energetic group of musicians, surrounded by an even more enthusiastic crowd. They seemed to be in the middle of a rendition of a song Layna heard on the radio nearly every day, an anthem for Trainers detailing their goal to “Catch ‘em All.” She never saw the appeal--both of the song and of the objective--but it apparently spoke quite well to most others.

As they finished their performance--and on a much more somber note than the original song did--their main singer pulled the microphone from its stand and began pacing the stage. “I hope you folks are enjoying the show! Now, however, I’d like to take a break from the hype, and sing something a bit slower, something that’s… rather close to my heart.”

Layna watched as a Toxtricity--which had evidently been playing with the rest of the band, but which, just like the Mudsdale, she had failed at first to notice--stepped forward and began playing a slow guitar piece. The lead singer waited a moment, then began to sing a ballad in a tongue Layna could not understand. It was one she was certain she had heard before, but could not manage to identify it any way beyond that it was not the common tongue known by almost everyone across the world.

She tried to stay and listen, but immediately found that, beautiful though his singing was, she was not in the mood for slow music. Along with a small chunk of the band’s crowd, she turned and left, and returned to her aimless wandering and exploration.

Eventually, she found herself in a quarter rife with food vendors, most of whom had one or two individuals calling out and offering free samples. By the smells and descriptions alone, she was greatly tempted to take every single one she could. Of course, her mothers would likely have tried to limit how many she took so that she wouldn’t spoil her appetite for lunch, and Infra would surely have balked at the notion for the same reasons; also, most of the food in the area was rather far from being healthy. Indeed, she had significant reason to not do what she wanted to do.

However, none of those individuals were here to remind her, and as it turned out, the aromas were very persuasive. Layna marched forward and nabbed every sample in sight, only barely stopping to enjoy them before moving on to the next, and only doing so because of the crowds and lines slowing her down.

Her frenzy ended not fifteen minutes later, and as she looked about to find her next target of interest, she realized she had wound up on the very same street she had started on. Obviously, this would not do, as there were so many other, more interesting circles to walk in the festival’s streets.

However, with home being so near once again, she had half a mind to return to grab something to combat the rapidly rising sun, whose rays were just beginning to take too much precedence over the comfortable morning breeze…

“Twee-tweeoo-twrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!”

Or maybe I won’t have to after all!

A black-and-brown blur was barrelling toward her from the sky, making a frankly obscene level of noise. She stood firm and faced it, staring unblinking at the rapidly encroaching avian, before ducking at a perfect, precise, and repeatedly practiced moment. Like clockwork, Layna’s vision was shaded by an off-kilter hat (which she quickly adjusted), and the feathery form of a Taillow alighted upon her shoulder, whose face she began to delicately stroke.

“Thank you for bringing me my hat, Lond! Wherever would I be without you?”

“Twrrrt-t-twiii!”

“Wait, no, don’t tell me: Infra wanted me to not burn in the sun and you wanted to not be stuck inside with Relos.”

“Twrr-twrr-twrr!”

“I thought so… well, now that you’re here, how about sticking with me for a bit of exploration? I’m sure there'll be plenty of stuff to try!”

Lond pretended to think for a moment, then gave another enthusiastic chirp.

Layna giggled. “In that case, we mustn’t waste any more time! Onward!”

And with no decay to her exuberance, she sprinted off into the festival once more.

[sshbpodcast]

A Surprisingly Good Showing for Neelix in Season 1 of Voyager!

by Ames

We’ve launched into our next phase in the podcast and can happily report back that so far Voyager is better than the internet makes it out to be! Take that, internet shitpeople! One thing we made note of that we didn’t expect was how much really solid character work Neelix got. You’re going to see him in the tops list a couple of times – a feat that the fandom’s general distaste in Neelix made us assume impossible.

With only one real clunker on the list, it’s a fairly solid outing for your hosts at A Star to Steer Her By to review, so set course for the Delta Quadrant: we’re gonna do some deep analysis on the weirdly abridged first season of Voyager. Or at least tell you what we liked and didn’t like. Find them all below and check out our banter in this week’s podcast episode here (season wrap discussion at 1:08:24).

[images © CBS/Paramount]

Top Three Episodes

We’re going to start with the tops for a change and also to keep some Maquis members from immediately mutinying. Also, our favorite episodes of season one saw more agreement than the least favorites, so it’s the easier list:

“Faces”: Jake B’Elanna Torres gets a big chunk of meaty development in this identity crisis–inducing episode. Considering how much Jake disliked “The Enemy Within,” it is certainly telling how good this episode is that he put it on his good list and how good a job Roxann Dawson did with it. Extra points for Sulan straight up stealing a man’s face too.

“Heroes and Demons”: Caitlin, Chris Fan favorite character the Emergency Medical Hologram also got a hunk of meat to work with. Literally. This episode balanced some really fun holodeck shenanigans with some very smart character moments and a nice sciencey element to boot. We also appreciated the portrayal of Freya, Kim getting decked out in period garb, and all our new Danish holofriends!

“Phage”: Ames, Chris The first in our Neelix appreciation episodes, “Phage” asks some really hard questions about what people are willing to experience and what atrocities they’re willing to commit in order to keep on keepin’ on. Making Neelix such a sympathetic character was commendable and Ethan Phillips really holds his own while acting mostly from a bed. We are looking forward to loving to hate the Vidiians more in the future!

“Eye of the Needle”: Ames, Caitlin, Jake We are super here for it any time Voyager nails an episode that only it can, and having the rug pulled out from under you over and over again when it keeps looking like you’re gonna get home is the very epitome of a series 70,000 lightyears away. We loved our Romulan guest star Telek R’Mor. We loved the constant twists. We loved the time wonkiness and the general sci-fi-ness. Excellent episode all around.

“Jetrel”: Ames, Caitlin, Chris, Jake We get more really dramatic fodder for Neelix here and it is marvelous to watch. Ethan Phillips gets a heartfelt monologue in just about every other scene. Familiar face (if you can call being under all that makeup a familiar face) James Sloyan also encapsulates a very nuanced and intriguing Oppenheimer-style scientist, whom we can understand even if we cannot forgive.

—

Bottom Three Episodes

The tougher decision was picking a whole three baddies this season since pretty much everything in the season was at least okay. But we’ve got some varied reasons for just not caring for these episodes:

“Prime Factors”: Ames Not really a bad episode, per se, but we needed to put something on the list, and Gath was going to be the target this time. It just got sorta gross how much he was always leering at Janeway. The Sikarians’ need for stories seemed like a cop-outty resolution, and the ending with Tuvok going rogue was super rushed. That’s all.

“Cathexis���: Caitlin Poor Chakotay doesn’t get a ton to do this season (or ever?), and his moment to shine was spent being unconscious while Torres futzed around with his Native American trinkets. The Healing Wheel and basically all the indigenous customs are just plain going to make us uncomfortable regardless of how they’re handled just by the knowledge that the show’s Native American consultant was a hack.

“Time and Again”: Chris While we do love us a good time-travel paradox, this was one just underdeveloped. We never got a handle on if we should be siding with the protesters or if they deserved their initial fate because they didn’t get a chance to get fleshed out. And that child actor: let’s just say we kinda wish Paris had delivered on his promise and eaten him.

“The Cloud”: Jake Boy, there sure wasn’t enough coffee in this nebula, so this episode had to get heavily padded with little random scenes to fill out forty-something minutes. What we’re left with is a fairly slow slog, another bit of uncomfortable hoodoo from Chakotay, and almost exactly no stakes throughout. You can tune out for the whole middle of the episode and not miss anything noteworthy.

“State of Flux”: Ames What this episode fails to deliver is any bit of suspense over whether or not Seska is the saboteur at any given point. While being a secret Cardassian is a nice revelation, she is too obviously the culprit from the word go. Any possible illusions that maybe there’s going to be some kind of fascinating twist just weren’t going to pay off, leaving us ultimately feeling dissatisfied.

“Learning Curve”: Caitlin, Chris, Jake We see why the writers hadn’t wanted this episode to be the season finale: it’s a whole lot of nothing and thus ends the season with a whimper. All season long, we sorta forgot the Maquis were still a thing, and then this episode comes along, wastes the opportunity to utilize them effectively, and pairs them with too much cheese. Literally!

“Ex Post Facto”: Ames, Caitlin, Chris, Jake This noir-gone-wrong is the only really bad episode we can point to from the season; it just got so much wrong. The Scooby-Doo murder mystery is clunky, the resolution is laughable, the makeup is nonsensical, and the attempts to do noir just didn’t work at all. And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you kids and your awful dog.

—

Since it was a short season, most of the episodes are represented here, but we’ll be seeing future seasons at full capacity as we continue our trek through Voyager. Keep up with us as we push past warp 9 on SoundCloud or your favorite podcast app, chill out with us at Sandrine’s on Facebook and Twitter, and do keep writing Neelix this well!

[megatronswaifu]

Nightlight defected from the Bots?! I must know MORE! :0

yes she did!!! it’s a long story BUT I’M SO HAPPY U WANNA KNOW MORE so i will try to do my best to relay it briefly…my writing is very abridged but it still does the job. this is the TFP version of her defection.

basically, nightlight came to earth on a stolen ship with her friends (other ocs who i haven’t really finalized – here are some doodles i did around a year ago), seiner, wheelhop (used to be named “popcorn” as a placeholder), and phase (used to be named rook before somebody pointed out that there’s already somebody named that). a gang of girls!

they are all a very silly and flawed bunch but they get along.

nightlight does not often go on missions because she is a scaredy cat and honestly isn’t very skilled at fighting, and she kind of just stays back. if she does go on missions, she usually ends up getting protected or rescued, so she tries to help in other ways.

one day, the gang of girls decides to go out on a stroll in an uninhabited (by humans) place on earth since they felt cooped up in the autobot base. there is literally no reason for cons to be around so they just decide to have fun.

sadly and very annoyingly, decepticons DO appear and they have to sprint their fucking afts off running and shooting back and hiding, until they can finally sit still enough for the biggest bot, seiner, to comm ratchet,

“ratchet!! ratchet we need a ground bridge! the decepticons found us!”

(rest of story and another doodle under cut)

ratchet pulls up a groundbridge and informs them that the bridge is on the right, on the other side of the mountain they’re currently hiding behind. they make a break for it, and sprint to the bridge. they hop right through, and to their horror and surprise, the room they hop into is purple. it’s dark. it’s got decepticons.

the ground bridge behind them closes, and the girls scatter around and run out the door. they get chased and are forced to run about what is presumably The Nemesis. they finally find a room in which nobody has followed them into or figured out they’re hiding in.

the girls begin to talk.

wheelhop: “WHAT THE SHIT WAS THAT I THOUGHT RATCHET GOT US A GROUND BRIDGE????”

seiner: “well uhh fuck obviously we didn’t go through it, what went wrong?”

phase (in cybertronian sign language, she is mute): “maybe we went through the wrong one.”

wheelhop: “you mean there was a decepticon bridge open at the same time?”

phase nods.

seiner (looking over at phase, with a considering expression): “seems like it.”

nightlight: “but, but ratchet said it was on the right…right?”

…on the “other right” of the mountain, a completely separate ground bridge sits. on that bridge’s other side, ratchet attempts to comm them, to no avail. the girls have accidentally run through another ground bridge that the decepticons were using to mobilize their own forces into the area, and had completely missed their own ground bridge because they went to the wrong “right”. they must come up with a plan to escape. seiner, being a leader-type, looks around the room. it looks like they found themselves in an unused monitor room.

seiner eyes one wall of monitors and says, “we might be able to access some sort of map from this computer. we can find our way out that way.”

nightlight: “we can’t call someone for help?”

phase: “decepticon technology blocks our signals.” she has stood up and is at the monitor, but she hesitates. phase turns to the group.

“if we access this computer, we will most likely notify the cons that we are in this room,” she signs. “as soon as i turn this monitor on, we are on a timetable. the nanosecond i get the map, we must go.”

all of them, very tense, sit in anticipation as phase accesses the monitor. lo and behold, the decepticons are notified, and a team of vehicons rushes towards the abandoned section of the ship. however, when they arrive, the door is open, and the girls have escaped the room.

meanwhile, in the airducts of the nemesis, the four of them crawl, squished, with a map of the ducts on phase’s arm-minimonitor. they traverse the map, having found a suitable way out, for several hours, trying not to get spotted, waiting for the longest periods of time for vehicons to leave areas so they can pass, and being incredibly stressed.

at one point, they must cross from a room and into a hallway to get to their last path. the hallway isn’t very populated, and only at the far end are some vehicons stationed, where nobody will see them, so although obviously very tense, they are not as afraid as they have been a few other times on this “adventure”.

first, phase, the navigator, and an expert at agility, jumps quietly out of the duct, into the room, and opens the door to the hallway. she peeks out. there is no-one. she swiftly emerges from the door and sprints to the other side, opening the other door on the opposite side they must enter.

second, wheelhop follows, a terrified but determined look on her face.

third, seiner, the big bot she is, tries her best to run across quietly.

fourth, nightlight crouches down outside the threshold of the door, propping her foot in a “ready, set, go” position, getting up the courage to run to the other side. her expression is nervous and she is shaking.

just as she is about to hop up, the voices of the vehicons down the hall they had previously not given a care to suddenly stop dead. nightlight’s helm shoots towards their position, to see soundwave, the decepticon third in command, walking down the hallway.

her helm whips again back to her friends, on the other side of the hallway, who all have their mouths open and optics wide as dinner plates. after taking a few seconds to be terrified, they all motion frantically for their friend to run to the other side as quickly as possible. but nightlight hesitates, and shakes her head frantically back. soundwave is too close! she’ll be seen! she doesn’t want to go. nightlight, with fluid pricking her optics, attempts to re-open the door they came from, but it seems it locked when she exited. she takes another look at her friends, and scared out of her spark, she curls into a ball, her helm between her legs, her arms around her kneejoints. if she stays small, he won’t see. if she stays in the crook between the door and the wall, she’ll be okay. he won’t see.

nightlight watches from between her legs as her friends sink into the room, and the third in command approaches from down the hallway, his shadow dangerously puddling closer. it passes over the floor and between her legs, and so do his pedesteps. nightlight, assuming her hiding technique has worked, lifts her helm. she is greeted with soundwave’s expressionless, petrifying helm, and one of the spymaster’s tentacles grappling her arm and yanking her harshly into the air. she shrieks, and is wordlessly taken off to some random place in the nemesis. as she is dragged off, she yelps and cries the names of her teammates in fear, but she cannot see them any longer.

wheelhop, seiner, and phase sit deathly silent in the vent they were forced to escape into. they eventually discuss; they are almost out. finding nightlight would take hours, possibly days if they were going to check literally the entire ship, because they had no clue where the interrogation rooms were (nothing much was labelled on the map). and they weren’t even sure she would be there. they could be killed, or worse, interrogated for information and then killed. it would be better to return to base and come back with a bigger rescue team. they were exhausted. after much deliberation, and despite it basically emotionally killing them do make this decision, they decide to continue on their path and escape the ship, without nightlight.

meanwhile, nightlight shivers in an interrogation room with knock out overlooking her, doing something on the monitor next to the table. she is not strapped to the table, as she is too small to reach the straps, so she is simply cuffed to one of said straps, with additional cuffs on her ankles and wrists. nightlight holds back desperately on tears. surely she will be tortured.

the little moped waits for something to happen. she expects to be killed or interrogated. there’s a bunch of surgical instruments (or, other things, nightlight can’t really tell what they are if she’s honest) on a table a few meters away and she’s about to cry. knock out is scary as the pits. she is helpless. suddenly, the cherry-red doctor is talking to someone on his comm.

and the door fucking opens. and megatron walks in.

and all her sense of decorum and self-regulation and “i should be a good bot and stay still” is thrown out the window in an instant, and she tries to jump up from the table, wailing and sure of her demise. she is going to die or be tortured and THEN die, and now, by the hands of megatron at that? she is faced with an autobot’s worst and scariest nightmare. why her?!

knock out has to yoink her back and hold one of her legs to the table, and really she’s not strong compared to him so it doesn’t take much effort. she is very small on main so you can understandably imagine how scary this looks like to the poor thing: a gigantic shadowy figure that frankly just looks like a dark tower, with searing red eyes, radiating with millennia of hatred for her kind, moving towards her. this is made even worse when she realizes the tower has walked very close, closer when she had last peeked through her servos, and is now reaching for her. she hyperventilates and cries out and kicks (or really, attempts to) when two humongous servos grab her legs, and all the minicon can do is babble pleas.  

to her surprise she feels the stasis cuffs unlock on her ankles and wrists, and she is slowly let go of to scramble away and curl up on the table, taking a second to sooth herself. nightlight eventually sneaks a look from behind her fingers to see megatron just standing there with a patient expression.

weirdly, knock out next to him with a “?????????what” look, completely baffled as to why megatron just uncuffed a prisoner. it seems he did not expect this either.

and megatron puts on his best Do Not Worry I Am Very Friendly face and says, “hello nightlight”. nightlight doesn’t respond, but still glances at him with a look of profound confusion.

and megatron sweet talks her for a while. asking her questions, talking as nicely as he can. and even though, to any sane bot viewing the scene, one would see megatron’s clear intentions of evil, our poor nightlight is immune to social cues. so, she’s thinking, “what’s happening?“ and all of this is…a lot.

eventually, megatron says, “nightlight, i’d like you to join our side.” the periwinkle bot thinks, “well this isn’t torture or death, but….” and megatron can tell she’s baffled, so he keeps talking.

“your friends left you,” he says firmly. nightlight’s face sours pitifully, and megatron continues, “they’ve already left the ship. i’m sure you heard the overhead comm announce we were no longer on lockdown.”

nightlight looks away, feelings clearly hurt, and he continues still, “they didn’t stay to rescue you. they escaped without even an attempt to come for you. they don’t see you as a valuable part of their team.”

and this very much hurts nightlight. this is exactly what she worries about, in her endeavors as a friend and as an autobot; that she is not a good and contributing team member. is she really that small, that bad at fighting, that dumb? megatron continues by saying, “but the decepticon army has a place for you.” she looks up for a second in hope, but not any longer, and megatron can tell she is very conflicted, so he changes the subject.

(and ok side note i have this idea that before tfp megatron went gladiator he was a miner. and he was marx on main in the mines and had already developed kind of a following, and the governmence was like 

“oh god oh fuck we can’t kill him he’s got too big of a following he might be seen as a martyr if WE kill him”

“well alright then government man #1 how about we put him in the gladiatorial pits. then we won’t be the ones to kill him. he’ll be taken care of and we won’t be blamed for it”

“very sexy idea government man #2!”

and they did it but megatron was tough as shit in the end and y’all all know what happened)

but anyways,megatron leans in closer as if sharing some sort of nice, secret moment with her, “i know you used to work in the mines, nightlight.” and this is true. nightlight used to work as an autonomous flashlight to give easier lighting to miners and contractors and such, in her life back on cybertron. “o-oh yeah i did that…” she replies sheepishly.

megatron: “did you know i used to work in the mines too?”

and nightlight immediately forgets she’s sitting in front of the warlord who obliterated most of their race, who destroyed their planet, and is responsible for the death of many of her friends and comrades, “you did?!” she perks up and moves slightly closer, naturally friendly. the fact that megatron was a miner is kind of common knowledge, but nightlight doesn’t know shit fuck about cybertron’s history or important figures and she just thought megatron was a gladiator before this and that’s it. 

nightlight hasn’t met another ex-miner for a while and she’s visibly excited. most of the other autobots, including her teammates, had other occupations on cybertron, and sometimes she found it hard to relate in certain situations. megatron and nightlight chat nicely for a while, but eventually megatron says something maybe a little too violent that reminds her “ah…i am talking to THE megatron”.

the moped looks down. the warlord questions her expression. “um. well. y'know,” she fidgets, “you guys…i can’t join the decepticons. you guys kinda…you guys do…bad things. sometimes. a lot of bad things.” she is not unsure of this fact, but she does not want the confrontation, so she lightens her choice of words as best she can. megatron leans down again, soft-yelling at her in his typical overly-intense way, “you don’t think the autobots have committed JUST as many grievances as us?”

and the answer is obviously NO, they have NOT committed as many war crimes as you, but nightlight falls for his manipulation and backs off, looking guilty. she’s so awfully gullible. and megatron happily grabs onto this fact and runs with it, naming off bad shit that the autobots have (allegedly) done, and nightlight is successfully freaked out.

the gigantic mech sees he’s scared her and can tell he’s convinced her, so he leans back and ends the interaction, “i’ll give you some time to think, nightlight. we will talk later. tell me your decision then.” and with that, placing his servo once on the table as if to say goodbye like a friend but not quite touch her personal bubble, he walks out. and poor nightlight is left to think, alone, about what she is supposed to do.

megatron exits out of the doors and starscream is there, and they walk off all evil-like and start talking. 

starscream begins their conversation,“well how did it go?”

megatron: “swimmingly.”

starscream: “is she convinced?”

megatron, especially evilly, grinning that nasty shark-smile: “i have left her no other option.”

and DUN DUN DUNNNN it’s somehow revealed that starscream and megatron decided to form a plan to lower autobot morale by stealing away nightlight to become a decepticon. they didn’t come up with it before this, it was impromptu when they got the alert that the girls had entered the ship. not many people defect over, and nightlight, from what they have seen, is a dumbass and is very convincible, so she was the perfect target. her friends, who were admirable fighters and were admittedly putting a dent in their forces, would be especially broken by their friend leaving them for the decepticons, moreso than if they had just killed her. so, they decided to convince her to defect so their morale goes to shit. how satisfying would it be for nightlight not to look at her friends in longing and love, but disdain and hatred when they next meet? she is weak, so if the plan doesn’t work out like they’d hoped, they can just kill her.

eventually, of course, whether she is fully aware she had no other choice or not, she says yes, and she gets her new paint job, her new symbol, her new optic color, and is successfully brainwashed. megatron and co continue their skilled manipulation, and nightlight is forced to make a new life as a decepticon, without her friends. yippee!!

anyways, if you made it here, here’s a little doodle. it’s the differences between her autobot and decepticon look! sorry it’s messy.

thank you for viewing.

EDIT: popcorn is now named “wheelhop”! so i changed all instances of her name.

EDIT2: same with rook phase!

[slothcritic]

Dragon Ball Z Abridged - Episode 4 Review

Hit-or-miss introduction makes way for some golden moments.

The opening skit for Snakeway to Heaven has a satisfactory comedic weight to it, though upon re-watching it for this review, I noticed an editing mistake I had never noticed before, despite becoming a fan of the series in 2012. When Goku falls off Snake Way, the scene actually freezes on that frame. It wouldn't be noticeable if the truck itself hadn't frozen as well. Small gripe but I thought it was an interesting observation to share.

[Title Sequence]

Goku's scream carries over into the first few seconds of the intro and resumes near the last few seconds, which I found to be a well played editing decision.

Once Goku has stopped falling, we're treated to an amusing take on the filler ogres from hell. The blue one is given the Swedish Hansel-und-Gretel accent while the red one speaks like a German or Austrian. And puritan as ever, KaiserNeko made sure to use the original, unedited footage. It would’ve been funny to see them maybe have a scene or two with the ogres wearing their different HFIL shirts, or maybe a bit more fun poked at the Ocean Dub, but no such luck in this scene.

TFS doesn't spend too much time on this scene at all, really. It’s filler, and so nothing here really matters to the story aside from laugh-factor. The comedic nature of this first scene is that it’s rushed. Goku swindles the two ogres out of a fight, like he’s trying to swindle the show into skipping this filler arc, as he immediately guns it for the exit... and then stops?

It would've been a much more emphatic punchline if the scene had changed right here. Instead we have an awkward stop-and-go motion to the scene they're trying to orchestrate and it feels stilted. A lot of this scene after Goku finds the exit I find to be entirely unneeded. Raditz has already been established as being in Other World so the callback here wasn't necessary, the special King Yemma fruit could be argued for having no plot relevance as it never existed in the manga, and we didn't really need that post-Goku scene to get the hint that these ogres were very chummy with each other when it came to subjects like oil wrestling and speedos.

But then, where would they put that great joke about the Blood Fountain? And the small dialogue about Dabura I did find risible as a fan of the original DBZ, despite my usual curmudgeonly take on yet-to-be-established jokes. Like many things, this does get much better as the series continues, eventually turning some moments of sequence-breaking into moments of well-crafted foreshadowing. This is just a funny pointless joke, and a nod to fans of DBZ, that has no impact on the actual story of DBZA itself.

Again, this isn't too much of a big deal. Just a whole work-with-what-you've-got bizarre scenario likely due to bizarre source material. Yet this was all deemed funny enough to edit, voice and keep in the episode instead of trimming it out like the other 90% of this mini-arc. I'm not convinced the presentation was done to par, but I do feel that the inclusion of "Goku in Hell" is necessary for the sake of tying loose ends together. Also, it would've been a far more egregious decision to have that cold open end in a do-nothing cliff hanger. So, a goofy scene and perhaps iffy writing, but not terrible.

We then return to the person who has so far been the breadwinner of the series, and Piccolo hasn't let up on either the humor or Gohan. Kind of a contrast to how somber he is in the show. It's not whack-a-doodle humor, it's exaggerated frustration and exasperation, which lands almost dead-center on my humor nexus.

But even better than Piccolo has to be this next scene - Debatably the first "meme" or seriously quotable moment in the show's history: Popo's Pecking Order.

On paper this doesn't look like it'd be necessarily funny, but when you attach to it a very do-nothing character like Mr Popo and turn him into a sadistic dictator, combined with the special emphasis and excellent delivery of the line, it's simply outstanding, and raises the bar for this entire episode.

Now I've said before that the source material of Z shouldn't factor into the end product that is DBZA. If I were to show this episode to my mother, I shouldn't have to show her all 291 episodes of Z so she can understand it. The show should be able stand on its own. That's not to say parody should have zero factor in the writing of this, or that there should be zero references at all, ever. By god what a silly thing to imply. But people can still enjoy Spaceballs even if they haven't seen Star Wars.

However, in the case of Mr Popo, DBZA does a good job of setting up Popo in the same way Z does. He initially speaks in a low, subdued tone, and is spoken of by Kami as some kind of adviser, or perhaps a respected peer, but as someone who is indirectly and respectfully implied to be below him. After all, it's called Kami's Lookout, not Popo's Lookout, and Kami is literally regarded as "The Guardian of Earth" while Popo just appears to be... there.

That all changes the second Kami leaves the outdoor area and Popo is entrusted with the reigns of the new Z Fighters. LISTEN UP, MAGGOTS!

The Krillin Owned Count also chimes three in this scene, and shows its first signs of picking up momentum.

Back on Snake Way, Goku gets eaten by the head of snake way, which leads into Jadoshin's palace. This is such a quick, cheesy, quirky but funny edit that I'm not sure what to say beyond I enjoyed it. It just hits you and then boom, you're in her castle.

The joke of Jadoshin being voiced by Solid Snake (Princess Snake, Solid Snake, on Snake Way) seems like a bold strategy but I think it's one of the better jokes they've committed to that ended up being really good, at least this early on. The voice even lends itself to the awkward dialogue that would've simply lost its charm or fallen flat otherwise.

Unrelated, but one of my favorite lines from the dub happens in this scene, where Jadoshin's attendant simply says "I've got something to show you. And it's my gun.", and then kills herself with it. I didn't expect to see that in this scene, but a small part of me did hope.

When Goku finishes up in the hot springs (with a Metal Gear Solid box gag to boot) and tries to leave, Jadoshin then states that she wants Goku inside her. Goku is confused, of course, and smash cut to Goku flying for his life from a massive green fire-breathing snake trying to eat him.

Jadoshin however still has the voice of Solid Snake even in this form, complete with periodic grunts as they maneuver through the air. This eventually transitions into Jadoshin saying waka-waka, and the backdrop changes into a Pac-Man map. The Pac-Man skit was perhaps a bit overdone, with Goku finding meat instead of the normal fruit, but on the whole this was a very "solid" scene.

During the Ozaru scene, I feel like Piccolo just screaming "MOOOOOOOON!" in the DBZA Kai version is funnier than the "Stop mocking me!" we got in DBZA proper. Also, donkey kong barrel, really? It's not bad, but it's an "oh, brother" moment, like hearing a very bad pun.

When Gohan transforms back into his human (or Half-Saiyan technically) form, his junk is censored with a Dragon Ball. This is an interesting contrast in philosophy over the years, as KaiserNeko explained the decision "to not censor baby dicks" in a Episode Breakdown livestream on the Broly Abdridged movie, where Broly's baby wiener can be seen uncensored in a few scenes of that movie.

The episode ends with Goku continuing down Snake Way, having tied Jadoshin up into a tangled ball, prompted the GAME OVER screen and someone yelling "Princess Snaaaaaake!"

Conclusion

Despite my lackluster thoughts on how Hell was handled, this episode had a lot going for it compared to it's predecessors! Most of the episode was spent on two strong scenes, and while I didn't think the Ozaru scene was anything special, it didn't feel out of place or off-kilter, but provided more insight and I suppose world-building into the relationship between Piccolo and Gohan and the constant reminder that they're training to eventually face off against the Saiyans. This is further reinforced by Stinger #2 with Nappa and Vegeta en route to Earth.

This was almost opposite to Episode 3, which I felt had strong bookends. While I didn't find the end of this episode to be bad, it was simply "alright" when compared to the Popo and Jadoshin scenes. Characters are starting to have stronger internal identities instead of simply being parodies of their original counterparts. Though it is noteworthy, and rather obvious, that this only applies to characters with speaking lines. Tien, Yamcha and Chiaotzu made their first appearances but had nothing to say. Maybe it would have been cluttered or detracted from the pacing of the Popo scene, but it may prove challenging to properly attach sentimentality to these characters in the short few episodes they have before the inevitable happens. 

Because y'know, nobody watched Dragon Ball.

Score: 73

Passing Thoughts

I liked that Stinger #1 dealt with the actual ramifications of DESTROYING THE MOON unlike the series proper did. I guess it was just no diff for the Dragon Ball world?

"He made a horrible mess of the blood fountain." "Looks fine to me." "IT USED TO BE WATER!"

"I killed everything here with my bare hands. Including the bear hands." -Pictured in the top left of the frame are actual bear hands.

"Stop grunting, it's creepy!"

"CLOTHES BEAM!" and “That is easily my most metro attack.”

[bablake]

Remembrance

On Monday, we held our annual Remembrance service. This is always an important date in the School year and a time to reflect on the sacrifice made by former pupils and staff and to remind ourselves about our responsibilities to encourage peace and reconciliation. In WW1 almost 800 former pupils and staff served, 96 did not return and in the Second World War another 700 former pupils and staff served, 98 did not return. Their names are recorded on the memorial at the back of the hall and the organ was installed in memory of all who fell. There are some photos from the service that can be found in a Flickr album from the day.

Major Robert Thomas spoke to us during the service. Major Thomas attended Bablake School from 1967 to 1971 and spent most of his working life serving with the Army, including operational tours in the Gulf, the Balkans, Northern Ireland and Cyprus. His final job within the Army was to command the Colchester Personnel Recovery Centre, a unit dedicated to enabling the recovery of wounded, injured and sick servicemen and servicewomen, wounds and injuries mainly sustained on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since retiring in 2016 he took up the position of Secretary to The League of Remembrance, which was formed in 1915 to support the widows and dependents of those who never returned from the battlefields of the Great War. The rest of this bulletin is an abridged version of his talk.

“The foundations for the manner in which I act today were laid at Bablake. I came here, as a fresh-faced youngster of 11, having been fortunate to qualify for a place through the ‘direct grant programme’, a splendid initiative that allowed children with academic ability, but whose parents had insufficient means, to attend school such as Bablake. My time here was excellent. Besides the marvellous learning, the outlook broadening after-school activities, and the tremendous sporting opportunities, the school began to embed in me a set of priceless values and standards, and a moral framework. Traits that would subsequently guide my way in later life.

I enlisted in the Army in 1976, a decision that set me upon a path that I have never really looked back on. What was the Army like? Very similar to Bablake in many ways. The dinners were not brilliant and I had lots of very stern looking people continually barking orders at me and telling me to hurry up. As with Bablake, however, it provided me with a framework for life, and embedded in me similar values and standards. Respect for others; humility; compassion; mercy; seeing through the exterior of an individual to get to know the real person beneath; and most importantly of all service before self. It also instilled in me moral courage. Quite simply the ability to stand up when you see something wrong, and regardless of how unpleasant things might become, the mind-set to intervene and try and put things right.

My last post in the Army was to command a Personnel Recovery Centre where I had the privilege of assisting brave men and women in their recovery. Trying wherever possible to get them back to the duty they loved, but sadly in many cases, as their wounds and injuries were simply too severe to allow further military service, to transition them back to civilian life.

What stood out above all else during this time, was these soldiers refusal to let their wounds hinder them, their positivity and joy for life and their unbending commitment to continuing to serve their nation. A humbling experience for me, but tremendously heartening too – I am extremely proud of every one of them.

My final thoughts. Try to put service before self. Acknowledge and remember the sacrifice of others though the way you live your own life. Do good in whichever way you can and help others wherever possible.”

The service finished with the Coventry Litany of Reconciliation, a copy of which can be found at at the Coventry Cathedral website.

Thank you

Thank you for the many kind words following my appointment as Headmaster of Bablake. I am very proud and humbled to be given the opportunity to lead this fantastic school. As you would expect, we fully intend to continue to deliver an exceptional education within our thriving and caring community, while embracing new challenges and opportunities. We now need to spend time listening to pupils, staff and parents to then put together a development plan for the school for the next few years. I will write to you soon about how you can contribute to this process.

(Bulletin No 15 - 15th November 2019)

[pass-the-bechdel]

La Femme Nikita Season 5 Full Review

How many episodes pass the Bechdel test?

87.5% (seven of eight)

What is the average percentage per episode of female characters with names and lines?

37.36%  

How many episodes have a cast that is at least 40% female?

Three: episode 5.02, (62.5%), 5.03, (42.86%), and 5.04 (45.45%).

How many episodes have a cast that is less than 20% female?

None.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Eight. Three who appear in more than one episode, three who appear in at least half the episodes, and two who appear in every episode.

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twenty-one. Nine who appear in more than one episode, six who appear in at least half the episodes, and one who appears in every episode.

Positive Content Status:

Improved, but can still be shockingly bad at times (Average score: 2.86).  

General Season Quality:

Starts out relatively alright, but its second half is quite terrible.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) under the cut:

Short final seasons, when not imposed at the last minute, can often be a blessing. In the right hands, they allow showrunners to get the core of a concept, and to focus all of one’s efforts into telling the best possible story, instead of being forced to try and split the story one wants to tell in a space larger than one needs, which is often the case with television.

However, in order for abridged final seasons to work, a show has to know what story it is telling.  It has to understand the core of its characters, and what themes it seeks to explore.  Person of Interest had one ongoing plot that needed finishing in its final season.  The Nikita remake’s last season took the series to the last logical place it could go. While neither is its show’s finest season, they largely work as conclusions, and are generally satisfying.  

While the final season of La Femme Nikita is ostensibly held together by elements such as Section One’s conflict with The Collective and Nikita’s search for answers about her origin—the two plotlines, and their consequences, play a role in every episode this season—neither of these, it becomes clear by the end, are stories the showrunners were actually interested in exploring. Nikita’s interest in her father feels contrived, and once answers are given halfway through, the series fails to allow her to react in any way that feels honest.  Does she feel disappointed? Is she happy that she found her dad, despite the fact that he’s an asshole of the highest order?  What does she think about the fact that she has a sister who was apparently allowed to live a much more comfortable life than she did?   It’s not explored, except in the shallowest terms possible; the show doesn’t care. The same occurs with the Collective: after attempts to paint it as the biggest of bads, they turn out to exist because the series needed a baddie, any baddie, development or characterization optional.  The Section’s collapse, which could have been used to tell a story about the organization, its methods, and how it has changed since Nikita became part of it, is instead background noise.  A lot of the season feels like filler, which is astounding, given that it’s only eight episodes long. 

While I appreciate the fact that the shows is attempting to tell a larger story and is attempting to keep its mythology straight—this was not the case in season one—this does not make the season any more consistent or cohesive.  Yes, the continuity technically works, but the character motivations underpinning it all are a complete mess.  Mr. Jones, who allegedly spent years ensuring his safety via a complex web of deceit, suddenly abandons it for no goddamn reason.   Nikita is suddenly very invested in getting to know her father, but not at all interested in her fucking sister. Jones apparently has a super-computer that makes excellent predictions, which is mentioned in one episode and then forgotten. Nikita is considered the only viable choice for running the Section, even though a) she doesn’t want it, and b) has demonstrated shockingly few of the skills necessary to run it.   One of the season’s best character bits, Nikita’s concern for Mick Schtoppel—the false Mr. Jones—evaporates as soon as she meets the real one: we never learn if he ends up alive of dead, because she never thinks to fucking ask—and this is a character who had been making recurring appearances since the first season!

Even the things that sort of work, like the series ending, are bothersome.  Yes, it makes emotional sense that Nikita ends up in charge of the Section. It fits. However, the implicit suggestion that she will allow it to keep operating like it normally does, despite the fact that “like it normally does” means enslaving people, is not only terrifying, but it also suggests that the series was never going to do right by Nikita, even if it had wanted to. 

Consider the existing case for the Section, or complete lack thereof.  Yes, the western world needs protecting, but not even Mr. Jones can explain why, exactly the Section is the tool for the job, or why, exactly, the only way to obtain capable soldiers is via coercion and dehumanization.  He can only say that the Section is necessary, and the series can only act as if that’s all the answer one needs. 

This, then, is why we can’t get a Nikita who is actually as effective as the series tries to make us believe she is.  A Nikita who is clever, decisive, driven and against the Section, would, at the very least, ask questions the writers can’t answer; at most, she would actually upend the entire system.  Hence, why she is instead uninformed, naïve, foolish, ineffective and passive, even at the alleged height of her powers.  It’s not just unconscious sexism at play; it’s the writers realizing they can’t further their preferred narrative without stacking the deck in their favor, and breaking the show in the process. 

Not that sexism isn’t still a factor: not only can it be seen in the way Nikita is written, but also in the fates of all the female characters. While I quite love Quinn, the show’s overall writing suggests that her attempts at manipulation are meant to be seen as transparent, pathetic, and ineffective.  That she ceases to have a role in the story after Operations’ death suggests that her prominence was granted to her so that she could serve to prop up his character, rather than as the star of her own story.  Jasmine, after reappearing in episode two so she could “prove” that Nikita’s attempts to make the Section less tyrannical were wrongheaded, becomes a non-factor.  The two female Collective members are easily dispatched obstacles or no larger importance to the plot.  Michelle, Nikita’s fucking sister, doesn’t get even a hundredth of the attention their father does. Even Madeline can’t return without suggesting that her final act of defiance—committing suicide—was both wrong and done only because she was thinking about Operations. 

In short, women in La Femme Nikita can’t be selfish or have wants; they can only exist to serve.  Male characters like Michael, on the other hand, get to have agency, an active role, and sympathy, and to be terrible without consequences.  While Nikita ends the series doing the thing she’d been saying all season she didn’t want to do, because her abusive absentee father told her to, Michael’s final fate is being free to raise his son without interference.

What is perhaps saddest about all this is that, as usual for this series, many of the ideas here are quite good. Yes, give me the Section falling apart. Yes, give me Nikita trying to make changes inside the Section, whether they succeed or blow up in her face. Yes, give me Quinn attempting to begin a relationship with Operations out of a combination of ambition and genuine interest.  Give me Operations dying and the Section scrambling to recover. Even Nikita’s search for her father can be made into something compelling, as can be plainly seen in…um…Nikita.

Granted, La Femme Nikita deserves to stand on its own, rather than in comparison to its more recent remake, and shouldn’t be criticized for failing to be like a series that didn’t yet exist. And yet, it’s more or less impossible not to compare them, given that most of the stories told here are stories that the latter series also ended up telling. Nikita’s search for her father? Done, and Nikita Mears’ relationship with Richard Ellison is far more compelling in half an episode than this Nikita’s relationship with Jones manages to be in four.  Nikita placed in a position to take over the Section? Done, and in a way that fully sells both why she doesn’t want to do it and why she feels she needs to, and makes it her choice. The Section falling apart?  Done, in a way that squeezes a lot of tension from a combination of internal and external factors.  Heck, both series pull off the penultimate episode heroic sacrifice, except that in Nikita it is actually essential to the story, rather than something that just happens.

La Femme Nikita’s failure, however, is more fundamental than just not being like the remake. The problem isn’t that it’s not like Nikita, but that it plainly doesn’t value storytelling or character development. As it is, this is a season which hints at evolution and growth, only to show that no, this series is as mediocre as it ever was, all the way to the end.

[theconfusedartist]

DRAGON AGE

Alright, so I’ve been wanting to talk about this for a while, now that I’ve gotten back into dragon age origins and since I’m about to start doing a shit ton of fanart and fic simply bc I’m getting back in the swing of it, I figure I might as well start actually making a post about them, rather then just making a one-off post and talking about them without out any context lol.

Ok so, in this AU that I’m working on, Duncan realized that, hey, maybe only one recruit for like the end of the world in his order of grey wardens, is not the best idea, and then goes on to recruit all of the characters from the origins.

So, he swings by Orzammar first, getting Brosca and Aeducan. In this au, the name of my Brosca is Tsoyo and the Aeducan is Sariah. I’m gonna post pictures of every one of my warden later, but for now, I’m just gonna say who they are. Tsoyo and Sariah knew each other before, since Seriah hired Tsoyo’s...services in the past. Seriah doesn’t really think much of the casteless, but she does like that they can do some dirty work for her and go basically undetected for it. So, in terms of time, Tsoyo goes to the proving and wins, just like in the original, and Duncan recruits her, but in this, Duncan stuck around a little longer as the Aeducan family still had business with him and he needed to go to the deep roads to make sure that this was a real blight and I mean, hey, what better way to test the new recruit right? 

So, while Duncan is getting Tsoyo ready for what’s to come, Seriah goes to the new provings that takes place as they redid it because they couldn’t fathom that a casteless could ever win and this doubled as them holding it in honor for the Seriah getting her new post as a commander. Seriah didn’t really rise to Bhelen’s bait and didn’t go after him like Bhelen had hoped, even though she realized that there was no way that the mercenaries could’ve gotten the ring unless it was from Trian. It was quite the surprise to see her brother, dead in front of her and her father and Bhelen walking in and being accused of his death. 

She gets sentenced to walk the deep roads and meets up with Duncan and Tsoyo and from there they scout for a bit before going off to the circle. Because I mean, hey, one mage is equivalent to ten soldiers, right? 

So, Duncan gets there, with Tsoyo and Seriah in tow who are really uncomfortable being around each other as they’ve had a less than clean relationship in the past (murder, blackmail, and other stuff). Duncan gets to the tower for recruits and in this au, both ‘Surana’ and Amell are there. I’ll explain why I put the ‘’ around Surana in a minute. 

So, Amell, who’s first name is Daylen, Jowan, and ‘Surana’, who’s first name is Acici, are all there. Jowan is going through with his little plot to escape the circle and Acici has literally just had her harrowing, a few nights ago before Duncan had gotten there. Daylen has his harrowing the night before Duncan arrives to the tower and his goes very...differently. 

I’ll go into this a LOT more in a second reblog, since I want to go into everyone’s backstory in a bit, person by person, with pictures, but since I’m going with the abridged version, I’ll just put it as, Acici had the normal harrowing that we get in the game, give or take, and Daylen thought it was fun to fuck around with things that he shouldn’t. So, Duncan has his eye on the both of them and Acici, being the actual loyal friend goes around bolstering her image and getting the rod of fire, killing spiders and charming the old man to sign the form for her. She had him sign the form, but then figured that if she curried favor with as many senior enchanters as possible, then it would probably be good for her in the long run. 

As for Daylen, well, he’s sitting there like, ‘why do we have to get dragged down with Jowan?’ and goes to Senior Enchanter Irving and tells him about it. Sure, he feels bad about it, but the deal was this: if he goes along with this plan, then he and Acici have to be pardoned and get off scot free for helping with taking down Lily and catching Jowan in the act. Irving agrees and he plays double agent. And well you know how that song and dance goes, Jowan gets away, and the others are left holding the bag. Irving tries to pacify Gregoir, but he hates mages so Duncan conscripts them both into the order. Meanwhile, Tsoyo and Seriah are just really confused with all the magic bullshit going on. And then there were four recruits. 

After that, Duncan and the four recruits go to Highever, to recruit Ser Gilmore because I guess Duncan wanted a basic ass bitch (idk, I’m not gonna lie, I haven’t finished the human noble to this day. I’m still trying to, but I really didn’t see any appeal in Gilmore like that, he seemed like someone good to have as a second, but not someone you’d send to kill an archdemon when there’s only two grey wardens left) and Cousland, or better known as Luna the heartbreaker, isn’t really interested in the wardens or anything. I mean why would she be? Duncan is fine and all, but she gets to rule over a castle by herself, why the hell would she want to leave? But then, it’s not really up to her when mostly everyone gets killed anyways. So, at this point we have five recruits, good job Duncan!

Their next stop is (drumroll please) DENERIM! (wasn’t expecting that were you?)

Duncan was like, shit, lemme go and get Adaia, at least that way I know that I can have someone who knows what the score is and she can help the others and Alistair as someone who’s been around the bend and seen some shit. Only, that’s not what happens, obviously because Adaia was killed by humans a while back, but he is just in time to witness a double wedding and get threatened by a one of the brides (lol). And also see them all get carried off to get raped by the arl’s son and his guards. Luna is cross, but like ‘hey, shouldn’t we do something about this?’. Tsoyo is a bit surprised because she thought that elves were all a bunch of fig eating floofies that just lived in happiness, not squalor and fear of death, so she seconds it. Acici is ready to murder Duncan when he says that they can’t get involved (for that same reason that ‘Surana’ is like that) and hands a sword to Nelaros and Soris. Go get ‘em boys!

And now the estate is running with blood, Nelaros is dead, Shianni is traumatized, one of the bridesmaids is dead, and Tabris, Sauda the bride, has literally learned all the different ways to kill over seventy men with a dagger and how quickly rat posion kills three adult human men. Sauda, not willing to let Soris get hauled off, says that it was all her doing. Which...isn’t really an exaggeration, she tore into those fuckers like she was getting paid to do it, Soris gave back up with his crossbow, but she was very eager to spill blood for the kidnapping of her, the others and Nelaros’ death. Also Vaughn was killed, as was his friends. Horrifically. 

And now we have six recruits!! Way to go Duncan, you always find the lively ones!

This recruit wasn’t planned, as Duncan was planning to cut through the Brecilian forest to save some time, and came across two elves that are just heavily tainted. That’s right, in this au, Tamlen lives. So Mahariel, Yeva, and Tamlen are just sick as fuck, but still alive so Marethari is like, ‘let’s get a fucking move on’ and Duncan conscripts them, when they both try to weasel their way out of it. But what can you do? At least Tamlen isn’t dead (a split second decision, I’m not gonna lie). So, Duncan comes to Ostagar with seven new recruits and most of them just....do not give a damn about the king (lolololol get fuckin’ rekt Calian). They go into the wilds, save a few mabaris (mabari? mabaris?) with some wild flowers, Tsoyo gets a big gay crush on Morrigan, then they come back and do shots with the darkspawn blood in the joining. Daveth and Jory die(wah wah) but everyone else makes it out alive (Tamlen...barely made it. Bitch nearly pulled a Daveth) and then they were sent to the tower. 

The reason for them all being sent to the tower was simple. Cailan realized that a lot of the new recruits just did not give a fuck about the crown or his authority or was in grieving over their lost loved ones, and was like ‘hey, that way there’s no way that the tower ISN’T going to be lit and I don’t have to worry about them on the field’). And then he died. Duncan didn’t die tho, are you fucking kidding me? The leader of the grey wardens? Dying? I don’t fucking think so. He makes it out, but it’s a little after the battle and he makes it far enough into the wilds that Flemeth saves him. The other wardens have already left with Morrigan and they’re on their way to Lothering, but Duncan had to stay with Flemeth for a while due to the severity of his wounds and how long they would take to heal, even with magic. 

Duncan joins up with the other grey wardens around the time that they get captured by Anora’s captors (I have to play to see who would get captured or not, as most of these characters are fucking warriors and some of them in their own personal runs might actually be able to take them down where others can’t) and I haven’t decided what happens at that point. 

That’s all that I have right now, but once I get some character portraits up, I’ll update this a bit more.

[nelliewolf123-blog]

Villette Book Review

Villette shouldn’t work. Yet Charlotte Bronte writes an accurate, personal tale of a young English woman named Lucy Snowe, born without fame or fortune in the 1850’s. The first three chapters scarcely cover Lucy’s existence at all, though they’re written in 1st POV. It doesn’t seem relevant, the opening scenes being about Lucy’s stay at her godmother’s, yet every person has a reason for being there. Every step of this novel feels perfectly plotted out, and every chapter has a reason and couldn’t be extracted.  

Lucy’s life isn’t easy. She lands a job taking care of a rich, ill woman and forms a bond. However, the woman dies before changes are made to her will, and her inheritor doesn’t credit Lucy anything. She makes a sudden decision, to take a boat across the Atlantic, and land where she may.

She lands in Belgium, in the fictional town of Villette, led only by a glamorous young girl (Ginevra Fanshawe) she met on the boat. By a stroke of luck she lands a position in a pensionnat, a type of boarding school, though she doesn’t speak French.

Lucy soon learns though, and applies herself to be as capable as possible. The headmistress - Madame Beck, is an excellent administrator, recognizing Lucy’s worth and soon thrusting her into the position of English teacher.

My favorite part of the novel is how understated and apparent the romance is. We receive no mention of any romantic feelings towards Professor Emmanuel until page 370, when Lucy cries at the prospect of the professor going away. There are brief mentions of him beforehand, descriptions and scenes. But the narrative never explicitly says that Lucy likes him. It is extremely understated, but if you keep watch, you can see that Lucy’s description of the Professor’s looks and personality slowly become more favorable.

“The little man looked well, very well. There was a clearness of amity in his blue eye and a glow of good feeling on his dark complexion which passes perfectly in the place of beauty. One really did not care to observe that his nose, though far from small, was no particular shape, his cheek thin, his brow marked and square, his mouth no rosebud. One accepted him as he was, and felt his presence the reverse of damping or significant.” Page 327

Lucy could be seen as melodramatic by some people. There are pages upon pages of narrative describing her current mental state. She struggles throughout her life and being very alone without a parent to guide her. They’re isn’t mention of her parents, so we assume her home life was non-existent. She goes through a mental breakdown when left alone for summer break. Yet it’s all very important and truthful. Lucy isn’t dramatizing things, in fact, she criticizes those who do - like Ginevra Fanshawe, a vain student she teaches.

Language. Something that might turn people off this book is the frequent use of French. My version is abridged, so short phrases and words are provided with immediate definition and sentences are given a key in the back. For someone with no knowledge of French this could get annoying, but I found it very inspiring. I love when an author goes beyond just the English language, though they could merely say “he spoke to her in French.” It adds a unique flavour to the work, and makes you feel all the more transported.

Villette is a novel with largely internal conflict. It’s hard to doubt that Lucy and Emmanuel will overcome whatever stands in their way, but it’s easy to think that Lucy might back out herself. This is story of being isolated from society, from care, yet still managing to be a smart, discerning individual who overcomes the mental strain of living in the 1800’s with employment. It’s extremely admirable, and it’s one of my favorite novels.

I hope you like it too.

[inbonobo]

#informthyself Why #ShoutingFireInACrowdedTheatre can never be an #argument against #FreeSpeech but it is proof that the proponent is uninformed. #education #edumacation #censorship

To me, this argument (abridged OxfordLearner version) is so obviously flawed that it doesn’t need a rebuttal. That free-speech is paramount is so self-evident that it’s difficult for me to understand how others are (or allow themselves to be) fooled by flawed arguments to the contrary. So when a friend brought it up recently, I suggested that she googles it, (since she did not want to hear me “mansplain” it), but apparently could not find counterarguments. 

I don’t want to see my friend suffer. Whenever we argue about something, she gets emotional and hyper and she seems afraid of being proven wrong. She would interrupt me before I even make an argument, sometimes after the first three words in a sentence, comes out with a (usually wrong) idea about what I’m trying to say, then proceeds to fight the strawman thus created ‘til death do us part. OTOH I cannot sit idly while violently absurd arguments are passed as axioms. Since I’m quite sure I’m not the only one seeing the problems with that argument, I could let others explain it to her.

Apart from the video above, here’s what else I could find.

Firstly, just to contextualize, both the US Supreme Court as well as its Canadian counterpart (perhaps the latter more so) have repeatedly ruled that there are limits to free speech. “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is actually a quote from a unanimous decision of the USSC (”SCOTUS”).

Let’s now look at what we could find about this case. From Wikipedia:

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draftduring World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include (but does usually imply) the word falsely, i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

<<The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.>>

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are obvious.

To summarize, this came about against a few Jewish socialists who were distributing pamphlets in Yiddish against the draft in the First World War in the USA, and the very judge writing this decision came to a change of heart in a later case.

And there’s more.

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

The latest example comes from New York City councilmen Peter Vallone, who declared yesterday "Everyone knows the example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater," as he called for charges against pseudonymous Twitter @ComfortablySmug for spreading false information during Hurricane Sandy. Other commentators have endorsed Vallone's suggestions, citing the same quote as established precedent.

In the last few years, the quote has reared its head on countless occasions. In September, commentators pointed to it when questioning whether the controversial anti-Muslim video should be censored. Before that, it was invoked when a crazy pastor threatened to burn Qurans. Before that, the analogy was twisted to call for charges against WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. The list goes on.

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."

The Court's description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:

It said, "Do not submit to intimidation," but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed "Assert Your Rights."

The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court's holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year--Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.--also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White's excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."

Even Justice Holmes may have quickly realized the gravity of his opinions in Schneck and its companion cases. Later in the same term, Holmes suddenly dissented in a similar case, Abrams vs. United States, which sent Russian immigrants to jail under the Espionage Act. It would become the first in a long string of dissents Holmes and fellow Justice Louis Brandies would write in defense of free speech that collectively laid the groundwork for Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s that shaped the First Amendment jurisprudence of today.

In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abramsthat the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."

In @ComfortablySmug's case during Hurricane Sandy, that is exactly what happened. Within minutes of sending out his false tweets, journalists discovered he was spreading rumors and quickly corrected the record, sounding the alarm not to trust his information. Regardless, no one was hurt because of his misinformation. The next day, @ComfortablySmug (whose real name is Shashank Tripathi) apologized and resigned from his job as the campaign manager of a House Republican candidate in New York in response to the public's reaction to his actions.

The truth prevailed, not through forcing censorship or jailing a person for speaking, but through the overwhelming counterbalance of more speech. As Holmes said after his soliloquy in Abrams, "That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution."

(via TheAtlantic)

A Reminder About Shouting ‘Fire’ in a Crowded Theater

By Susan Kruth March 16, 2015

Few argue that there are or should be no limits to freedom of expression. Last week on The Torch, I discussed the boundaries of several categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment, such as true threats and incitement to imminent lawless action. When arguing that expression that falls into one of these categories should be punished, there is ample case law to cite—still-valid Supreme Court holdings that are directly applicable to the speech at issue. But too often, would-be censors who have nothing else with which to justify their efforts at silencing others fall back on that old standard: “You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

Trevor Timm, writing in The Atlantic, and Popehat’s Ken White both implored the public back in 2012 to stop employing what White called “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.” Their message has not spread far enough, and we at FIRE think their thoughtful analyses of the historical context and the ramifications of the quote are worth pointing to.

(..)

In White’s article on the overused phrase, he provides a thorough look at how deeply the Court carved into freedom of expression during wartime and how furiously Holmes tried to backpedal. Finally, in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court announced a new standard to govern speech like Schenck’s, setting a much higher bar for what could be punished by the government: speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Regardless of whether one believes that the current boundaries of unprotected “incitement” are too narrowly drawn, the Court’s holding in Brandenburg at least ensures that people voicing opposition to the draft, or otherwise criticizing the government, will not be put in prison for their advocacy.

Post-Schenck, Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States (1919), another speech-restrictive Espionage Act case. Holmes’s writing in Abrams, however, is much more consistent with the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence:

[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.

As Torch readers may know, the Court has since characterized universities as “peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas.’” They are places where we should especially foster “free trade in ideas” and be especially hesitant to censor speech based on concerns that it may potentially, at some indeterminate point in the future, inspire someone to break the law or obstruct the functioning of a government entity.

So when it comes to racist speech, speech that could cause emotional discomfort, or speech that might not conform to vague notions of “civility,” it’s not enough to say simply that these types of expression should be censored because “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” As White aptly sums it up:

Holmes quote [stands for] for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying “well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment” is a persuasive argument to the contrary.

Click over to Popehat and The Atlantic for more analysis, and check out FIRE’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus to read about how (current!) First Amendment law affects the free speech rights of students and professors on college and university campuses.

Even Jordan Peterson has apparently used this flawed argument while virtue-signalling in the Hill, according to an article published in a Ryerson paper:

What are the outer limits to free speech? Oft cited is the example of yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson invoked just this image in a contribution to the Washington, D.C.-based paper, The Hill. Peterson has attracted a lot of media attention by refusing to accommodate requests that he refer to transgendered students in his classes by pronouns other than ‘him’ or ‘her.’ He complains that he will be the victim of hate speech prosecution, like holocaust deniers, if he does not respect these requests. For this reason, he claims, freedom of expression principles are engaged. Free speech “is so fundamentally important that restricting it in any manner carries serious risk”. “Nonetheless,” he writes, “we shouldn’t be allowed to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.”

There is a lot of confusion here. Surely we should want to encourage folks to shout “fire” if there were flames licking at their feet. This cannot be a limiting principle to freedom of expression. Peterson appears to want to paraphrase U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous opinion in Schenck v. United States.

(via Ryerson)

As modern-day statists decry or attempt to explain the Constitution; something they often neither respect nor understand, they use the example about yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater as an example of how the restrictions of government as enumerated in the Constitution are not absolute, are outdated, and sometimes just wrong.

Regarding the absolution of it; I assure you that while the Constitution was designed to be amendable if We the peopleoverwhelmingly agree to do so, it is absolute; or at least it was intended to be. Yet, arresting someone for falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, believe it or not, does not violate the 1st amendment in any way. It can, and should be a crime without freedom of speech having ever been infringed upon.

Last week in my article Why Can’t I have a Nuclear Warhead, I explained how owning an AR-15 versus owning a nuke is a frivolous argument that people who wish to abandon our Constitution often use. So this week, I’ll do my best to debunk this one as well.

If you are in a movie theater, you may freely say the words fire, bomb, I just farted, or whatever else you may exclaim that could scare the heck out of everyone if said loud enough.

Conversely, if there were a fire, you would be right, and frankly a hero, to warn everyone by yelling “Fire”. This being true, using those words in a theater will not get you arrested as a general rule either when appropriate.

The issue is not the action of exercising your free speech, it’s about creating a hazardous environment for people by virtue of yelling fire or any other method you might use. Because this then creates a panic, and thus a dangerous situation where people could be trampled or otherwise harmed in some way as they attempt to evade a danger that only existed in your sadistic mind. You could pull the fire alarm, not yell anything, and you’d be guilty of the same violation; so the speech used is never the issue.

By creating a panic, you infringe on someone’s right to life, as enumerated in the Constitution, since a panicked crowd becomes a serious health hazard to everyone involved.

Sadly, our Constitution is misunderstood, violated, and under attack every day. As Americans, we should understand that the Constitution was right long before we even fully understood how to implement it. We were slave owners declaring all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights, after all.

The Constitution has never been the problem—it had it right all along. People violating it has, and always will be. So let’s not let the left destroy it with false premises, logical fallacies, or misdirection. We the people should take the time to read, understand, protect, and promote the Constitution responsibly. Our liberty depends on debunking such false arguments. Hopefully, as people like me explain away them, you’ll be better prepared for your next debate.

(via logicallib)

Please Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Metaphor MARCH 4, 2013 BY ED BRAYTON

After the last meeting of CFI Michigan, a bunch of us went out to a restaurant as we always do, and sat and talked. In a conversation about some First Amendment issue, one guy trotted out the trite and false “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” analogy (which was not even remotely analogous to the subject we were discussing). If you’ve ever used this argument in arguing for some particular restriction on freedom of speech, please stop.

First of all, not only is it virtually never analogous to the argument being made, it wasn’t even remotely similar to what was going on in the very case in which it was invented. The full statement — “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic” — comes from a Supreme Court ruling in 1919 in a case called Schenck v United States and it was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a first ballot inductee into the Vastly Overrated Hall of Fame.

This case is also where the phrase “clear and present danger” comes from. That was the standard that the court established for when the government could suppress the free speech rights of citizens, until it was overturned in 1969. The case involved Charles Schenck, the secretary of the Socialist Party of America, who had printed up and distributed pamphlets during WWI urging people not to comply with the draft. Those pamphlets argued that the draft violated the 13th Amendment ban on involuntary servitude (and he was right, in my view).

Schenck was arrested for this and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which handed down an appalling 9-0 ruling upholding his clearly unconstitutional conviction. Holmes’ written opinion said:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic…The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

It is important to note here that the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater was utterly absurd even when it was invoked, since nothing in the Schenck case was even remotely similar to such an act. The most that could possibly be said is that Schenck might be able to convince a small number of people to defy the draft, with the impact on the war effort negligible at the very most. No one was put in danger by his words, imminent or even in some far-fetched string of causation.

The metaphor was absurd in the very case for which it was invented; it is even more absurd in most other cases. And it’s almost always used to justify some totally unrelated restriction on free speech, as if the mere fact that the court recognizes some narrowly defined exceptions to the First Amendment somehow justifies the particular exception the person arguing wants to carve out. The fact that a right is not absolute (no right is, of course) is not an argument in favor of any specific exception that someone wants to argue for. So it’s just an illogical argument to make all the way around.

For nearly a century now, our discourse on constitutional matters has been haunted by a ridiculous analogy that was meaningless when it was created and even more meaningless now. It’s time to put this tired cliche to rest, once and for all.

(via Patheos)

Elsewhere, in a Second Amendment site, the Schenck case is fully explained and the reasoning behind the First Amendment protection is applied to the 2nd one. YoExpert briefly explains both the Schenck and the backpedaling case. Volokh finds issues with the word falsely. On Quora, a few lawyers explain it as it pertains to current criminal law in the US, and the general limitations on free speech.

In conclusion:

This is one of the most egregious example of Supreme Groupthink, an error SCOTUS partially corrected shortly thereafter.

There is no question that the law in both USA and Canada restricts free speech (nobody denies that), the question is whether that is justifiable or not. In my view (and that of others) it’s not.

Some arguments are semantic and thus weak, focusing on the fact that the phrase is often misquoted with “falsely” omitted. I think that’s a waste of time. Surely the word “falsely” is important, but the whole idea does not instantly become correct or valid simply by adding “falsely”. It’s still invalid.

A lot can be said in support of one’s right yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Maybe one day I will. In the meantime, one can go through the above and come up with their own argumentation.

[allsystemsarenotgo]

“The Novel”

I've been needing to talk to somebody about something. Last night, somebody I don't talk to very often anymore was willing to give up some sleep to talk to me.

I gave them the abridged version. I knew they needed sleep and didn't have time for a novel.

.

.

.

Here is "The Novel".

---

A child learns their name by having it spoken to them repetitively.

A pet learns its name by having it spoken to them repetitively.

When bullies call you gay and queer repetitively because you've never had a date much less a girlfriend in 12 years, ... At some point you begin to believe it.

When that trend continues to a statistic of 3.25 years of relationship out of 30 years of life.....

You begin to question the things you ever thought you knew.

I was an opinionated ass in high school that knew better but did the things anyways because I had nothing to really lose. Except I did lose alot of pride along the way.

I didn't like many things, and I didn't understand the decisions of many people. There are days that I wish I was still friends with people that I alienated or that alienated me because I didn't believe in drinking alcohol or having kids before college, or at a young age at all.

There are alot of days that I wonder....will I have to be find a lady 8-10 years younger than myself to love me for who I am...and potentially make them have kids at a young age so I'm not the age of their peers' grandpa's when they graduate?

^ That image was me in high school.

I never dated in high school. I courted and got shot down a ...couple... times. I didn't go to parties, I wasn't a part of the cool kids' clique. I didn't really....do anything high-schooley in high school.

And it got me bullied. My eccentricities made me well known. I was generally outspoken and firm on what I believed (no sex, no alcohol, scientifically agnostic) and...it basically made me live in infamy. It got me bullied alot. I was called gay and queer alot. And it wasn't just from 1 or 2 or 5 people.

I had 3 crushes in high school. Two were a grade younger than I.

The first I asked out my Sophomore year. We talked alot, sat next to eachother, did classwork together. We were both above-average students, so the teacher us let us do what we wanted while she dealt with the rest of the class.

That was really what entered me into the downward spiral of depression. I'd never asked a girl out before, much less been shot down. It took me a long time to get over that.

The second I asked out my junior year. We didn't have any classes together, but I had worked my way into her family via a mutual friend. I felt like we knew eachother fairly well.

Getting shot down by her didn't hurt as much as I thought it would. But given the nature of high school, the backlash of her friends and friends-of-friends, and probably half the school altogether...that is what hurt. It showed the true colors of many whom were already primadonna status, approaching it, or (falsely) thought they had it. She did apologize to me after a period of time, and ultimately, she probably made the better decision.

I never asked my third crush out. After being shot down twice in two years, I didn't want it to be three for three. I worked with her, and we got along awesome. Maybe not asking her was a fatal flaw in my life. I will never know. We have stayed friends over the years despite not seeing eachother until earlier this summer. I met up with her twice, and both times wrenched my emotions. I've since found out she is actually taken, which shot down my chance of ever knowing the true answer.

Then I finally went to college.

I went from a school of 450 kids in a town of 360 people to a dorm of 500+ kids in a college of 10,000+.

But I did not change with the scenery. I was still outspoken.

Neither of my roommates liked it.

Neither of my roommates liked me.

I was outspoken enough to write a persuasive essay on Abstinence for my college English class. I didn't see the problem.

Until the Prof said we had to read them aloud, after she had graded them.

Then I panicked. I crashed and I burned.

I felt so....little and insecure.

I wasn't one to force my thoughts on people. Yet, I just had.

Do you know how bad that feels inside?

Pretty damn bad.

One day, I got a message from a high school friend I hadn't talked to in a while. We started talking. In the end, she admitted she had a crush on me through high school and asked if we could give it a try. I was 1.5-2 hours away from home.

It was a hard juggle, but we made it work as best as somebody that'd never had a GF before much less a LDR could.

After a few months of LD dating and the start of my second year of college, a topic came up that would change the rest of my life mentally.

And something clicked in my head.

- What if this girl was 'the one'?

- What if something happened. Would I want to die a virgin?

- What if this doesn't work out. I'll always be the inexperienced one?

That last one hit me hard. There was no way around the fact. And for what I knew, I knew that being the lesser experienced would likely never be a good thing.

(10 years later, a friend put it perfectly....)

I convinced myself to break something that I had let run my life for the previous 10+ years.

I think it's safe to say that very few peoples' first time is "great". But it's a learning experience.

-learn-

-learn-

-learn-

Then we broke up after 9 months.

We rarely saw eachother, it couldn't be that difficult to get over right?

Wrong.

-sulk-

-lonely-

-stressed-

-imbalanced-

And...

-addicted-

I was broken. The fire inside of me had been lit, and nothing was putting it out.

I had a raging wildfire spreading within me within a few short weeks, and no way to control it.

I had just started a job at the school newspaper, running the website. I shared an office with the two graphic design artists. We were getting along pretty well and it was fairly evident that both of them were really relaxed and loose about what they wanted to talk about. I was the reserved one, sitting at my desk, listening with minimal contribution.

Until one day, I finally had the courage to chime in to their conversations. It didn't take much longer before I was in my second relationship.

I learned alot of new and different things during that 2.5 year relationship.

Example: telling her father about my shellfish allergy. It was good because he cooked alot of it. It was because he knew my weakness and made no secret that some things would easily justify using it against me.

I learned to get over my fear of public image. I was dating a woman almost twice my weight. When we first started...dating...I was petrified to be seen with/around her much less hold her hand. Over time that phobia subsided.

I learned that addiction comes in many forms. I spent many nights at her apartment, sometimes I went home and sometimes I didn't. Spending 4 hours a day with her at work and another 4-12 hours with her at her apartment...it got to the point that I missed her when I was away from her. I missed having her company, and I missed cuddling.

I learned that I'm very much a physical contact person. After all those years of being an only, lonely child...I wanted to give and receive physical touch.

She would print off a piece of artwork, I would lay on my stomach on her bed, and she would trace the outline onto my back, then start filling it in. That's usually when I would fall asleep. She would keep drawing as I slept, and eventually I would wake up.

As long as we were touching, I was happy. Sometimes I would lay on her, sometimes she would lay on me, sometimes we'd be side by side with a leg on the other.

I learned that calculated risks are worth calculating to the limit. And that mis-calculating is not fun.

I learned that parents are smart and figure out almost everything.

There was only one real issue and one hybrid issue with the relationship.

Both of us were mentally strained. I could not speak my emotions or feelings. I couldn't handle the 'adulting' conversations regarding the future. I couldn't explain when I was sad, mad, upset, or anxious in voice, only text. I couldn't "use my words". When scolded, I just wanted to ball up in a corner and cry. At the same time, both of our academics were on a downward spiral of death. She ended up dropping out completely and going back to junior college, I ended up changing majors twice and barely escaping with any pride left at all and a very expensive piece of paper that said "Bachelor of Science in Miscellaneous Bullshit". Okay, University Studies...but same thing.

The relationship had evolved far beyond what it had originally been intended to be.

It was supposed to be more of a cover-up for a FWB situation than an actual relationship. But we caught some sort of feelings, and....

.

.

I've been single since then.

It took a few years, but we still talk to eachother and are still friends.

But I miss the cuddles.

I miss the touching.

I miss being relaxed and falling asleep while being drawn on.

I miss...alot of things.

I had a few more crushes develop during college. Some I let go, some I got turned down on. At least none of them laughed at me. 

One of the ones that I let go...I reconnected with a couple months ago. I was going to ask her out...and I kinda did...only to find out that she was secretly in a relationship that hadn’t gone public yet. That was a pretty good kick to the twig and berries, knowing that I was just too late to the party. 

Once I learned about High Functioning Autism, alot of things made sense. I slowly learned better coping mechanisms. I learned to do more "normal" things like making eye contact.

My senior year of college, I met an awesome lady in my coding class. We got along great. She helped crack my shell. We went on walks, we played basketball, we played on pool tables, we played soccer. We sat on balconies and talked. We kind of...had a thing going. She was my only friend to attend my college graduation. We even took a picture together in my cap and gown (which I have tried many times to find. I'm guessing it was deleted....see below).

But we didn't. I wasn't allowed to hug her much less kiss her, even on the forehead (I wanted to...many times). I was barely allowed to hold her hand.

I got shot down. I felt like I was in a plane that was missing a wing and didn't have an ejection seat.

I plummeted into the ground and crashed and burned.

We stopped talking after that.

I still don't know what exactly I did wrong.

I still don't know what exactly I did wrong.

I could say that about many friends that I have lost over the years.

I still don't know what exactly I did wrong.

That was 5 or 6 years ago. I honestly don't remember anymore.

That's how long I have been lonely.

That's how long it has been since I went on a date.

That's how long I have not been able to have an unweighted conversation.

Sure, I have seen my second ex a time or three. But it's not the same. That's not a date. That's not something to lead to the future.

I have a two best friends that I can talk about almost anything with. But I never see them. One lives two states away, the other lives several hours away (any other state besides Texas, and they'd be in another state).

They help. They give me a method to vent. But I am afraid of losing them.

I have lost 3 best friends in my life already.

One cut me out of their life as a birthday present to me after 4 or 5 years, my freshman year in the dorm.

One cut me out of their life after many conflicts over 7 years. We never met in person.

One cut me out of their life after I became a burden to them. We saw eachother on a regular basis, I even stayed at their house once after they tried to break my shell and I (mentally) collapsed into a puddle of goo. They also hurt me once by calling the police for a welfare check, and my parents got involved.

Of the two best friends I have managed to keep, the closer of the two has issues in their own life going on right now. I feel guilty and sad for even talking to them...they have asked that I limit interaction while they try to straighten out their own world. They have also called the police on my for a welfare check, and got my co-workers involved.

I already had a hard time making friends before. Anymore, it's hard for me to trust anyone at all.

I don't have any friends to go places with.

I'm always working my ass off (working 7 days a week these days, haven't had a real day of rest in months).

Social Anxiety says that I can't go anywhere alone. Plus I don't really trust myself alone, much less in a foreign Environment.

How am I supposed to meet a friend, when I work my ass off 7 days a week? When I don't know what resting is?

How do I elevate a non-existent friend to "More than a friend" status?

A child learns their name by having it spoken to them repetitively.

A pet learns its name by having it spoken to them repetitively.

When bullies call you gay and queer repetitively because you’ve never had a date much less a girlfriend in 12 years, … At some point you begin to believe it.

When that trend continues to a statistic of 3.25 years of relationship out of 30 years of life…..

You begin to question the things you ever thought you knew.

Sometimes I wish I was Ace.

Sometimes I wish I knew what I am.

Historically, I can be described as a smart, odd, minimally sarcastic ignoramus. But that is only my personality.

Am I straight? Am I gay? Am I bi? Or am I just hopeless?

Will I ever find love? Will I ever have kids?

Is there something wrong with me that revolts women away?

Will I have to find a woman 8-10 years younger than myself and cause her to have children at a young age to avoid being the age of their peers' grandparents at graduation? If I find a woman now, we date for 3 years, engaged for 1, married for 3, then have a kid...I'll be 37 when they are born and 55 when they graduate high school.

We're the bullies in high school right all this time? I don't want them to be. But what if they are? Or am I just that broken inside?

The things that I like/enjoy...they scare me a little. And that's coming from me. For years I have said I was a sapiosexual (turned on by intelligence rather than personality or looks)...but it never occurred to me, what if the gender lines do not in-fact exist? What if....

These are the questions that keep me awake at night.

These are the questions that feed my depression.

These are the scenarios that feed my anxiety, my trust issues, my loneliness.

These are the reasons that, more than anything....I will never turn down a hug.

Because a hug means you love and care about me.

And I need that reassurance.

But it feels good on the inside, too.

[clearascountryair]

Hello! I've been scrolling through some of your ao3 stuff and I was wondering if you have any headcannons for Jemma's childhood/home life? Your love for her makes me so happy :))

THIS MESSAGE MAKES ME SO HAPPY

I don’t even know where to start.  I asked @agentcalliope and she just responded with “dude you have headcanons about your headcanons.”  I guess I’ll just go chronologically.  There’s always more 😂.  I am one day going to just write a series of oneshots about Jemma’s childhood, but I’m really particular about writing in chronological order, which makes it a slow task when I really want to be writing the later stuff.  But I feel like you should know that I have Jemma’s whole family and their SOs mapped out on a spreadsheet. 

 So, @buskidsburgade, you might come to regret asking me this.

Anyway, most of this weird mixture of headcanons/abridged bullet fic is under the cut because it got long.  FYI it’s not all happy, but I did leave out the more sever specifics for the sake of this post.  If anyone wants them (or any elaborations I HAVE THEM ALL) just ask and I’ll give it with any appropriate warnings

Her father, Chris, is an English professor.  He took off a good ten or so years to take care of the kids, but when Jemma was about five, he went back to working.

He specializes in youth literature in the 19th century, particularly girls’ literature and how it both creates and undermines gender roles.  He was a little bit attached to the name Alice for a daughter because of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, but when they got a dog shortly after their third son was born, they ended up naming the dog Alice.  The whole family jokes that Alice and Jemma are tied for favorite daughter/sister.

Her mother, Ana, is a pediatric oncologist.  She’s a Dutch Jew.  Her mother is a Holocaust survivor--Jemma gets her incredible will to survive anything from her.

Jemma has four older brothers: Kit (1976), Peter (1977), Matt (1983), and Liam*(1987)

*Jemma will not acknowledge that Liam is older than her, but he is by exactly 6 minutes and 23 seconds

I originally had a fifth brother but *someone* suggested that that might be too many.  I can’t remember his name at this point.

According to the spreadsheet, his name was Ben.  He’s between Peter and Matt.

There was also a sixth but he didn’t have a name and that same wise someone suggested that if there are brothers without names or even just only names and no personalities, they’re probably unnecessary.  But that’s the reason for the age gap between Peter and Matt.  There were two more squeezed in there.  I just love Jemma being from a really big family okay.

Kit, Matt, and Liam are not short for anything.  They are not Christopher, Matthew, and William.  Just Kit, Matt, and Liam.

Sometimes Liam shows up in ‘verses where I’m not getting into the whole big family dynamic, like the Secret Santa piece I wrote for @the-nerdy-stjarna.  I don’t think he’s her twin in this piece, but his personality is always the same.

Kit’s a neurosurgeon, Peter’s a biochemist, Matt’s an astrophysicist, and Liam’s a philosophy professor

Liam tried very hard to rebel against the science-yness of his family.  It was never his thing and he always joked it would lead to him being the family disappointment.  He was wrong, though, because his family’s awesome and love him anyway.

While Kit and Peter mostly went on the same school track their whole lives, the three younger kids moved around schools a lot (well, Matt a little–he’s a bit older than the twins).  When Jemma was little-ish, they refused to move her up any higher at the school she was at because, despite her books smarts, they thought she needed to develop social skills before advancing her as much as her parents wanted her to be advanced.  So they did a lot of moving around school to school if they felt like whatever school they were at was preventing their children from reaching their full potential.

They’re raised pretty secular, but definitely Jewish.  They speak a mixture of English, Dutch, Yiddish, and Hebrew at home.

Peter is horrible and I hate him.  Here’s a very abridged version of why with some of the worst bits taken out for now but he’s a piece of shit constantly battling Grant Ward for Shittiest Person Ever on Fitz’s Shit List (likewise, Ward battles Alistair Fitz on Jemma’s Shit List). This is where all that cut stuff would be.  I just want it somewhere else where I can cut it off with appropriate warnings.  This stuff references sexism and emotional abuse.  It’s all italicized if you want to skip to the end.

Peter very much liked being the smartest of his siblings and he got 10 pre-Jemma years, plus two pre-communicating-Jemma years of being that sibling.  He skipped two years in school, thus being the first of his siblings to go to college.

He’s determined to be a biochemist from a fairly young age, at least as far back as Jemma can remember and he’s so smart and charismatic and all Jemma wants to be when she’s little is just like Peter.

Peter disagrees.  He doesn’t take well to his much little sister getting so much attention for being so smart (and in his field!) and it manifests horribly.

He was always going to be an asshole probably because he’s selfish and narcissistic, but his unwarranted resentment of his sister caused his assholeness to manifest in a lot of sexism.  A lot.

The first major incident is when Jemma is about five.  I actually wrote it as the first chapter of what was gonna be a longer piece, but I’m gonna make it a one-shot in the series.  I just keep forgetting about it.  Whoops.  Anyway Jemma likes to help all of her brothers on their school work.  Kit indulges her and Matt and Liam actually find it useful.  Peter gets pissed and alternates between telling Jemma she’s stupid and that no one cares what she has to say anyway because scientists don’t care about girls.  He tells her no one will take Jemma Simmons seriously.  So she starts going by her initials (It’s JJ in my story, but I guess canons has now made it JA which doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily.  So they’ll just call her J).  It’s not until after she’s started at the Academy that she starts getting comfortable using Jemma in any situation.  It takes getting Peter out of her life for her to do that.  That will come later.

So it starts out as him constantly reminding Jemma that there’s a lot of sexism in STEM fields but evolves into him becoming that sexism.

He’s the source of most of her self-doubt.  And it’s really intense when she’s young.  He’s incredibly manipulative and cruel, but he’s also the person Jemma wanted to be when she was little and before he got that way.  So it’s hard for her to reconcile the two and she ends up being pretty susceptible to him.

When she gets her first fancy internship/job/ta gig/I’m not sure yet, he frequently questions how she got the position, often telling her it’s just because she’s pretty and the men who hire her are interested in her for not her brains. And she knows she’s smarts and she knows she deserves her positions, but Peter’s been putting this idea in her head since pretty much puberty, so by the time she gets to the Academy, it’s pretty much a constant nag in the back of her brain of “What if I’m not enough?  What if I’m a fraud?”

It’s obviously a problem for the whole family.  Peter’s pretty smart about keeping these conversations between just him and Jemma, or saying stuff ‘as a joke.’ So there’s a long time of “Peter’s an asshole, take him with a grain of salt, he doesn’t mean anything by it” before they really recognize it as abuse.

The summer before she starts at the Academy, she’s biking at night with Liam and Liam’s girlfriend and they don’t have reflectors or anything and Peter’s back in town and hits Jemma at an intersection.  He takes her to the hospital and she’s mostly fine, just a broken leg, but Liam’s convinced it wasn’t an accident.

Anyway by the time she’s at the Academy and meeting Fitz, Peter’s spent a good five years building up all the self-hatred and loathing and doubt in sixteen-going-on-seventeen Jemma Simmons.  It’s easy for her to assume Fitz hates her because everyone probably hates her.  When she and Fitz are presenting one of their first projects together to a lower level SHIELD higher up, he asks, “And when will Dr. Simmons be joining us?”  Weaver and Fitz throw a fit (Weaver maybe even gets him fired), but Jemma’s just kind of both unphased and traumatized by it at the same time.  That’s the first time she completely opens up about her personal life to Fitz and why she never uses her first name and what it was like growing up with four brothers, one of whom is awful.

That’s also when Fitz opens up about his father.  Jemma’s said maybe just a couple sentences about Peter and it’s causing all these realizations and maybe it’s the first time that he brains is using abusive to think about their relationship and Fitz says “he sounds like my dad.”  And speaking of it and giving it a name is so helpful to them both.  That validation of their emotions and of their brilliance.  It doesn’t end the self-doubt, of course, but it’s a nice moment of clarity.

She starts going by Jemma after that.

(I feel like I should mention that, as shitty as Peter is, Kit, Matt, and Liam are amazing.  They love and support their sister unconditionally and are a bit quicker than their parents to really see what Peter is doing to Jemma and do everything they can to act like a buffer at family gatherings)

It all culminates on Christmas Eve during Jemma’s winter break from the Academy.  That’s when Chris and Ana decide enough is enough and make the impossible decision that it is dangerous and unhealthy to allow Peter anywhere near their other children.

That’s also the same time that they meet Fitz and his mum.

Ana and Bea are a lot like their children in that it’s a crime against humanity that they spent so much of their lives not knowing each other.  Every couple weeks, Ana drives the four and a half hours to Glasgow for a girls’ weekend.  Chris jokes that he’s the real third wheel.

Kit, Matt, and Liam are quick to accept Fitz as family.  If he’s important to Jemma, he’s someone special.

They do all their holidays together now, even when they go to Amsterdam to be with Ana’s mother.  As far as they’re concerned, Bea and Fitz are family.

[badthingstrumpdidtoday]

Weekly Recap: Bad Things Trump Did This Week, 3/12/17-3/18/17

Hey, it’s another weekly recap. Here’s the bad things that happened last week in the government.

Sunday, March 12

Not too bad today, all we have is this:

Trump plays his 9th round of golf in 7 weeks on the job

Source: Independent UK

Monday, March 13

Oh, here we go.

The Big Ones

Executive Action: Trump signs Executive Order 36, with an aim to cut government waste in the Executive Branch

Source: The Hill

Trump signed the measure in the Oval Office, telling reporters it requires a “thorough examination of every executive department and agency” to find out “where money is being wasted [and] how services can be improved.”

The president did not say whether the order seeks a set amount of cuts, nor did he indicate which agencies could be hardest hit.

The White House did not immediately release the text of the order. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney will oversee the review, which will involve outside experts as well as government officials, Trump said.

The president, flanked by his Cabinet secretaries, said the order would “develop a detailed plan to make the federal government ... more efficient and very, very cost productive.”

It would be submitted to Congress before implementation.

Healthcare: Non-Partisane Congressional Budget Office says that approximately 24 million people would lose health insurance under the GOP plan

Sources: Politico, CNN, BBC, Washington Post

The legislation would lead to 14 million more people being uninsured in 2018 alone. The nonpartisan scorekeeping office also forecast the GOP plan would cut the deficit by $337 billion over a decade, primarily because of the legislation's cuts to Medicaid and private insurance subsidies.

The full report, from CBO

Axios presents the following breakdown:

Coverage: 24 million fewer than Obamacare in 10 years (14 million in 2018)

Savings: $337 billion in deficit reduction over 10 years

Premiums: 15 to 20 percent higher in 2018-19; 10 percent lower in 10 years

The Rest

[Department of Justice] Trump’s DOJ lays out travel ban defense as court challenges loom

Source: Washington Post

[Center of Medicare/Medicaid] Senate confirms Center of Medicare/Medicaid pick Seema Verma in a 55-43 vote

Source: The Hill

[Congress] The GOP is taking aim at internet privacy rules

Source: The Hill

[Congress] Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) makes some incredibly racist comments, tries to defend them

Source: Politico

Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort is accused of taking part in Ukrainian mass killings

Source: Independent UK

Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway suggests Obama was spying on Trump through microwaves

Source: Independent UK

Trump has spent approximately 15% of his Presidency at Trump-owned or Trump-branded properties (at taxpayer expense)

Source: Washington Post

Trump let’s key department offices sit unfilled during the “slowest transition in decades” 

Source: New York Times

Tuesday, March 14

The Big Ones

[Congress] Senate Votes on party lines to nix Obama-era drug testing rule

Source: The Hill

Senators voted along party lines 51-48 under the Congressional Review Act to cut the rule. The legislation already passed the House and now heads to President Trump's desk, where he is expected to sign it.

Under a 2012 law, states can only drug test individuals applying for unemployment benefits if they were previously fired for drug use or work in jobs for which workers are regularly drug tested. The Obama rule specified a list of jobs the could be included under the law.

Republicans have argued the Obama regulation amounted to a federal overreach that limited a state's ability to determine its own drug testing policy.

"As we saw too often, the Obama administration went beyond its legal authority in creating legislation that limits the role of state governments," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said from the Senate floor.

[Environmental Protection Agency] EPA to reconsider chemical plant safety rules

Source: The Hill

The rule, which was made final in December under the Obama administration, overhauls the standards that apply to chemical plants and similar facilities to prevent and mitigate accidental chemical release emergencies.

The decision comes just two weeks after a coalition of industry groups affected by the rule wrote to Pruitt asking for such action. Congressional Republicans have also objected, and Congress is considering legislation by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to overturn the rule.

The Rest

Ukrainian businessman with ties to Russia and Trump dies of unexplained circumstances

Source: Independent UK

Wednesday, March 15

The Good Things

Trump’s Travel Ban 2.0 is halted nationwide by Federal Courts

Source: Bloomberg, Washington Post

Decisions by federal judges Derrick Watson and Theodore Chuang blocked a 90-day ban on new visa approvals for people from six Muslim-majority nations. After Watson issued a temporary ban Wednesday on the entire order, Chuang reinforced the decision by halting enforcement of a single paragraph aimed at stopping the entry of nationals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan.

The rulings are a victory for a group of states, advocacy groups, technology companies and universities that challenged the executive order they said damaged the economy and was at odds with the nation’s founding principles. The White House had spent weeks crafting and carefully rolling out its March 6 order after other judges had swiftly rejected the first travel ban, which Trump announced with great fanfare days after taking office and immediately spurred chaos at airports across the country.

The decision to halt the policy before it could take effect Thursday will almost certainly be appealed -- first to the same San Francisco appellate court that rejected the previous ban -- and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump has since decried this as “judicial overreach”, and claims the new ban was a “water down” version of the old one

Trump decried the ruling during a rally Wednesday night in Nashville, introducing his statement as "the bad, the sad news." "The order he blocked was a watered-down version of the first one," Trump said, as the crowd booed the news. "This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach," he added, before pledging to take the issue to the Supreme Court if necessary.

The Rest

Trump steps in, overrides National Security Adviser McMaster and allows a Michael Flynn protege to stain on the National Security Council

Source: Politico

[Environmental Protection Agency] EPA confirms they will re-review 2025 fuel efficiency rules

Source: Reuters

[State Department] A lone, conservative leaning, news journalist is accompanying SecState Rex Tillerson on his trip to Asia

Source: Business Insider

[Intelligence Chief] Senate confirms Dan Coats for Intel Chief

Source: Reuters

[State Government, Oklahoma] Republican state senator from Oklahoma arrested on counts of prostitution involving a male minor

Source: The Advocate

Thursday, March 16

The Big Ones

Trump issues budget proposal, with cuts to many departments and programs

Source: CNN, Washington Post

Michael Flynn worked with many Russian firms and was paid by Russian cyber security firms, while he still had US top secret clearance 

Source: Business Insider

[Congress] Senate votes to repeal crucial regulations in ESSA education law

Source:  New York Times

The Rest

Actually, we’re going to leave it at the big ones for Thursday.

Friday, March 17

The Big Ones

Trump accuses British spy agency GCHQ of assisting Obama wiretap Trump Tower; White House apologizes, then rescinds the apology later

Source:  Independent UK

The Trump administration, which had already told Number 10 that it would not repeat the comments, suggested that it didn't have to take responsibility for the reports cited by Sean Spicer.

Mr Spicer was referring to claims by a Fox News guest that the British security services had helped Barack Obama spy on Mr Trump when he was President-elect. The White House has said that Mr Spicer wasn't pointing to any story in particular but in fact a range of them.

Reports come that recently fired US Attorney Preet Bharara was investigating HHS Secretary Tom Price over stock trading, and his firing may be an attempt to scuttle the investigation 

Source: The Hill

Trump expected to pick coal industry lobbyist and former aide to Senator Jim Inhofe for Deputy Director of EPA

Source: Politico

Trump meets with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, after bashing her during his campaign

Source: NPR, CNN

The Rest

[Congress/Healthcare] GOP aims to make changes to Healthcare bill to get votes

Source: The Hill

[Tech] ISPs want you, and Congress and the FCC, to believe that your browsing history and app usage data should not be “private data”

Source: Ars Technica

Trump sends two potentially hate groups to the UN meeting on Women’s Rights

Source: Independent UK

Trump’s White House newsletter cites a satirical article to support his budget; they clearly did not read the article

Source: The Hill 

The article cited

Saturday, March 18

The Good Things

[State Government, New Jersey] New Jersey passes bill requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates to release tax returns to be on the ballot; awaits signature by Governor

Source:  The Hill

The Rest

[Department of Homeland Security] DHS begins to look for bids for the wall, has weird requirements

Source: New York Times

[State Department] SecState Rex Tillerson claims he’s not “much of a media access guy”

Source: The Hill

[G20 Summit] US forces G20 Summit to drop any mention of climate change from joint statement

Source: Independent UK

The Interesting

[Poll] A recent poll shows that the majority of young Americans consider Trump to be an “illegitimate president”

Source: Associated Press

[alecthemovieguy]

Demetri Martin: An ‘economic’ comic

Demetri Martin is a stand-up comic known for a unique mix of observational humor, one-liners, jokes about language, drawings and music. His brand of humor earned him a spot as a writer on “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” and as a contributor on “The Daily Show.”

As an actor he’s appeared on such shows as “House of Lies” and “New Girl,” and in film, most notably as the lead in “Taking Woodstock.” “Dean,” his first film as writer, director and star, is set for release this summer.

I interviewed Martin for The Conway Daily Sun and The Portland Phoenix, which published abridged versions of the interview. Here’s the complete transcript of our nearly 30-minute conversation.

A lot of stand-ups make a point of using transitions to have their sets flow, but you do a series of non-sequiturs. Is that an intentional choice?

Yeah. From the get go for me, I wanted to do stand-up, I think, because I really just like jokes. Once I started writing them, I would (have the most fun) coming up with stuff, kind of just brainstorming and daydreaming. Part of the game for me has always been to write the most economical jokes I can in terms of how many words they use. Now, I’ve been doing it awhile and I’ve loosened up a bit and I am a little more conversational, but I still like that game of writing the shortest jokes I can. When I am on stage I can do as many as I can in the time that I have, so I usually wind up with not doing a lot of segways or anything. I just go from joke to joke.

But it does seem to have a lyrical flow even though it is a collection of random jokes, do you carefully choose the order in which they go?

Yeah. By the time I shoot a special or record an album, I have a pretty good sense of an order that I like, just over time. When I am writing jokes, it really is pretty random. Then they start to coagulate or whatever the word is into certain little chunks. Sounded kind of gross, but you know what I am saying. A flow kind of emerges where I say  “You know, I think that joke goes better here for whatever reason.” “I’m not going to do that in the first five minutes.” And then maybe these jokes are structurally similar so I won’t have them near each other. Things like that dictate the order a little bit, but one of the nice things about doing a collection of jokes is that I am not really bound to any order. There is not really a sequence there but things kind of emerge.

You studied law, so how did that influence or shape your comedy?

Well, it definitely drove me into comedy because two years in law school was enough for me it. It showed me that it wasn’t a good fit. Even after the first year, early into the first year I felt like “Ah, this is not that existing to me.” But I really didn’t know what else to do with my future or my career or whatever. Luckily, I was in New York and there were comedy clubs, so I said, “You know what? Maybe I can try that.”

In terms of the study of law, I liked studying the history of jurisprudence, how a law is shaped through court decisions. I still kind of find that interesting. I don’t know if that had any direct impact on my stand-up. But there is that logical element to studying law and making arguments — certainly the LSAT in preparation for law school. There are different kinds of logic problems, logical reasoning problems. I don’t know, maybe there’s some relationship between that and writing jokes and structuring jokes.

Yeah, because you clearly have a love of language. You’ve written in palindromes. So, what is it about language that fascinates you the most?

Well, I realize that at some point, palindromes are pretty arbitrary. I don’t have any specific connection to palindromes. It is not like I come from a family that has them or something or know anyone who is really into palindromes. You know, there are people that do them, but it was not like I was brought up with palindromes. But I think, after thinking about it for some years, one of the things I like about palindromes is that, in a weird way, they are related to simplicity. Because, to make a palindrome, you follow just a very simple rule but things get difficult and complicated really quickly. I think that is one of the things I like about it. It is simple to understand what the rule is but yet it is really difficult. It gets complex pretty quickly when you follow that rule.

Then just practically, traveling so much over the years as a comedian for my work — alone �� has led me to different activities that really help me pass the time when I am on these planes, sitting in airports. I am not in a band. I don’t travel with other people. I don’t have a road manager, anything like that, so it is me and a carry-on bag. I read books, I listen to my music and I draw, but sometimes, if I am on a six-hour flight, honestly, trying to write a palindrome is really difficult. It makes time vanish. I get so engrossed in it. It is arguably pointless. There’s not really an application for it, but the process is kind of enjoyable.

How did you develop your style?

Well, Steven Wright I’ve mentioned in interviews before, was my favorite comedian when I was growing up, when I saw comedy on TV in the ’80s. I still love his comedy. I think he’s such a brilliant comedy and joke writer. I liked Gary Larson a lot, too, as a kid. “Far Side” always made me laugh. It might have been one of the first things, if not the first thing, that made me laugh from just looking at it on a piece of paper. Those two influences and certainly my father, who was not a comedian but he was a funny person. Those were three things that probably shaped or became my style.

Then over time, as much as I wanted to be like Steven Wright, I can’t. I’m not him. I can’t be him. I can’t write like him. I think myself emerged out of that. I still tell short jokes because I gravitate towards that. But I like drawing. I am not great at it, but I’ve liked drawing since I was a kid.

Music came later. I listen to music all the time but no one in my family played instruments and I didn’t grow up music or anything. But somewhere along the way, I wanted to see if I could learn how to play music. It is not only fun but useful to material and ideas. What happened was I started headlining and doing longer shows on the road, I found that it was an interesting way to break up my material, for me to put things together, maybe combine some of the material with drawings, maybe combine some of it with music. Even tell stories sometimes because it could be a little more narrative and that helped diversify my presentation, I guess you could say. For shows that are over 75 minutes or if I’m stage for 90 minutes, it is not just a list of jokes, it is something more happening.

Do you remember the first time you ever got a laugh?

You mean not in stand-up, just in life?

Just in life. First memorable time when you are like “Oh, they are laughing at me and it’s a good thing that they are laughing at me.” I don’t really remember the first time. I remember vaguely … well, this certainly wasn’t the first time but when I was a junior in high school I went to this summer program called the Governor’s School on Public Issues in the state of New Jersey where I am from. That program had 100 students from around the state. We were all students that got good grades and we applied for this and we were chosen to be in it. We got to spend a month on a college campus. We took these classes and had discussions.

Anyway, the people that ran it were really cool, and they really wanted to foster a sense of community, so at the end of it, they had a bulletin board and they stapled a paper bag with each student’s name on it and everyone was encouraged to write notes to each other and just leave it in their bag. And then when you left you got to take your paper bag. You could read your notes on your way home or when you got home or whatever. What was interesting was it was the first time in my life where I had a situation like that where there were all these notes from a bunch of people my age. And every note said that “You’re really funny” or “You’re a funny kid” or “You’re the funniest kid I met” or something like that. It was really interesting. It was “Oh wow, that’s interesting, I’m considered funny. That’s cool.” So, that was kind of late. I was like 16, 17 at that point, but it did have an impact on me because it made me feel like maybe I am funny.

One of your earlier jobs, in comedy at least, was writing for “Late Night with Conan O’Brien,” what was that like?

That was great. That was a job I really wanted, and that was a coveted job in New York in the comedy scene there because there weren’t that many of those positions and people didn’t leave that job often. It was a really good place to work. It was great because, first off, Conan is great to work for. Jeff Ross, who is executive producer of the show, is also great. They are two genuinely nice people and they treat their staff well. So, it was really cool having a boss that I respected and liked who was really smart and really funny.

The other writers were great and one of the great things about that show is if you’re a sketch writer, so not monologue, but if you’re writing the sketch pieces, you get to not only write your bit, but you get to direct it if you’re shooting any kind of footage for it, you get to cast it, you get to work with the different departments — costumes or props or art. So, you’re getting a little crash course in directing in a sense and producing comedy, so I loved that about it.

The thing I didn’t like about it, the hours were kind of unpredictable. Some nights we’d stay until midnight and other nights we’d stay until like 8:30. You never knew when you were going to get out. It was really hard to do stand-up and do the job at the same time. So, I had to make a choice and I ended up leaving the job which I never imagined I’d do just because I wanted to keep pursuing stand-up, so I quit.

But you were part of an award-winning season in terms of writing, so you got that.

Yeah that was cool, yeah. I got a trophy.  

You were a correspondent for “The Daily Show” for several years and did a segment called “Trendspotting.” If you were to do a “Trendspotting” segment now, what do you think it you’d do it on?

That’s an interesting question to me because the world has changed and of course it does change, but even in the time since I did that segment. To me that was kind of a joke, the idea of trendspotting, but trending is now clearly a very common verb that people use all the time. I don’t even know, I’d probably — I like to read design blogs a lot for whatever reason, I guess it is because my wife is a commercial and interior designer, so she’s gotten me more into the world of design. So, it would probably wind up being something too dry. It would be something with design and sustainable. Everything is sustainable. A lot of 3-D printing. Stuff like that.

It is interesting how in just like a decade how much has changed. Like I watched your bit on social networking and it was all focused on Myspace and, of course, Myspace is gone.

Right. It is crazy. It is long gone. That seems like a different lifetime and it really wasn’t that long ago.

Unlike a lot of comedians, you’ve actually gotten to work with a two-time Oscar-winning director on “Taking Woodstock.” So, what was it like working with Ang Lee?

That was a great job. I was excited to get that role. It was pretty intense. It was super educational. I am not a trained actor. Ang is clearly one of the great directors we have in our time. I knew I was in for an interesting ride, and I was because Ang told me in the beginning of rehearsing, shortly after I got the part, he said “You know all the comedy you do, I’m not interested in that. I picked you as an actor.” And he told me point blank “Your job is to know your lines, be well-rested and be prepared and be able to adjust. I give you direction, I need you to be able to adjust.” He said “Your job is to give me options.” He said a lot of other things, but that was thing that stayed with me. Educational because I’m used to writing and performing my comedy and perspective, so this was a different assignment. And he did me a big favor because he taught me a lot about acting and filmmaking. But it was pretty intense. You know, I wasn’t working in a coalmine but, still, everyday I was on that set taking direction, learning how to do things and then there was a whole movie that was waiting for me to get a scene right. It was so different than stand-up because you are on your own, this was part of a larger creative ecosystem.

Right because your character, in many respects, is the straight person that is reacting to all this insanity around him, so it is very much is kind of the opposite of your impulses as a comic.

You’re absolutely right. It was a difficult thing to manage and also to learn. It is not my work. It wasn’t my movie. I didn’t direct it. I was hired to be a part of it, so I had to do my best to help Ang execute his vision in that movie as kind of a straight man in a sense reacting to, yeah, everything going on around me. It was really cool because it is a period film. As an actor it was a very great challenge. Not that it is that hard to play a gay character, if you’re not gay, but also there is some work there. I wanted to be sensitive to who that person was, who I was portraying and do my best to make this person three dimensional and become a character as much as I could. Of course, I don’t have a big range as an actor, so I did my best.

Did you learn anything from Ang Lee that you applied to directing “Dean?”

Yeah, I think so. Well, first on Ang’s movie and the few other films or TV series I’ve been cast in, you learn quickly how collaborative the whole experience is and how much trust is required. People really have to trust each other, and the other departments have to work together and, as an actor, you have to trust your director and everybody, really. So, that was something I thought of really in the process of making my own movie. This is not just getting people to help me execute my story or my vision or whatever you want to call it. It is finding people to work with who I can trust who will hopefully trust me, so it is really about finding collaborators. Whether it is hair and makeup, whether it is your DP, props, everybody, it is a big deal. Now, my movie was such a small budget, it made it all the more important. I’m sure on a huge movie, it is always important, but my experience with low-budget, I thought “Jeez, I really don’t have any time or money to waste.” You’ve got to just maximize every dollar and minute, so if you have good collaborators it is a lot easier to do. If you don’t, it just makes it so much harder.

What was it like not only acting with but directing such great acting veterans as Kevin Kline and Mary Steenburgen?

It was great. I got lucky for sure because both of them were such lovely people to work with and I didn’t know either of them before we worked together. Now, being on the other side of this movie, I can see how lucky I got. It doesn’t always work out that way. You can get someone to be in your movie and they can be difficult or they're afraid. As a first-time director, you’re really asking people for a lot because there is no proven track recorded. They are taking a big risk. Kevin and Mary did a lot more for me than I did for them, so I will be forever grateful to them no matter how the movie does. If it is some big hit then great, but even if not, they still helped me actually get my movie made.

But, yeah, working with them was great because they were patient, and again, I keep using the word collaborative, but it is really the best word for it because even in doing a scene, you’re really making it happen together. I tried to stay out of their way because they have so much more experience than I do, but then, at times, I asked “Can I have it this way?” or “Can we just try this line this way?” and things like that. It was very harmonious, especially given how little time we had. They didn’t have a lot of takes to do their scenes because we had to shoot so much each day in order to get the movie done, so there were only a few takes for each set-up with the camera but even given that it worked out really nicely.

“Dean” seems semi-autobiographical. How much of Demetri is in Dean the character?

It is autobiographical I guess you’d say in terms of its emotional storytelling or the emotions underneath the story, but it is pure fiction otherwise. I like the idea of making up a story and telling a made-up story but I also like the idea of making something that is grounded and is emotionally real. That is really what I tried to do with the movie. There’s nothing in there from my life. I can’t think of anything that is real, except that the character is an illustrator and even that, I’m not an illustrator. I’ve had a book of drawings and my second one will come out in the fall, but that certainly doesn’t make me an illustrator.

I am a comedian who likes to draw and I like to act but knowing real illustrators and seeing their work, I can’t tell those people I am an illustrator. I am comedian, but I thought it would be interesting to make the character an illustrator and focuses on that kind of work rather than a comedian or actor or something. So, that is pretty autobiographical as like a little sliver of who I am. And I lost a parent when I was young. I lost my dad, so for the movie I made it my mom. I really did want to fictionalize it and not and end up telling literal tales about my life. It just didn’t seem interesting. But, yeah,  if you see the movie, you see “Oh, yeah that seems like Demetri” because I’m not really disappearing it some different character, it is more like, “OK, here’s my sense of humor and now let’s put it into this character and tell a story.”

In 2006, you pitched a movie to DreamWorks called “Will.” Whatever happened to that? Did it basically become “Dean?”

No, that’s totally different movie. I sold that to DreamWorks. I did some drafts, some rewrites of the scripts for that. And then it ended up at Paramount and it got greenlit for like a week in maybe like 2010, somewhere around there. I thought the movie was going to get made and then it fell apart and didn’t get made. Then another director got attached to it a few years ago and I did another rewrite of the movie. It still didn’t get made. As with many projects in Hollywood, it may just die a slow, terrible death. I have a little, tiny shred of hope that maybe it’ll get made but I’m not holding my breath anymore.

It is partly why I made “Dean” because naively I thought when I sold it, “Oh my God, I’m going to get a movie made and it’s going to be at a studio. This is exciting.” And then my heart slowly got broken each successive rewrite that I did. I got paid for it, so I can’t complain about it but, at some point, I realized I am going to stop waiting for that to be my ticket into movies and just start making my own. And “Dean” was my first attempt at it. And it is not a high-concept movie. It is a low-budget movie. It is truly an independent film. I’m glad I did it and I want to make more of them. I hope someday I’ll have adequate budget, not like the biggest budget in the world, but enough that I’m not asking every single person who works on the movie to do me a favor because that’s pretty much what happens when you make a really small movie.

And going back to your drawings, obviously you’re not an illustrator, you’re not doing comic books, but if you were to create a comic book superhero character, what would that character be?

Well, I’d probably have to think for a while to come up with something really good but my first thought would be, maybe this is just me getting a little bit older, but I think if someone who had the power to change perception, his own perception and the perception of others, that in itself would be a pretty interesting superpower. I often feel like reality is just really what you spend your time thinking about or paying attention to. There’s certainly reality beyond that but for each of us, it just seems like perception is such a powerful filter. It might save my character and everyone a lot of effort and time if a lot of it took place in their mind instead of flying around and borrowing shit up and everything. Pretty boring answer. But yeah that’s my first thought. Maybe that’s why I am a comedian. It is more about ideas. But I think there’s something in there.

Perception Man.

Exactly.

Or Preconceived Notion.

Or Perceptor.

[dcnativegal]

I miss protesting

 The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

On Saturday, March 24, 2018, hundreds of thousands of people gathered to protest the ridiculous ease with which people in the United States can acquire guns, including assault weapons who’s only purpose is to kill as many humans as possible as efficiently as possible.

I watched live video of the “March for Our Lives” that took place in D.C., which was the largest ‘assembly’ in the world that day. The Washington Post tallied more than 300 separate rallies against gun violence in February in the United States alone, and there were protests around the world. In D.C., it was a huge gathering, and the debate will never be settled as to whether it was the largest ever, or whether the Women’s March in 2017 was larger, or whether Obama’s first Inauguration crowd wins the prize. The National Park Service stopped trying to count protesters years ago, so it’s subjective anyway. But it doesn’t matter. The “March for Our Lives” got plenty of press. If the march encouraged everyone who is eligible to vote to actually VOTE, then there’s hope for a progressive wave in this country. As the picture below shows, HOPE is at the center of a protest march.

The District of Columbia may be the location of the most political protests, rallies and marches on our planet. I practiced my right to ‘peaceably assemble’ I don’t know how many times over the 56 years I lived in DC. Several each year, times 50 plus years is over 100 rallies.

My first memory of a march was around 1968. My family was living in an apartment in Adams Morgan, and in the same block was my best friend, Annie Harris. She and I were in the third grade at Oyster Elementary, across the Duke Ellington Bridge over Rock Creek Park. Her mother was what my mother would call a hippy.  What I remember is that Annie and I went on a ‘picnic’ with Ms. Harris, and we got to say a bad word along with a whole bunch of other people: HELL NO, WE WON’T GO!!  I had no idea where it was we all were refusing to go to but goshdarnit, we were NOT going. I remember the crowd, the yelling, and my father’s face when I got home and told him what we were yelling. Chagrin doesn’t begin to cover it. Let’s just say my dad was VERY conservative.

The anti-war marches of the late 60s and early 70s helped to stop the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement certainly pressured President Johnson to get moving on voting rights and many other legislative corrections to systemic racism.

I have a clearer memory of marching down 16th Street. It was 1976 and I was 16. We were protesting the lack of voting representation for DC citizens in the US Congress. D.C. at that time had more people than 10 states. I used to be able to rattle them off: Montana, Wyoming, both Dakotas, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Delaware. I can’t remember the other two. I don’t remember where we were heading to: probably to the public park in front of the White House since it’s at the end of 16th Street NW. What I know for sure is that it wasn’t fair then and it isn’t fair now that 50 states get at least two senators and a representative, and the residents of the District of Columbia get one lively but vote-less delegate.

The 50th anniversary of the uprising following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr just passed. There’s an article in the Washington Post about how restrained the police were during the looting of stores. There were two deaths caused by law enforcement, one or both accidental. The other 11 deaths came from fire. The Southern racist who chaired the District Committee demanded to know why the police did not shoot the looters on sight. Basically, the police chief stated that lives were more important than loot.

From the roof of our apartment building on Mintwood Place, we could see the glow of fire to the east.

I didn’t discover St. Stephen & the Incarnation Episcopal Church until 1976, and when I did, I stayed for 40 years. On April 4, 1968, the church became a safe haven during the riots, since it was one long block from the epicenter of fire and looting on 14th Street. Parishioners welcomed their neighbors with cups of water, and a place to rest. You can hear some of the history of this radical hospitality on this video: https://www.facebook.com/ijpoole/videos/10156322731554712/

The protests following Dr. King’s assassination were not peaceful. They were a violent catharsis. What was looted felt like a wee bit of reparations; but the looting also harmed the Black community, sadly.

One good thing came out of the more than 300 protests that spontaneously arose in the grief and rage following Dr. King’s assassination:  The Fair Housing Act. It had been stalled and filibustered.

**

Law enforcement in DC is far from perfect. Even so, decades of mostly orderly and nonviolent protest, since before the Poor People’s March with Martin Luther King in 1963, taught the police officers how to host a protest safely, closing streets, leaving passageways for ambulances, and generally staying calm and protective, rather than antagonistic.

Since the Vietnam protests, there have been marches for women, for choice, for safety from gun violence. Marches for gay people, and for marriage equality. There are also marches organized for conservative causes, including the well-attended March for Life that takes place every January on the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationally.

On one of my birthdays, we went to a small but spirited Black Lives Matter protest, and I had my sign: White Silence = Violence. My children were with me. The gathering started with speeches in Lafayette Square, across from the White House, and walked along Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol. It must have been 2015, because when we got to the Trump Hotel, we booed. I peeled off at Chinatown on 7th Street and waved my children onward. They are pros at demonstrating, my daughter especially. She knows to write the name of the legal services attorney on her arm in sharpie in case she gets arrested.

**

I understand that the protests which erupted all over the world the day after #45’s inauguration included Klamath Falls. A group of about 200 mostly women walked along a bridge near downtown with their handmade signs. Apparently, a pickup truck burning oil went back and forth, spewing exhaust at the marchers, who’s spirits were undampened. Inhalers probably came in handy.

**

The Inauguration of Barack Obama, in January 2009, took place on a bitter cold day, at least for DC: in the 20s. My girlfriend at the time and I bundled up, stuffed juice boxes and granola bars in our pockets, wore two socks on each foot, and plenty of layers. We were able to take a bus out of our northeast neighborhood to the area around Chinatown and walk the rest of the way to the National Mall. We made it through crowds of joyful Democrats, including regal black women in full length fur coats. Only their best finery would do on such an occasion. We perched on the east side of the Washington Monument, and watched Barack Obama on an enormous jumbotron take the oath and make a speech.

He told us: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

The man was prescient.

**

In 1980, my friends and I were so young. Old enough to drive and enlist in war. Too young to buy beer. Privileged to attend an elite liberal arts college that was SO liberal, it had an active Young Socialist Alliance during the McCarthy era. We were earnest. We had taken classes in non-violent civil disobedience and trained well to remain non-violent. We were 6 students, cutting class to drive a rented van to Washington DC.

It was late April. We drove from snowy winter in northern Ohio, to vibrant flowering trees rooted in emerald velvet.  We arrived and set up camp in the decrepit mansion on Park Road that I later moved in to when I lost my job and had nowhere else to live in 2012. This house was built in 1906, has three full stories and a huge yard. Our crew filled up all the extra beds. We somehow were fed; I don’t remember if we went shopping, or if Ruth Holly, a very generous woman and the mother of an old boyfriend, simply fed us. We were lucky and well cared for.

On the morning of the protest, we drove to the Pentagon in our van. I remember assembling on the steps in front of one of the many entrances. We were joined by hundreds of other earnest mostly-white young people. We held hands and blocked the entrance so that workers couldn’t use it to go inside and work. I can’t remember whether we sang or stood quietly. I do remember it all went pretty fast. We were arrested one by one, with plastic handcuffs on our wrists behind our backs.

I remember that feeling of being handcuffed, and suddenly, not being in control of what I did. I followed orders. The police were professional, efficient, and nonchalant. All in a day’s work.

Off to the Arlington Police Station we went. We were processed and fingerprinted.  We’d agreed: we would plead Nolo Contendere, meaning “No contest” – there is no question that we’d blocked the entrance to the Pentagon. We were doing it to symbolically shut it down. In reality, we inconvenienced a few hundred workers who were just doing their jobs. Our lofty goal was to end the arms race, the risk of mutually assured destruction. Forty years later, the risk remains.

We were allowed one phone call. I called my father at work. I told him I was fine, I’d be in jail for a couple of days and then out again. He said, between clenched teeth: “That’s fine, Janie, but don’t call me at work.”  Oops. He worked at the Central Intelligence Agency at the time.

We females were herded into a gymnasium. I remember the awful fluorescent lights which were kept on all night. We were given a pillow and a thin blanket. For dinner, I said I was a vegetarian, so I was given Wonder bread with American cheese. I also remember going to the bathroom in a stall with no door and a corrections officer watching. It was a terrible feeling, being in jail. And I knew I’d be out soon. I’m glad I had that taste of incarceration. It is a deep loss of freedom I felt so very briefly.

Sentenced to 48 hours, most of us were out in one day, except for two of us who decided to plead not guilty. They were both held for five days, and then dismissed. That was a close call. We were renegade college students, but we didn’t want to flunk out this semester, for goodness’ sake. Blissful privilege, we enjoyed. We also learned about nonviolent civil disobedience and incarceration in an embodied way, which isn’t nothing. We learned by doing. Then returned to Oberlin Ohio where we learned by reading and listening and talking and writing.

When asked if I have ever been arrested, I can answer one of two ways: yes, once, in a peace protest. Or no. Since I gave them my name as Jane Doe, there are only my finger prints to call me out. A curious legacy of my idealistic college-age self.

**

In 2018, I read in the Washington Post: “One in five Americans have protested in the streets or participated in political rallies since the beginning of 2016. Of those, 19 percent said they had never before joined a march or a political gathering.” It goes on to share the results of a national poll:

The poll offers a rare snapshot of how public activism has changed in the 50 years since large street protests and rallies last dominated the political landscape. Back in the turbulent Vietnam War era, college students were the face of protests. Today, many activists are older, white, well-educated and wealthy, the findings show.

 A significant number — 44 percent — are 50 or older, and 36 percent earn more than $100,000 a year. Far more are Democrats than Republicans. An equal percentage are men and women. An outsize share live in the suburbs.

The Post-Kaiser poll is the most extensive study of rallygoers and protesters in more than a decade and one of the first attempts to quantify how many Americans are motivated by Trump to join these increasingly frequent political events.”

Nineteen per cent are rallying for conservative causes, or to support President #45.

The poll also shows that the people who rally are also much more likely to vote, or so they say. The proof of this will be in the blue, red, or purple pudding come November 2018. And November 2020.

**

There was once a Greek playwright, Aristophanes, who created a character named Lysistrata. Her brilliant idea was to get ­­­the women of Athens to refuse sex with their husbands until a treaty for peace has been signed. That would have been a highly effect form of protest, no?  In the play, it works. What wars would we like to stop, now?

If every resident of DC stopped paying federal taxes in protest, maybe the federal government would grant its 700,000 residents some representation in Congress.  

**

There is a heartbreaking story in the New York Times about a group of Afghanis who hope to promote peace by going on a hunger strike. They are directing their energies at the Taliban. Afghanistan is a country where imperialists go to fail to conquer (see, Soviet Union occupation 1973-1980, per https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/soviet-invasion-afghanistan, not to mention the United States’ war there since 2002.) But the suffering right now is very real regardless of painful history:

“Within 24 hours of a recent suicide bombing in Helmand Province, which added at least 14 names to the long list of the dead in a bitterly contested corner of Afghanistan, a group of local activists began a sit-in at the site of the carnage.

In their moment of anger and sorrow, they asked not for revenge, but for peace.

Over the following days, mothers and fathers of victims came to pour out their hearts and to support the protest, in a tent pitched near the field in the provincial capital,… where last week a suicide bomber drove a car full of explosives into a crowd leaving a wrestling match. Emboldened, the protest organizers announced a “long march” to bring the message of peace to the Taliban, who control much of the province…

“On both sides, in every mosque, there is a funeral. Why is this? It’s because of our silence,” said Sarwar Ghafar, a local school principal. “Oh silent people, if you don’t break your silence you will remain a slave, remain a slave.

“Many of Mr. Ghafar’s comments were addressed toward the Taliban, disappointed at their rejection of the peace march…

“Qais Hashimi, another of the organizers, was crouched on the floor, wailing… “You have ruined life. Isn’t the taking of life up to God? Who are you to be taking lives? You kill yourself and you take 20 lives with you. I will just kill myself, a sacrifice for this country,” Mr. Hashimi said. “Our blood is finished, our tears have dried. We will not say another word. We will not eat.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/world/asia/afghan-helmand-hunger-strike.html

 **

On a more hopeful note, let us recall the Madres de Plaza de Mayo, a group of Argentine mothers whose loved ones "disappeared" during a military dictatorship supported by the United States. Starting around 1976, they walked in a circle silently, carrying pictures of their children, at the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, in front of presidential palace, at great personal risk. Over the decades since the mothers bore witness to their grief, and to the injustice, the dictatorship ended, many children were reunited with their biological family through DNA testing, and a political movement for justice continues to this day. To watch the U2 song about the Mothers of the Disappeared, check this out: Bono welcomes some of the mothers to the stage. https://youtu.be/KuFMoWV1cns

I will continue to believe that it is non-violent civil disobedience that is the best path toward justice and liberation. The medium IS the message. The ends do NOT justify the means. Mahatma Gandhi liberated India from British colonial rule using nonviolence. Martin Luther King, Jr. made enormous progress for African American civil rights in the United States using nonviolence. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa started in 1994 as the white minority passed leadership to the newly freed Nelson Mandela, assuaging the fears of white people, and giving black Africans a place to air their grievances and receive some small measure of closure.  

The activist organization MoveOn.org has organized protests to occur within 24 hours of an event that President #45 just might resort to: the firing of Special Counsel Robert Meuller. Mr. Meuller is leading the investigation into possible collusion between #45 and Russia during the presidential campaign.  Apparently, 800+ are already planned as “No One is Above the Law” rallies. There are protest sites in Fort Rock (90 minutes from Paisley), Bend (2 hours and 15 minutes or so), and Klamath Falls (2 ½ hours.)  It depends on the day of the week and where I am but I hope to drive to one of those spots and join the forces. Hm, maybe I should make a sign so I’m prepared…

One of my acquaintances here is a very smart person, and this person has told me in no uncertain terms that carrying a sign in a public gathering is not going to happen. And I wonder. It is partly an introvert thing. But I also think this person might change their mind if, say, someone they loved dearly were part of a movement that needed support, and needed that support right here in Lake County. Maybe then? Or maybe, since I’m used to this marching-around-with-signs business, I might carry the sign in honor of this person and their loved one.

I’m willing.

[postgamecontent]

Fire Emblem Chronicles Vol. 1: Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

Original Release Date: January 21, 1994

Original Hardware: Nintendo Super Famicom

With Fire Emblem Gaiden maintaining solid sales even in the face of a waning Famicom market and some pushback over its design decisions, it was a certainty that the series would continue. While its cousin Famicom Wars had jumped over to the Game Boy, Fire Emblem would get a shot at the console big leagues. Now, it's important to remember that although most fans think of Intelligent Systems as a game developer first and foremost, they've also historically been instrumental in developing software tools and assisting Nintendo in various other hardware-related capacities. As such, they don't tend to release a lot of games around the launch of new Nintendo systems, since they're occupied with their other work. That has become less of a problem over time as Intelligent Systems has grown and Nintendo has relied on less proprietary hardware and software. During the first few generations of Nintendo hardware, however, Intelligent Systems games usually arrived late in the generation.

Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem certainly released late in the Super Famicom's life, but it was less of a problem this time than it had been with the previous two games. While the SEGA Saturn and Sony PlayStation would launch in December of 1994 in Japan, they took a little while to catch on. Nintendo wouldn't have their Super Famicom replacement ready until late 1996, and in 1994 that successor was very much just sketches on a napkin as far as most Nintendo fans were concerned. No, the Super Famicom market was essentially in its prime in 1994, and with Fire Emblem now an established brand it was well-positioned to take advantage of that. Fortunately, Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem turned out to be just the right product for its time and place, and it ended up being the best-selling game in the series until Fire Emblem Awakening arrived nearly 20 years later. Mystery of the Emblem ended up selling more than 770,000 copies in Japan, more than the first two games combined.

The plum release date surely assisted with that, but the game itself was well-suited for success. After Fire Emblem Gaiden's numerous changes from the first game received a mixed response, series creator and director Shouzou Kaga opted to roll things back in Mystery of the Emblem rather than try to fix what wasn't working. He did that in more ways than one. First, Mystery would return to the setting and characters of the first game, with Marth once again taking the spotlight. Second, most of the mechanical changes in Gaiden were discarded, with the support system being the only real survivor. Finally, perhaps in deference to Fire Emblem's late arrival on the Famicom, Mystery of the Emblem would include an abridged remake of the original game in addition to a full-length sequel. Newcomers could get to know the world and its characters without having to dig out their old hardware, while fans of the series could either enjoy revisiting the original game with a whole new presentation, or dive directly into the new content.

By including this remake of the original, the development team ended up running into memory issues yet again. This didn't interfere with the sequel content (referred to as Book 2), but some cuts had to be made to the remake (called Book 1) to make it fit. While the initial plan was to make it a complete remake, Book 1 ended up having to cut a handful of characters and stages. To be honest, it's not a huge loss. Having it all would be better, but you get most of what was good content-wise in the original game. Although the remake makes use of the new engine and all of its rules, the changes are quite slight. Mystery of the Emblem feels like it's playing things very safely after the criticisms of Gaiden. Its success through this conservative approach set down a template that the series had some trouble getting away from in the future, and it would nearly be the death of the franchise.

That said, there's a lot to appreciate in Mystery of the Emblem. The support system from Gaiden that was limited to Alm and Celica alone was greatly expanded here. While we're still pretty far away from the support conversations that have taken center stage in recent releases, multiple characters in Mystery of the Emblem have pre-existing relationships that convey combat bonuses when they're positioned near to each other in battle. This gives you a practical reason to pay attention to the story and lore, as knowing who gets along with who can give you a tactical advantage. This was an important step towards creating the shape of the series as we know it today.

Another highly welcome new feature is the game displaying movement range when a unit is selected. You no longer need to push along with the cursor to see where you can or can't go. The UI in general is a lot friendlier and easier to use in this game compared to the previous games. The game gives you access to your storage and character inventory in between stages, allowing you to easily pass items around and set up as you see fit. Fire Emblem would make major strides in this capacity in the next few games, but it's far enough along here that I think most people would feel somewhat comfortable going back to it. You still have to decide on your own whether or not it's a good idea to attack a unit and what the probabilities look like, though.

The other big change in Mystery is one that only ended up appearing in a few games before disappearing. Mounted units are now able to dismount, and indeed are forced to in stages that take place indoors. Depending on whether they're mounted or not, they'll only have access to particular weapons. While on their steeds, they have to use pole arms, while on foot, they're limited to swords. The idea isn't bad, and it makes a lot of sense from a certain point of view, but it ended up blurring the lines between job classes and making a mess of managing inventories. Later games would address the whole problem of horses in-doors by giving them a movement penalty instead. Kaga was clearly fond of dismounting, however, as he made sure to include it in Tear Ring Saga after he left the Fire Emblem franchise.  

Naturally, with the move to 16-bit hardware, the presentation got a real kick in the pants. I don't think Mystery of the Emblem looks particularly good for a 1994 Super Famicom game, but it doesn't look bad, either. Series composer Yuka Tsujiyoko got a lot of mileage out of the improved sound capabilities of the hardware, too. With more memory to work with, the development team was able to add in a lot more information and story for all of the characters, giving the game a much more well-rounded feel. The story of Book 2 also does some interesting things, making one of your trusted playable allies from the first game into what appears to be the main antagonist. It ends up explaining his turn through supernatural means, but it's honestly plausible on its own without any of that silliness. While fiction tends to treat friends as a forever thing, real history shows that war-time allies often become enemies and vice-versa.

The maps and scenarios are well-designed as usual, and recruiting new characters once again largely occurs through conversations on the battlefield. While that can be stressful at times, I think it's an important part of what makes Fire Emblem distinct from other games in this genre. You can't simply put your strongest units forward and roll over the enemies, because one of them might need to talk to someone in the back ranks to join your side. You have to figure out how to get that potentially vulnerable unit into the middle of a group of enemies and extract them, which is a nice challenge. Recent games tend to compromise on this by having potential recruits be distinct from enemy forces, which I think accomplishes a similar goal. It's a little weird that certain units are so willing to fight Marth when they were once apparently his loyal friends, but I suppose the game's story can explain away whatever the characters don't. Marth is treated like a dangerous rebel, and I suppose some fools would believe that, considering the source.

With the massive success of Mystery of the Emblem, it was inevitable that Fire Emblem would get another release on the Super Famicom no matter how late it was in the system's life. What was more unexpected was that the 16-bit platform would play host to two more installments, with the last of the bunch releasing in late 1999. That's nearly a year after the Japanese release of the SEGA Dreamcast. That partly explains why the momentum and goodwill generated by Mystery of the Emblem was so short-lived. But I also feel like Kaga had his own ideas about where he wanted to take the franchise, and that might not have been compatible with Nintendo's view of things. As we'll see over the course of the next couple of articles, Kaga wasn't very interested in keeping Fire Emblem in a holding pattern, and I can't help but wonder if Mystery's unusually safe approach and the overwhelmingly positive response it received bristled him.

Whatever the case, Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem holds up quite well to this day, and I would strongly recommend playing it were it not for one little thing. Namely, the two Books that make up this game have both received individual remakes that significantly fleshed them out. Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon for the Nintendo DS managed to get an international release, and outside of its bland art, it's the best way to experience that particular story. Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem was also remade for the Nintendo DS, but it never got released outside of Japan. It makes some fairly significant changes to the story, but in terms of gameplay, it's by far the best way to enjoy Mystery. Of course, since Nintendo is yet to provide English players with any official means of playing this installment, it's somewhat inaccessible in either form. I imagine Nintendo will do something about that someday, but likely not soon.

Previous: Fire Emblem Gaiden

Next: Fire Emblem: Genealogy of the Holy War

If you enjoyed reading this article and can’t wait to get more, consider subscribing to the Post Game Content Patreon. Just $1/month gets you early access to articles like this one, along with my undying thanks.