#it’s my mid-year performance review and i can tell my boss is in a bad mood lol

[chrollokura]

not to be dramatic but i would rather end it all than go to this meeting

[introvertguide]

The Apartment (1960); AFI #80

The next film on the list that we reviewed was the one of the last black and white films to win best picture, The Apartment (1960). The film actually held the title of last B&W Best Picture winner for 50 years until The Artist came along in in 2011. Along with Best Picture, the film was nominated for 10 Oscars and won Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Art Direction, and Best Editing. The film also won Best Picture from the Golden Globes, the BAFTAs, the Director’s Guild Awards, and the Critic’s Circle Awards. Truly a great synthesis of acting, directing, cinematography, music, and story, this movie is one of the lesser known greatest films of all time. I have more to say about this film, but I want to go over the story in all of its excellence. But first...

SPOILER ALERT!!! THIS COMEDY HAS LEGITIMATE SURPRISES AND SUBJECT MATTER THAT WOULDN’T FLY TODAY!!! TRULY A GREAT FILM THAT NEEDS TO BE SEEN!!! I STRONGLY SUGGEST WATCHING IT INSTEAD OF JUST READING THE STORY LINE!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

An opening run of establishing shots with a voice over by the main character lets the audience know that he is a drone accountant at a giant firm with little chance to move up in the world. C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) is a lonely office drudge at a national insurance corporation in New York City. He has lucked out and found a way to leverage his home in order to climb the corporate ladder. Baxter allows four company managers to take turns borrowing his Upper West Side apartment for their extramarital liaisons, which he manages with a detailed schedule. Baxter has not seen any movement, but he is constantly offered the promise of a promotion since he is a “team player.” 

One of the serious down sides of this ploy is that his apartment is in constant use and the bosses are making a mess and drinking all his liquor. C.C. has no place to go some nights so he stays and works late. Because C.C. is constantly going in and out and people can hear women in his apartment, he is starting to develop a different kind of reputation with the other tenants. While unable to enter his own apartment when it is in use, his neighbors assume that their neighbor is a playboy bringing home a different woman every night.

C.C. is able to get glowing performance reports from his four managers and he is able to submit them to the personnel director, Jeff D. Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray), in hope of a promotion. Sheldrake promises to promote him, but demands that he also receive use of the apartment for his own affairs, beginning that night. As compensation for such short notice, he gives Baxter two theater tickets to The Music Man. After work, C.C. asks Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine), an elevator operator in the office building, to go to the musical with him. She agrees but goes first to meet with a "former fling," who turns out to be Sheldrake, and let him know there will be no more meetings. When Sheldrake dissuades her from breaking up with him and promising to divorce his wife for her, they go to the apartment as poor Baxter waits forlornly outside the theater.

Later, at the company's raucous Christmas party (there is dancing on the tables and the lamest strip tease of all time), Fran is told by Miss Olsen (Edie Adams), Sheldrake's secretary, that Sheldrake has also had affairs with her and other women employees. Later at Baxter’s apartment, Fran confronts Sheldrake with his lies. Sheldrake maintains that he genuinely loves her, but that he has no intention of splitting up with his wife. He then leaves to return to his suburban family as usual and Fran is so depressed that she finds sleeping pills in the apartment bathroom and attempts suicide.

Baxter learns through finding a dropped hand mirror that Fran is the woman Sheldrake has been taking to his apartment, so he goes to a bar and lets himself be picked up by a married woman. When they arrive at his apartment, he is shocked to find Fran in his bed, seemingly dead. He sends his pick-up away and enlists the help of his neighbor, Dr. Dreyfuss (Jack Krushen), to revive Fran without notifying the authorities. I should not laugh, but it is pretty funny that the doctor goes straight to slapping Fran in the face to wake her up. The actors did not hold back; he is slapping her in the face really hard, so much so that you can tell her cheeks are reddening even in black and white. Baxter makes Dreyfuss believe that he was the cause of the incident and, scolding his neighbor for his apparent philandering, Dreyfuss advises him to "be a mensch, a human being."

As Fran spends two days recuperating in the apartment, C.C. takes care of her, and a bond develops between them, especially after he confesses to having attempted suicide himself over unrequited feelings for a woman who now sends him a fruitcake every Christmas. While they play a game of gin rummy, Fran reveals that she has always suffered bad luck in her love life. As Baxter prepares a romantic dinner, one of the managers arrives with a woman. Although Baxter persuades them to leave, the manager recognizes Fran and informs his colleagues. Later confronted by Fran's brother-in-law, Karl Matuschka, who is looking for her, the managers direct Karl to the apartment out of jealousy. At the apartment, Karl's anger at Fran for her behavior is deflected by Baxter, who again takes responsibility. Karl punches C.C. (and interviews with Lemmon revealed that the punch did land), but when Fran kisses him for protecting her, he just smiles and says it "didn't hurt a bit."

Sheldrake learns that Miss Olsen told Fran about his affairs, so he makes the poor choice of firing the woman who knows of all his dealings, and she retaliates by meeting with Sheldrake's wife, who promptly throws her husband out. Sheldrake believes that this situation just makes it easier to pursue his affair with Fran. Having promoted C.C. to an even higher position, which also gives him a key to the executive washroom, Sheldrake expects Baxter to loan out his apartment yet again. Baxter gives him back the washroom key instead, proclaiming that he has decided to become a mensch, and quits the firm.

That night at a New Year's Eve party, Sheldrake indignantly tells Fran what happened. Realizing she is in love with Baxter, Fran abandons Sheldrake and runs to the apartment. At the door, she hears what sounds like a gunshot. Fearing that Baxter has attempted suicide again, she frantically pounds on the door. Baxter answers, holding a bottle of champagne whose cork he had just popped in celebration of his plan to start anew. As the two settle down to resume their gin rummy game, Fran tells C.C. that she is now free too. When he asks about Sheldrake, she replies, "We'll send him a fruitcake every Christmas." He declares his love for her, and she replies, "Shut up and deal."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This film is one of the most praised movies of all time, but it is not one of the most generally well known. This is probably due to the subject matter, although It’s A Wonderful Life also deals with suicide and is one of the America’s most popular family films. The problem is most likely that extra marital affairs by big company management as a normal thing was highly frowned upon. With the whole #MeToo movement, it seems that this kind of philandering culture might very well have been a known problem for decades. A movie based around the premise that office managers need a nice place to have sex with secretaries and elevator girls would not have been acceptable under the Hays Code. This is also the second film on the AFI list where Fred MacMurray plays a bad guy before being the understanding patriarch on My Three Sons and the first person honored as a Disney Legend in 1987. Fun fact, MacMurray was an uncredited extra in a film called Girls Gone Wild in 1929.

Billy Wilder knew that this was going to be a divisive film due to content, but he also had the confidence that everything would work out following the massive success of his previous film, Some Like It Hot. Wilder had considered a film based on adultery back in the 1940s but was unable to get funding at the time due to the Hays Code. The film was also based on a real life Hollywood drama in which an agent was shot by a producer over an affair (in which a low level employee apartment was used) as well as a friend of a co-writer who returned home to a dead ex-girlfriend following a break-up. 

It is amazing to think that this film is described as a comedy. There are office politics in which mid-level managers use local celeb status to take advantage of their subordinates. There are half a dozen cheating husbands that string along their affairs. There are characters so hurt that they would rather die than deal with what is done with them. There are raging parties at work where everyone gets massively drunk and dance on the desks. Women are treated like objects that either need to be protected with violence or thrown away. And yet the film is legitimately fun with characters that are worth rooting for.

Some of the success rides on the fabulous acting of Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine and the witty dialogue written by I.A.L. Diamond. In fact, the dialogue and limited characters feels a lot like a stage play, which come to fruition in the form of Promises, Promises on Broadway by Burt Bacharach, Hal David, and Neil Simon. Dealing with real sets and locations, however, resulted in some colds and sickness since the actors were really out in the New York snow. Some other realism in the film came from both lead actors taking blows for the film: Shirley MacLaine got proper slapped by the doctor and Jack Lemmon was really punched by the brother-in-law.

A stand out aspect for me in this film which I talk up quite a bit is the cinematography. I have used many screen grabs from the film and used them as my avatar. I identify with the feeling of being used for something which made a mid manager look good while allowing them to do bad things. In fact, I am sure that everyone has felt like a Baxter at some point, and it is great to see him stand up for himself. Here are a couple of screen grabs (besides the top photo above) that I have used:

That lonely man in the middle of countless empty desks, that look of frustration when others are using your things to live a better life than you, and that time that love makes utility become fun and gadgets seem pretentious. It is very easy for me to get lost in how much I love this film. It has been far and away my favorite find from the AFI Top 100 between when I first saw the film in 2014 and now.

So, should the film be on the top 100 list? It has the awards and the history along with being a fantastic film. Of course it belongs on the list. Would I recommend it? Yes. This film is the type that makes people like me want to go through lists like this. I had never heard of the film in 2014 and it floored me how good it was. Each time I watch I appreciate it more, and the whole film project becomes well worth my time and effort. This film is so good, it affirms my life choices. I invite and implore you to check it out for yourself.

[btsslowburnfic]

BTBY Chapter 6

Series Summary: For Namjoon, the moment he set his sights on being the #1 rapper, he pushed the symbol to the side and hated it. Love should be chosen, not forced on you. He didn’t believe in fate and this mark on his wrist was a big “fuck you” to all that.

Chapter Summary: Award Show Day!

Previous chapter here

The rest of rehearsal was blissfully boring, as well as dinner. The BTS production unit was filming their behind-the-scenes content so the guys were occupied the rest of the evening, sparing you from anymore awkward conversation.

The next morning you throw on leggings and a t-shirt and go get your hair and make up done for the award show. It’s not like anyone was going to take your picture or anything, but with everyone else looking so nice you would feel out of place if you didn’t also look fancy. You sucked at hair and make-up so you happily paid the salon pricing. You double checked your garment bag and work bag before heading to the venue.

Security is tight as usual and you happily flash your ID and credentials to the staff. You are the first one to arrive from your team. You find the green rooms for BTS and a shared space for several bands' back up dancers. You sit your belongings in a corner out of the way and begin to review the catering order and ensure the requested food and beverages are present. You are super nervous about today. This is your fifth year doing this award show but your first year mostly solo, and the first year your group hasn’t practiced at the actual venue the day before. You sigh, sitting down the request sheet and counting the hair dryers and flat-irons.

Gina, Xavier, and Joe arrive fifteen minutes later. "Hey there good looking," You walk over and hug Joe, careful to keep your face off his suit. Gina is already in her gown and Xavier is like you, dressed in sweatpants and a shirt, ready to practice. “Ok Gina, what would you like me to do today?” you ask your boss even though you can already guess based on the fact one of you is dressed fancy and one of you is dressed for the gym.

“I’m going to stay here and get the stylists and back up dancers checked in. I want you and Xavier to go wait by the back door for BTS and immediately take them to the stage for rehearsal. As soon as the back-ups get checked in I’m sending them your way. When you’re done, bring them here for hair and make-up and then they’ll walk the carpet.”

“Okie dokie.” you say, “See you later Joe!” you smile and pat his arm as you exit the room. Xavier stops and gives him a kiss before he follows you. The hallway is a clusterfuck of PD teams and garment racks, back-up dancers, and caterers, but you love it. So much chaos but also organization. You love awards show days. You were just so nervous you had forgotten how invigorating it was.

“I’m so excited to watch the performances later!” Xavier squeals as the two of you line up alongside other teams by the back door. You hold up your little “BTS” sign so the group can find you easier. The signs were dumb but necessary. The guys had actually hung out with you way more than your previous artists since you were all working together in a small studio space. And, other than the whole soulmate thing, they were the nicest group you had worked with so far. They were patient with your team and their production unit and chose to stay and eat with everyone at the studio, when they could have had catering delivered to the hotel. Yes, at this moment you were feeling very excited and proud.

A few minutes passed where you made small talk with some other producers who were waiting. You saw several other singers and bands arrive. Finally a large group came in and you knew it had to be yours. You immediately found RM.

"Good morning! Are you guys all ready to go straight to the stage?" you ask as you walk alongside him now that all of the guys and the production team were in the building.

"Yeah we gave our stuff to our manager to take to the green room so let's get there as soon as possible." he responds.

"Alright," follow me.” You lead the group through the winding hallways to the stage, trying to keep them focused even though they and other celebrities keep stopping to wave and say "hi" to each other.

"Sorry, they don't get out often," RM jokes as he apologizes to you. "it's fine. We're good on time.” you assure him while checking your watch” The backup dancers are still going through security clearance.” You had sent Xavier ahead to the stage to meet any who arrived early.

“Hey! Is that [Y/N]?” you hear a voice call out in the narrow hallway.

You recognize the well-dressed man as Mr. Salontes, the manager of Imagine Dragons.

“Mr. Salontes!” you lean in for a polite hug, “It’s great to see you again! How are you? You guys are up for best alternative album right?”

“You have such a great memory [y/n], yes we are, and we’re getting ready to promote it on tour this summer. Speaking of which, we’re looking for a Director. I’ve heard great things about you. Are you looking for a tour this summer?” he looks at you hopefully.

Your eyes widen as you stand there shocked for a second, you were not expecting a group this popular to make you offer and you certainly weren’t expecting it in a busy hallway while you were leading your group to rehearsal. “Oh wow, that sounds amazing. Thank you. I am looking to tour this summer. Ummm… Do you also have a position for a choreographer?"

“No, sorry, just a Directing position. We’ve already hired our choreographer.” You think for a few seconds and take a deep breath, “Oh, that’s too bad. I already promised my choreographer Xavier that I would tour with him this summer.”

Mr. Salontes gives you a kind but incredulous look. “Are you sure? This is a really big opportunity you’re turning down. I’m sure your friend would understand.”

He was so nice about it, you felt even worse. But, a promise is a promise. Xavier and Joe had been there for you through some really shitty times, you were’t going to go back on your word.

“I know, and I really appreciate it I just can’t go back on my word. I do really appreciate the opportunity though. Good luck tonight,” you say with a tone of finality as you begin moving again to get your group to the stage.

“You are crazy,” you hear RM comment behind you.

You roll your eyes, “Oh yeah? Why is that?”

“You just turned down working with one of the biggest groups in your country right now. You don’t think that Manager is going to run off and tell a bunch of other people that you’re difficult to work with. I thought you took your job seriously.”

You sigh as you continue to meander through the hallways. Yeah you felt bad about declining the offer, but what were you supposed to do? “I love my job but it’s just a job. If he wants to go and tell people that I won’t leave my friend behind then let him. Other opportunities will come along, My friendship with Xavier is more important. Alright, here we are,” you stop and wait in the wings, scanning the backstage for Xavier and your dancers.

“[Y/N] over here!” Xavier waves at you. You walk over. “Ok all of the dancers are here so we are good to go.”

“Perfect let me go check with AV and I will be right back.” you run down to the sound booth to make sure they knew which group was getting ready to go. “Ok, back up dancers you will be over here stage Left.” You look at your sheet. “V, Jhope, and Jungkook you are also stage left. RM and Jin head to Stage left and Jimin, go to the center of the stage.”

They run the songs with choreography and lights only two times. You and another assistant begin to apply lav mics to them for the full rehearsal. “Ok so no throwing mic pacs today ok? These ones are expensive,” you tease RM as you apply the mic around his torso, feeling the electricity buzzing again. “Dammit,” you accidentally say out loud.

“What? Is the mic shorting out?” he asks, looking alarmed. He does have a tendency to break things.

“No the mic is fine,” you mutter.

“Then what’s causing the electricity,” he asks perplexed.

You smirk and feel your cheeks flush, “It’s a soulmate thing,” you say under your breath. You feel him tense up.

“Oh...sorry about that.”

“It’s fine, I’m almost finished.” you respond as you hand him the in-ears. “Ok, looks good.” you assess him for a minute and then move on to Jin. His placement is much faster even though he is blushing like a schoolgirl. Cute. All of these guys were adorable. And hot. How was this possible?

You signal to the sound booth that you are ready and they run the full practice through twice. Ahh it looks so good. You have water available for them once they finish. “That looked so good!” you say to Xavier.

“I know I know! Let’s get them to hair and make-up.” you say as you gather the men and lead them to their green room. The walk back to the room is much faster fortunately. The stylists are all waiting at different chairs and their outfits have been hung up for them. “Alright, we’ll see you guys in about 2 hours. You have hair and make-up and then you’ll walk the carpet. After that come back here and we’ll wait to be seated,” you tell the group, allowing RM to translate. You and Xavier grab your garment bags and head over to the dancer’s green room to change and kill time.

“You look amazing!” Xavier compliments you as you exit the changing room in your dress. It’s a long sleeve number with a straight neckline, scoop back, and is mid-thigh length.

“You don’t look so bad yourself,” you say as you walk over and straighten up his pocket square and tie.

“Soooo anything new? You knowwwwwwww???” he asks.

“Yeah, we had sex in the green room just now. It took 30 seconds while everyone else wasn’t looking. It was great,” you say dryly.

Xavier rolls his eyes at you. “You’re no fun. So he’ s leaving tomorrow and then that’s it?”

“Yep. Just like that. The way things were before.”

“And you’re fine with that?”

You sit down on a bench and cross your legs. Xavier joins you. “Yeah. I mean he’s super cool and all, it’s just not what either of us want.”

“Well we’ve come a long way from yesterday at least.”

You sulk on the bench for a second and then pull up your phone to watch the Red Carpet interviews. It was always so cool to think that you had a small part in making this award show come together. You guys watch the network interview several bands and your back up dancers come over when it’s BTS’s turn. You hear exclamations of “so cool” “Hotness” “I bet they win” and you smile as you hold your phone.

You look at your watch. “Ok, I’m going to head to the green room. Ill see you at our seats?” you ask Xavier.

“You got it doll,” he plants a small kiss on your cheek. “Good luck. I’m sure tonight will go great.”

You smile and head over to their green room. A few stylists are still around to do touch up work and some caterers are refilling waters and snacks. Everything is going according to plan. You sit down for a minute and enjoy the quiet before the storm. A few minutes later, the band and their filming crew arrive. You stand up automatically but you are finishing up reading an article on your phone so you don’t immediately look up.

When you do you see that RM is staring at you with his mouth slightly open. You look at him questioningly. “What’s wrong?”

“Uh,” sorry. He puts his hands in his suit pockets. “You just uh look really pretty.”

You stand there in shock for a second. “Oh. Thanks. I guess I forgot that I changed clothes,” you laugh while gesturing at your dress.

“Oooo lovely sexy lady,” Jimin says to you as he walks over to his seat.

Namjoon barks out in Korean, “Be professional, she’s our director.”

“I’m just saying the truth,” Jim responds in turn. He winks as he walks past you.

“Thank you,’ you blush and say to Jimin. “You guys look great as well.”

RM rolls his eyes and storms over to his chair, taking out his phone and doesn’t say another word to you. You feel your body slowly get hot with Anger. His Anger. Wtf dude? NEXT CHAPTER

[toongrrl-blog]

Perpetua: A Potential Heroine for our times.

Hi everyone we are going to rant about the Bridget Jones series once again and talk about a character, who I feel came too early before our current zeitgeist of bad bitch feminism and the #GirlBoss: Perpetua. 

Perpetua is not intended to be likable. She is very posh, snooty, a bit arrogant, and demanding of Bridget and people she works with, greeting Bridget with a slight sneer as she comes into work and Bridget’s inner monologue voices a desire to staple stuff to her head for having gained a bit of power over Bridget in the publishing company Pemberley Press. Gee, let’s see what we have: entitled, snooty, fancy, having the attitude they are above it all, who has those traits? I’ll wait *sipping tea*

But we notice something about Perpetua; after Bridget’s relationship with Daniel implodes because he was using her as his side piece and decides to find a better job elsewhere, Bridget goes to Daniel to tell him she is quitting. Perpetua overhears and picks up on what has been going on (she is appalled at what she is hearing) and as soon as Daniel tries to beg Bridget to stay, Perpetua gets up to defend Bridget: “I want to hear this, because if she gives one inch, I’m going to fire her bony arse for being totally spineless!” To her smiling pride, she sees Bridget tell Daniel off and leave the publishing company...and that’s the last we see of Perpetua. Even after that (awesome) scene, my teenage self got the message that it’s better to be a Bridget over a Perpetua, a bubbly but insecure girl who tries to conform to the male gaze over a stoic and IDGAF woman who does what she wants. I also heard messages from people, like my parents, telling me how important it was to act and look a certain way to be “likable”; it was better to be insecure and conventionally feminine rather than to be confident not very popular but self-assured. Also Bridget was the rom-com heroine who had people fall in love with her, Perpetua was seen as stuck-up and she was thrown to the wayside. Who stood to reap the benefits of our society?

Looking back, I found out that after almost 20 years of trying to be a Bridget: the “relatable” insecure girl next door type who is vulnerable and needs the validation of those to find her desirable and “worth it” that I’m wasn’t the likable, conventionally pretty and feminine Bridget...I was Perpetua: not always likable, assertive, willing to put her neck out there, not always sociable, but assured of her intelligence and her ability to turn heads. Plus we have our signature style and know how to work accessories. While Bridget dresses basic and in miniskirts (she wants to blend in but also attract men), Perpetua stands out in her headbands, pearls, cardigans, and pie-crust collars combining the elements that I loved in a younger Hillary Rodham Clinton, Peggy Olson, Nancy Wheeler, and Raquel Rodriguez Orozco from Destinos: An Introduction to Spanish. Just a Power Preppie who figured out how to stick out and take her place in a male-dominated workplace, with no apologies. 

After watching Tee Noir’s video on women who were declared to be problematic but upon second viewing and reading were raising valid points about their situation or the situations they observed but lacked the likability or popularity to be taken seriously, I was inspired to finally write this post. As Perpetua was a woman who showcased what it was like to live life on your terms and not ask for the permission of anyone to validate you. A woman who may have envied Bridget’s “bony arse” but didn’t let her size or peoples’ perceptions of her appearance get in the way of getting what she wanted from others. 

Here are some tropes and issues I will be referring to in this order, as they relate to Perpetua’s role in the films and books and how they regard her.

Fatphobia: Being Targeted by Internalized Hatred

“Ah. Introduce people with thoughtful details. Perpetua, this is Mark Darcy. Mark is a prematurely middle-aged prick with a cruel raced ex-wife. Perpetua is a fat-ass old bag who spends her time bossing me around.” Bridget Jones’s inner monologue, Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001)

We all know that Bridget Jones is notoriously famous for obsessing over her weight (134 lbs. at 5′4″, which is pretty fine) and that there have been reviews of the books and the movies condemning her or passive-aggressively noting that she isn’t Hollywood Thin and how it was remarkable for she (with hourglass curves, wears a small to medium size, blonde and blue eyed, average pretty at her worst) to get Colin Firth and Hugh Grant (in their prime) to fight over her. Whether we go by the timeline of the books (her birth year being 1962, Marilyn Monroe’s death) or the movies (her birth year being 1969 in the first film, post Jayne Mansfield), we see that Bridget grew up in and became an adult in an age where the female standard of beauty had gotten thinner and thinner, with even models having their pores air-brushed away from their faces. To paraphrase a Mad Men fan when she was talking about the culture of the mid-1960s, when she was a kid and women wanted to look curvaceous as Marilyn and Elizabeth Taylor, she looked like Twiggy; when she developed the voluptuous curves, everyone wanted to look like Twiggy. The 1970s and 1980s was an age of self-improvement as female empowerment (feminism co-opted by capitalism) where dieting and getting thinner was seen as “bettering” oneself. Suddenly it wasn’t cool for Bridget to strut her stuff in a pencil skirt a la Joan Holloway, it wasn’t enough to be a junior partner or to create your own safety net, even the irresistible Veronica Lodge worried about her weight. 

*WARNING: Most of my sources refer to Fat Black Women but I feel like the arguments hold up here*

Then we go to Bridget and Perpetua, aside from their personality clash, Bridget is secretly envious and outwardly disgusted by how Perpetua can be much heavier than Bridget, yet wear curve-hugging clothes and go shopping and not give a shit about how her body looked. Perpetua knows that her boyfriend appreciates her good pussy under her gut! Bridget comforts herself by telling herself that happiness comes from reaching attainable goals....like changing one’s body rather than making money or procuring items....sigh Capitalism is a son of a gun. Clearly Bridget has animosity towards Perpetua for being plump and not feeling like she needs to hide for not looking like a supermodel. But why?

Fatphobia is one way of expressing internalized hatred against one’s body and their own self. In fact, Perpetua committed the sin of loving herself (or being neutral to oneself) as she is, and stands out from the rest of the cast who are obsessed with living up to certain standards to putting forward a certain image to the world that everything is fine. In a fatphobic capitalist patriarchy, it’s quite maddening that she would develop the arrogance and entitlement that she puts on display, especially because she is a...woman! Katie Wee, in her essay for Huffington Post, talked about how it was hard for her to play a fat-shaming exercise instructor in an episode of Shrill because she wouldn’t fat shame another person, but she had practice internalizing that cruelty. Wee talks about her history of eating disorders and over-exercising, all in a bid to become a ballerina, well into her twenties. Currently she works at a body-inclusive fitness studio and that Lindy West and Aidy Bryant were very encouraging in her performance. She also said:

When Annie writes her off, I made the decision that for Tanya this hits something much deeper. It’s as if Annie is saying Tanya’s life’s work is for nothing, or her religion is bullshit. Annie is feeling content in the body she is in, and for Tanya this feels like a personal attack. The subtext to what Tanya is saying is, “If I don’t get to be happy in my body, neither do you! Especially not you.”

This was also explored in the Room 104 episode “The Hikers” where college graduates and childhood best friends go on a hiking trip before they start working or looking for work. Megan (the fabulous Shannon Purser) is plump, freckled, down to earth and happy to have gotten a job offer right after she accepted her degree while her friend Casey (Kendra Carelli) is thin, has excelled on Instagram artifice, and hasn’t procured her own job yet but is triumphant over her past popularity. Yet a placed pebble in Megan’s boot reveals that Casey has been feeling disgust over how her fat friend would thrive in a larger body and not cover up and how she was burdened with making sure she was included in social gatherings growing up, soon Casey’s angry rant after Megan voiced her disgust over Casey’s sense of superiority over her reveals that Casey is angry that being conventionally beautiful and popular hasn’t made her any happier with herself or her own life, while Megan has excelled in their young adulthood in spite of her appearance and lack of popularity. Bridget is angry that Perpetua is thriving and content with her own life despite not looking a certain way while Bridget has been trying to get down to 110 lbs since she was a teenager and has been backing out of rooms after getting laid so the menfolk wouldn’t notice her behind isn’t scrawny (what would she think of Kim Kardashian’s or Nicki Minaj’s behinds?). Bridget, who poured energy into fitting an ideal of an adult woman, is miserable while Perpetua, who isn’t the “ideal woman”, is successful. 

There is also some egocentrism on Bridget’s part: she is a heroine of a rom com so the story centers on her, with her friends being mere satellites. There has been a tradition of the fat best friend who exists to support the leading lady or gent who will fall in love while the fat person gets to sass and serve as cheerleader, with no insight on their inner life. Especially if they are Black. Tee Noir noted that most of the funny fat friends tend to be more engaging and likable or just plain compelling than the conventionally attractive main character, but their characterization is often neglected, to the point of sometimes even lacking a last name. In fact society, and even fat people, are internalized towards thinking that if you don’t fit the standard of desirability (thin, white, young-ish, cis, wealthy), you have to settle for less in your relationships and in entitlements, like how Annie in Shrill goes out with a boy who is too mediocre for her, all because she got the message that a fat girl like her shouldn’t expect a hunk or even a guy who is going to treat her decently and see her as a goddess. The show centered on Annie bringing out her inner fat bitch. Bridget hears constantly from her smug married male pals that women of a certain age shouldn’t be too picky because they aren’t as attractive and fertile as younger women (ring, ring, I am calling Tarana Burke on their asses, can I be the hype man?) and that triggers her insecurities about being single and 130 something pounds. Perpetua, who is a bit older than Bridget, medically overweight, single (but with a boyfriend) and less conventionally attractive than her...and is thriving in her life with no rush to the altar and she is free to voice demands in her relationship. I guess Bridget isn’t as nice as we were supposed to think she is, no shade, but be upfront about it Bridget (or writers). 

But I can go easy on our hapless blonde, because Bridget (and probably Perpetua) internalized the notion that fat is disgusting and that women who aren’t thin enough have to shrink themselves and blend in, not causing waves. Perpetua lets us in on some hints that perhaps she is jealous of Bridget’s looks and figure, referring to her as having a “bony arse” for one, but it’s not a driving trait of her character. In her seminal book on female Baby Boom pop culture history, Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media, she noted that from a young age women were encouraged to see other women as competition, and if one woman is victorious in one area, we are defeated “And we had grown up with a notion of a female hierarchy in which some women---the Waspy, wealthy, young, and beautiful---were at the top of the pyramid and other women---the poor, the dark-skinned, the ugly, the old, the fat---were at the bottom and this is something that advertising (a source that sells Perpetua her image of wealth and sells Bridget’s insecurities) capitalizes on. Media in the 1970s have even applied the same dichotomy to some feminists where Germaine Greer (before she was all TERFy) and Gloria Steinem were held up as exceptions to the stereotype of ugly, nagging, and/or mannish feminists (something that Betty Freidan, Kate Millet, and the OG Bella Abzug got slapped with). It’s the ugly side affect of individualism.

One can hope that Bridget got the shameless and joyful spirit of that little girl who ran around the paddling pool in her underwear back. 

Who’s Afraid of “Fat ass old bags”?: Backlash against non-insecure women

“Do what you feel in your heart to be right – for you'll be criticized anyway.” Eleanor Roosevelt

Let’s be clear: arrogance isn’t confidence. I use the term “non-insecure” as an umbrella term for Perpetua and for confident women who have faced backlash for their lack of willingness to act like they are less than to appease the patriarchy. But...men get to be arrogant and admired for their drive and accomplishments, hell they don’t even have to accomplish much unless you count bankruptcies (look at who is President of the United States at the time of this writing). So why do women who act arrogantly, aggressively, cut throat, authoritative, or just plain assert their needs and personal boundaries are so vilified? So I will try to look for how we could all learn to be confident as Perpetua. 

Ever since Peggy Olson was promoted to Junior Copywriter, and even before, women in the workplace have been scrutinized from the secretarial pool to even top positions as CEO or junior partner. Like McCann-Erickson in the final season of Mad Men, Pemberley Press is something of a toxic workplace where underlings fight to get noticed for their achievements in dull lighting, men like Daniel Cleaver and Mr. Fitzherbert (more like Tits Pervert, right Bridget?) feel free to sexually harass women who haven’t developed the skills to defend themselves and demand respect, and where the characters we are closest to, don’t really like her. Women in power tend to confuse a white cis male hierarchy with a pecking order where the men try to undermine her authority either because they find her too attractive or make her feel unattractive, sometimes other women would undermine women because their success threatens their own self-image as women. A toxic workplace can also be why Bridget cannot excel at the work she does (she jumps from one toxic workplace to another in the movie); this can also be why Perpetua comes off as a hardass, she has to put up a shield to protect herself and the years working at Pemberley Press have hardened her to the point where Bridget couldn’t relate to her. 

Bridget, according to Daniel Cleaver and the viewers of the films, is likable while Perpetua is not. Bridget is very feminine, sexy, witty, self-deprecating, supportive, warm, and non-intimidating while Perpetua may be feminine (look at them pearls and long hair), she isn’t conventionally attractive as Bridget and her size and age have kept her out of the “sexy box” and while Perpetua is clever, the woman doesn’t ease her way into conversations at parties like Bridget pretty much demanding to be introduced and included in them and she walks with the ease and assumption that she belongs everywhere she goes. Perpetua just also isn’t cuddly, but men get to be aloof like Mark to the point of being insulting or irreverent like Daniel to the point of toxicity, why is Perpetua being judged so harshly for traits that we see in these two high-status men? Forbes magazine once quoted that women are affected by two types of bias at work: prescriptive and descriptive bias. 

Descriptive bias is the labels we attach and associate with certain social groups and communities, and prescriptive bias is how they are expected to behave. And, when someone does not conform to these prescribed roles and behaviors they can be penalized or punished. Women, for instance, are traditionally expected to be caring, warm, deferential, emotional, sensitive, and so on, and men are expected to be assertive, rational, competent and objective. So, when it comes to promotion, these traits are sometimes automatically prescribed to people as per their gender without detailed information about their personalities, thereby a man, in general, is assumed to be a better fit as a leader.

The other side of this is prescriptive bias is when a woman does not fit the role that is traditionally assigned to her and attempts to claim a traditionally male position is seen as breaking the norm. So, when a woman is decisive, she might be perceived as "brusque" and "abrupt". Therefore, for the same kind of leadership behavior, women might be penalized while a man is commended.

Women who are traditionally feminine (passive, self-effacing, caring), are considered “likable” but not leadership material while women who display traditionally masculine traits (assertiveness, self-preservation, ambition) are considered ball-busters. Both women are less likely to get promoted because of both bias, while what’s “bossy”  or, sometimes, “hysterical” for women, get’s men promoted (*cough* Brett Kavanaugh crying that he likes beer *cough*). Women who help out at work aren’t seen for what those caring and proactive qualities can benefit the workplace, it’s expected that a woman would be so domestic. Even female candidates for Head of State are subjected to the tyranny of likability....for a position where the focus has to be on achieving safety and stability for a nation, even if no one likes them, a position that will be decisive no matter what they do. The work can be done by women supporting one another and both genders checking their biases at the door. Men can call out another man for describing their appropriately authoritative female boss as a “bitch” and women can examine why other women demanding more in their relationships or being promiscuous is so threatening to them. Women can even decide who takes turns at office domestic tasks like making coffee and getting birthday cards signed, making it a universal effort by the work site and network with each other as they celebrate each other’s triumphs and different traits.  

Bridget’s passivity doesn’t help her in being taken seriously at work by her male peers either. Whereas Perpetua is disparaged for being older, heavier, and less conventionally attractive as she is criticized for being authoritative, Bridget is reduced to her sex appeal by Daniel to her face and even described as “fannying about with the press releases” (hearing about this treatment incenses Perpetua to Bridget’s side), thereby reducing Bridget’s femininity into something frivolous and not a endearing trait that helps her navigate the world. Bridget has proved in a deleted scene that she can give a brilliant advertising pitch for a horror novel, sadly the assignment was for a children’s book but it was maddening that the men wouldn’t give Bridget that credit (watch it, I can see Peggy Olson smiling somewhere). Bridget is also hampered by what is called “Imposter Syndrome”: according to Wikipedia, it “is a psychological pattern in which an individual doubts their skills, talents or accomplishments and has a persistent internalized fear of being exposed as a 'fraud'” despite have external skills and a number of accomplishments. Aside from her own appearance, Bridget puts her own abilities and intellect down, and it’s no surprise as how her society puts an emphasis on the physical appearance of women: “If you've grown up with messages that you're only valued for your looks and your body, not your skills or intelligence, you may end up getting a certain job or position and wondering whether you truly deserve it or if the hiring manager just thought you were a pretty face”, said clinical psychologist Emily Hu for the BBC (not to mention it’s much harder for women of color who deal with their cultural expectations and prejudice from a white supremacist patriarchy). Bridget’s own outrageous mother hasn’t passed down her bolder traits to her daughter and often makes Bridget feel small as she berates her for “not getting your colours done” or being unmarried. 

In a world where tomboys and girly girls are pitted against each other, what would have happened if Perpetua and Bridget have let go of their preconceived notions of one another? Perpetua does seem to see Bridget as more than “blonde hair and big boobs”. It’s worth seeing that when the Bustle wrote about how to combat workplace misogyny, that they emphasized how important it was to support other women in the workplace as Perpetua did for Bridget at the last minute, alongside feeling free to disagree with men and demand a raise. Once again I want to note, Bridget and Perpetua are both white cis able-bodied women from upper-middle class backgrounds, so if their professional journey is fraught just imagine what it’s like for women of color. 

Tough Women

“You can stand me up at the gates of hell. But I won't back down.” I Won’t Back Down, Tom Petty  

Bridget learns, as we all do, and like Perpetua might have done that if she wanted to overcome her issues, she really has to confront her own discomfort and take risks as she demands more from life. Perpetua is a tough woman: she doesn’t appear to soften, even when she is greeting Bridget or Mark Darcy, who she is impressed by and she seems to encourage Natasha’s efforts to snatch him up. Granted a woman like Perpetua probably learned she had to tough, if she wanted to make it in a male-dominated workspace, I would not be surprised if she had parents who instilled a sense of ambition and toughness in her from a young age, or like Megan from Bridesmaids, she had to deal with a childhood of bullying and took that pain to transform herself into a formidable character.

We also see from her confrontation with Daniel, she isn’t afraid to get harsh with a powerful man especially after she finds out that he has been using a female employee sexually and been denigrating her worth at the office. 

We don’t know Perpetua’s physical prowess and she clearly prefers pearls to combat boots, but she does possess traits that are associated with men: logical mind, firm, self-reliant, witty, sharp-minded, a professional in a cutthroat environment, and is flawed while being formidable. Perpetua is strong, a Shonda Rhimes character that Rhimes herself hasn’t created. Sadly like most Tough Girls, she isn’t her own protagonist and is there as an accessory to the main character, the Trinity to The Matrix’s Neo and she is often the lone woman that Bridget interacts with at work. Tough Girls are counterparts to more “typical” women: traditionally feminine women who are softer and more emotional...Bridgets. One thing I want to note is that Bridget is the protagonist instead of a love interest but yet she stands alone as her friendships are not that positive and her relationship with her mother is strained. Like Ripley of the Alien series, Perpetua is the lone smart and strong woman who has to deal with a environment where no one else wants to listen to her and everyone is ruled by their emotions (or their libido). She is Joan Holloway, who weathers the misogynistic waters with her razor-sharp observations and commentary regarding the absurdities of the people who are around her, while not being afraid to command attention and others, even at the risk at not being truly liked but “admired”. Not a phony. Perpetua is a privileged woman but like I stated before, she dealt with a combination of body-shaming and misogyny that toughened her...but why should a woman be tough and hurt? We could have had a scene where Bridget encourages Perpetua to reveal her vulnerabilities and open up along with Perpetua pushing her to be more resilient over a spa day with face masks, pedicures, beer, Milk Trays, pizza, Terminator movies, and hair makeovers while discussing how to hide Uncle Geoffrey’s body.

Strong Independent Women

“The watch I'm wearin', I've bought it. The house I live in, I've bought it. The car. I'm driving, I've bought it. I depend on me, I depend on me.” Independent Women, Destiny’s Child

Imagine trying to reconcile feminist principles of not depending on male partners and rugged individualism that insists the opposite of what John Donne’s quote about how one person is a party of a larger community. You have the Strong Independent Woman, who is used by capitalism to sell feminism and face cream/Spanx/sanitary napkins/Wonderbras/lipstick, who needs no man (or interdependence) to thrive in a still misogynistic world. This misogynistic world also abhors the independence, self-assurance, self-reliance, and self-love of women who choose to follow their path. Meanwhile the non-mainstream feminist and environmental movement have pushed for a culture of interdependence and for a culture that doesn’t base one’s value on how much money or genius or beauty (or what have you) an individual possesses; Bella Abzug noted that “Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel”.

But the image of the female individualist for one strong reason: women are still expected to perform the bulk of emotional and domestic labor while being paid less than their male peers for the same job, also because of ingrained sexism and perpetuated self-doubt, many women are still dependent on their spouses, parents, bosses, the opinions of others. It’s nice to see images of powerful, strong, often gorgeous women of wealth not have to depend on men for their worth or their livelihood. But we are flesh-and-blood human beings, not super beings or robots; even Perpetua shows some vulnerability when she refers to Bridget being a lot thinner than she and she is clearly looks crestfallen when she hears that Bridget has been belittled and used for her body by Daniel, we don’t hear much about her circle of friends in the movie aside from Natasha (in the book, she is friends with some same-minded women). Everyone needs an interdependent society of people supporting one another and helping each other grow. 

Perpetua both upholds and subverts the tenets of the Independent Woman: she isn’t the supermodel-esque independent woman but Perpetua makes her own money and at lot of it, she dresses very well to project her authority in the workplace, she is bold, rejects the validation of male authority, and she isn’t afraid to be unlikable. She lives in a big city (because independent and single people don’t live in small towns or the suburbs *sarcasm*), presumably in her own spacious apartment or even a townhouse, she has found herself at some point before the story and has a strong sense of self, she works hard and has a strong sense of purpose because of her work ethic, and heaven help the dumbass that underestimates her or any other woman. She is a non-superpowered Carol Danvers: rather than waiting for someone to rescue her, she is quick to rescue herself from self-doubt or even rescue someone from injustice. She is noted to have a love interest, but she doesn’t revolve her world around him and is suggested to make demands for her needs in the relationship, showing she isn’t prone to fuckwittage as Bridget is (perhaps Perpetua learned to put a stop to that bullshit?). Of course because this is Bridget’s story, a woman who yearns for that fairytale ending of marriage, and this is a regressive, “post-feminist” (what sense does that make?) story, Perpetua isn’t a role model and is seen as a polar opposite to Bridget’s softness, ditziness, girliness, romanticism, and self-effacing persona.

I want to stop and say that I am so happy to be writing this essay in 2020, a year in which a large number of women (especially of color) have been elected to political office in record numbers with the Indian and Jamaican American Kamala Harris being elected as Vice President of the United States (and the first woman to do so). She is also independent enough to make her own money and develop her sense of self, along with a strong sense of agency and inter-dependent enough to credit the support and love she has from her blended family including her late mother. In fact the independent women of Broad City, Sex and the City, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Moana, Mulan, and GLOW (crossing self) all have inter-dependent systems of support and are one another’s family (hell even Bridget’s so-called friends are her “Urban Family”). I also want to say, it’s highly likely that Kamala was more a Perpetua and not a Bridget (or else she wouldn’t have been able to succeed like she has done in her career), thus her win as Vice President vindicates Perpetuas who have worked and lived before her. 

Working Women Do’s and Don’ts

“You're just a step on the boss man's ladder. But you got dreams he'll never take away.” 9 to 5, Dolly Parton

As established, Perpetua is happily single (but also partnered), she fulfilled in material comforts, she is unafraid to confront men about their bullshit (she has a hard time trying to get Fitzherbert away, I bet), and she has high standards. To paraphrase Charlotte Pickles, to thrive where she works she has to “eat, breathe, and sweat self-esteem” and she does. This is something that Bridget lacks and something I feel Perpetua can help her with. Sadly we never got that chance: the gentle and feminine Bridget and the stern and neutral Perpetua bonding in a mutually beneficial kinship. I’m sure that Perpetua wishes she could talk back to men like Julia Sugarbaker of Designing Women and that her role models came after some viewings of Working Girl, Baby Boom, and Murphy Brown and perhaps by the privileged and successful men (and a few women) in her family. It must be said that despite being referred to and clearly existing, we never see Perpetua’s boyfriend and that’s because pop culture has long depicted women in managerial and supervisory positions as lonely, ice-cold, unfeminine, and hard. Meanwhile more feminine women like Bridget don’t get the respect that Perpetua has and demands, and Perpetua lacks Bridget’s likability (Bridget of the many men and one woman who fall in love with her). While I wouldn’t consider Perpetua to be politically progressive (she is a woman of privilege and Sloan Rangers are considered Tories) but she isn’t a woman who is willing to exploit others for her own bottom line (or the corner office). We do see that she is quick to defend Bridget from slut-shaming or having her worth denigrated by Daniel, which leads to a rare scene of comcaderie between her and Bridget. I get the sense that Perpetua isn’t merely interested in ruling the workplace, but she wants to change the workplace enough to be less toxic (getting rid of Daniel and Fitzherbert). 

I can find some similarities to Perpetua in three fictional characters known for their drive in the workplace: Dr. Christina Yang (Grey’s Anatomy), Peggy Olson (Mad Men), and Princess Carolyn (Bojack Horseman). Christina Yang, like her creator Shonda Rhimes (if you are reading this Ms. Rhimes or someone writing or interning for her, please feel free to take ideas for a film or show about Perpetua, I need cheddar), is proudly childfree, dominant, blunt, up for a good time, and voraciously sexual and ambitious. Like Perpetua, she doesn’t aim to please others and very performative in her actions and words along with being caring and brusque (and snarky, especially about the terrifying Mr. Blobby). Also like Perpetua, Yang finds comcaderie with a bubbly young blonde who is sometimes reduced to her beauty (Izzy as played by Katherine Heigel) and tries to lift her girl friends up. While Perpetua has been working in a post Cold War publishing company, Peggy Olson is a young woman from Brooklyn working at a advertising agency in the 1960s, with different struggles from her more “sexier” counterpart (Joan is a more confident Bridget after all, and Peggy has some BJ traits). Peggy is also a trailblazer for assertive working women of today and paved the way for Perpetua across the pond, setting an example from the ground up (partly observing the men above her) when she wasn’t able to find much female role models that didn’t rely on their sexuality or follow a traditional path. Women during that time didn’t have reproductive freedom, equal pay (still, sigh), and working women were shamed for wanting to follow a different path. Peggy also deals with fatphobia in Season One (she was actually pregnant) and divorced herself from her sexuality temporarily (but she experiments with sex and drugs throughout the series). Like Peggy, Perpetua isn’t crippled by Don Draper’s self-loathing (Bridget) or lack of discipline (Daniel) and Perpetua had to learn to believe in herself rather than merely rely on the validation of others. Princess Carolyn is a pink, perky, girly girl cat but like Perpetua she has a relentless drive, is intelligent, hard-working, can sell something (a celebrity image or books), and knows how to positively influence certain people around her. All these women have lived by their own self-definitions and owned the struggles they endured to get ahead. 

Can’t Be Tamed

Walter Stratford: Hello, Katarina. Make anyone cry today?

Katarina Stratford: Sadly, no. But it's only 4:30. 10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

Rom Coms (such as Bridget Jones’s Diary) have a nasty habit of wanting to tame, soften, tone down, settle down an independent woman with her strong mind, sharp tongue, active sex life, and own money to matrimony. Then we have heroines who are allowed to fly their freak flag and find their own tribe (or leading man). That is Kat Stratford, the teenage feminist protagonist of 10 Things I Hate About You, a girl that Perpetua would have been at that age if she were American with blonde, pretty privilege. After all Perpetua has been perceived by Bridget (a Bianca without wit or spine) as a “heinous bitch” as delivered by the fabulous Allison Janney; they are perceived as difficult women who rain down their parades with their truth and don’t suffer the foolishness of arrogant men. Such women are supposed to be tamed, which has several meanings. The negative being to “tone down” or “dominate”; an alternate definition has been offered by The Little Prince’s fox “to earn one’s trust”.

We don’t know if Perpetua has anyone, romantic or platonic, to complement her personality and balance her out as Natasha seems to have Perpetua’s negative traits. This is where she and Bridget could have developed a friendship, combining vulnerability and a disdain for the fickle opinions of others and keep from having to choose between love and career, between relationships and financial independence. We could have seen a closer relationship blossom over the story just as Bianca and Kat grow closer to one another in the film. Maybe Bridget demanding more from Mark at the end, telling him that just because he bought her a new diary it doesn’t mean that he can get away with walking away from her and that it makes up for how tight-assed he can be with Perpetua cheering her on and another scene where Bridget smiles and let’s Perpetua squees over something in excitement. 

Like Kat, the Perpetuas can find their own tribes or mates. 

Women of Privilege in Media

Rich bitches, girl bosses, sassy queens, matriarchs, as Christopher Rosa noted about these women (which includes Perpetua): "They're rude, they're loaded, and we love them for it.” In a world that hates empowered women, as bell hooks bluntly noted, these Regina Georges, Cheryl Blossoms, Alexis Carringtons, and Perpetuas take back that slur and wrap it up in designer couture and fabulous accessories with nary a hair out of place. They own the negative stereotypes and manicure it into an image of fearlessness. They reject the social pressures placed on women to be nice no matter what, likable, fade into the background, and talk themselves down. Rich bitches indulge themselves with no apology and wear their strengths as boldly as their statement jewelry. But what if you don’t want to be bitchy all the time, what if you want to channel that fierceness into something constructive? 

#Girlboss is an atom and a half: traditionalists argue that she isn’t a proper “feminine” woman who loses out on heterosexual love and children (”true womanhood”) while many feminists argue that she simply advanced to a seat in the patriarchy and doesn’t give a damn about the little people below her enough to truly make positive changes. Pop Culture has four flavors of the this character, as noted by The Take: the Bitch Boss, the Pre Code Boss who acts the way we think women started acting like after 1968, the Feminine Boss, and the social media savvy Girlboss who starts companies with cutesy names like WAHAM or WEEMAN or GOOP and they are often white and conventionally attractive. The last flavor exploits feminist phrases while selling out to capitalism and patriarchy for women to buy more shit and willing to step on people’s heads while building her empire. Sometimes she’s Charlotte Pickles, a somewhat ruthless but loving mother and CEO who loves angora sweaters, is glued to her phone, and can effectively hit the roof of a overturned boat with her high heel. Perpetua may seem standoffish to care only about her bottom line or take on traditionally masculine traits like Ruth Chatterton in Female or Diane Keaton in Baby Boom, but she proves to be a Leslie Knope when she stands up for Bridget in a heated moment. Perpetua has no necessity for large pink letters or catchphrases to prove she is a powerful (and empowered) woman, she simply is. One can see Perpetua taking over Pemberley Press, first Daniel’s job and then ousting Fitzherbert and taking his position, thus ousting misogyny from that workplace and using her power to uplift more voices in writing. 

Bridget and Perpetua, meet, Betty and Veronica (respectively). While the Bridget the Nice Girl avoids her issues (and Betty can be in danger of being subsumed by them), Veronica and Perpetua make their rules and are willing to break them. Like Perpetua, the teenage Veronica wears her posh prep clothes proudly with a string of pearls and headbands holding her shiny hair. Veronica is also confronting a system (and family legacy) that taints America and makes living so impossible for people who have no boots to pull the straps from and handicaps her to a pedestal. Perpetua seems to want her friend Natasha to snap up Mark Darcy (remember she knows nothing of Mark and Bridget) like Veronica in the CW reboot wanted Betty to do with Archie. Both want to work hard and be recognized for their merit, not wanting to depend solely on Daddy’s money, bucking long-standing patriarchal expectations of upper-class young women who were expected to marry a man from a similar class and have children to inherit the money. Perpetua and Veronica show a willingness to get down and dirty while being allies to their less privileged and/or more passive female comrades. They also wield their power to take down over-puffed authority figures who abuse their privilege and have attitude when a woman gets slut-shamed or otherwise mistreated. Remember Daniel and Mr. Titspervert, Perpetua’s specialty is ice.

Legally Blonde and Bridesmaids, etc. 

Vivian Kensington. Elle Woods. Professor Stromwell. These women showcase an alternative where cold but supportive women befriend our plucky blonde protagonist in a Playboy bunny suit and a douchebag ex-boyfriend (before ending up with a lawyer who comes off as uptight). Legally Blonde gifted Elle camaraderie with these women while Perpetua was left at the wayside and Elle was given a circle of supportive friends while Bridget had friends who negged her and were a poor influence on her confidence. Where Delta Nu gave Elle their time to help her practice for the LSATS, Bridget’s friends openly wonder out loud that Mark Darcy said he likes Bridget as she is, ditziness and unfashionable (of the time) curves and non-airbrushed looks (really?). We also see Elle add more people to her friend circle, like the working-class Paulette who proves to be mutually supportive of Elle and has been empowered by her to stand up to her ex and then we focus on two women who stand in for Perpetua: the steely Professor Stromwell ( the Mrs. Sarah Paulson, Holland Taylor) and the preppy  Vivian Kensington (Selma Blair, la diva). Vivian and Elle start out as rivals for the handsome but douchey Warner Huntington III, who categorizes these women as the wife material Jackie and the fun and hot-tubbing Marilyn, but slowly upon finding out that their professor is a sexist who demands his young interns get him coffee and that Warner lacks Elle’s integrity find some common ground. Vivian is horrified and takes back her previous behavior upon hearing that their professor has sexually harassed Elle, reducing this intelligent and savvy young woman to her sex appeal. Also Professor Stromwell puts Elle on the spot on her first day of classes at and has a reputation for making her students sob, but it’s implied that Stromwell sees a bit of herself in Elle and wants this young woman to succeed and that means challenging her to do the hard work in Harvard. In the climax of the film, when Elle discusses quitting Harvard because of people undervaluing her intellect and being sexually harassed as a final straw, Stromwell turns around in her salon chair and tells Elle: “If you let one male prick ruin your life, you’re not the girl I thought you were.” Stromwell gets credit in Elle’s valedictorian speech at the end of the film. We see here that while Elle upholds girliness and finds new love in a established lawyer, unlike Bridget she has a support system of women (and a few men) who encourage her to kick ass and challenge the perceptions of others and celebrate her triumph in defending someone from a life-altering sentence. 

I feel that in 2001, either Annie Mumulo or Kristen Wiig watched BJD and found the relationship between Bridget and Megan wanting as well as I did, this likely spurred them into writing Bridesmaids, a film that centered on women fighting over a best friend rather than a man, where the male love interest listened to the protagonist vent about her friend issues, and where an overweight and unconventional female secondary character pushes our insecure everywoman protagonist to start fighting for her goals and her sense of self, or rather her “shitty life”. Annie (Kirsten Wiig) is a former owner of a bakery that fell victim to the 2008 recession who is hitting rock bottom as her childhood best friend gets engaged and starts befriending her fiancee’s boss’s preened to perfection wife Helen (Rose Byrne)  and then finds comfort and motivation in the form of the fiancee’s wacky sister Megan (Melissa McCarthy). Annie gets loonier as the movie goes on (ahem) until Megan persuades her to channel that spirit more constructively; Megan is proud of her hard-earned achievements and is confident but also kind enough to adopt several puppies and see Annie at her lowest. Megan earns her own money and demands more from her relationships than the other women in the movie (unhappy marriages, lack of communication, lack of trust) and emboldens Annie to grab life by the horns, thus starting a new friendship. It’s notable that this film is about post-college aged adults and the role of friendships in their lives.

Perpetua’s Potential

The 2010s have shown more narratives that focused on women’s relationships with one another and have even re-defined what “happily ever after” looks like and as a result of the #MeToo and #TimesUp Movements, women have examined how toxic their culture is to women and finding that the harassment and assault of women to be terrifyingly normalized and it has been for a long time. Millennial and Gen Z women have even questioned the issue of pitting women against each other, one of which is the “not like other girls” attitude that pits the cool babe or the weird girl against the high-maintenance girly girls that easily conform to society (even rewriting these types as friends or lovers to one another). 

So what does that mean for Bridget Jones’s Diary? Well we could see a B Plot on Mark Darcy and his divorce from his Japanese ex-wife and she’d be given her own inner life and complexities, Perpetua might have to reconcile her relationship with Bridget and Natasha (the latter who is hostile to the former), we could see Perpetua strike up a friendship with her polar opposite Bridget and the narrative could focus on Bridget helping Perpetua open up her softer side while Perpetua gives Bridget the encouragement to stand up to her (admittedly) trashy family and friends and demand more from her relationship with Mark (or even dump him). We can even see them include Rebecca Gillies, the beautiful trust fund baby that works for Mark and finds Bridget to be desirable as she is (without being backhanded about it Mark!). We can see Bridget become stronger as she has one friend who challenges her to be better and another friend who finds her supremely wonderful and gets her to see it. 

Maybe we can see Uncle G die, a girl can dream.

The Rise of the Perpetuas or what happened after Bridget drank some of Perpetua’s Juice

#MeToo, #TimesUp, #BossBitch, Lizzo, Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Beyonce, Hillary Clinton, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, the Notorious (and late) Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jacinda Ardern, Michelle Obama, Jameela Jamil, Mindy Kaling, Tiffany Ferg, Kimberly Nicole Foster, Dahvi Waller, Gretchen Whitmer, #BlackGirlsAreMagic, Mothers of the Movement, CaShawn Thompson, Intersectional Feminism, Black Feminism, Mad Men, Mrs. America, Insecure, The Baby Sitters Club, Amy Schumer, GLOW, Emma Gonzalez, Candice Carty Williams, Malala Yousafzai, Kamala Harris, Meghan Markle...all of them have grappled with issues like Bridget and Perpetua and have even expanded the conversation about women’s day to day lives and the small (and large) ways society is misogynistic and have gone further to question why it’s so commonplace. We even see a talk about body neutrality (as opposed to the sanitized body positivity), which one can easily see Perpetua practicing. We also see women being held up in social media as being “stanned” for being difficult, wonderful, achievement oriented, sassy, fierce, outspoken, demanding, and fashionable...all things that Perpetua was put down for. 

“I just took a DNA test, turns out I'm 100% that bitch

Even when I'm crying crazy

Yeah, I got boy problems, that's the human in me

Bling bling, then I solve 'em, that's the goddess in me” Truth Hurts, Lizzo

To paraphrase Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?: All this time, they could have been friends. 

The year 2020 has been a dismal year for women’s careers as women are swamped with the demands of domestic life and bosses have shown that they won’t cut their employees slack for having kids in the background. People even explored how the pandemic has revealed cracks in society from economic disparity, how women are ultimately shouldered with the burdens of home that men aren’t expected to, how vulnerable marginalized communities are in systems with poor health care and systemic bigotry, and the lack of a social safety net. These are challenges I see Gen X, Millennial, and Gen Z women pushing back against (I will show up, pussy hat and mask on my person). One can even see Bridget, the ex Mrs. Darcy, Perpetua, and Rebecca marching in their Women’s March or even the global Black Lives Matter marches as they cheer on (or help) “tipped” over statues of colonizers and slave traders. We’d even see them attend virtual seminars on how to be better allies to BIPOC and listen as ex Mrs. Darcy talked about her difficulties as a East Asian woman in a predominantly white society and Bridget promising to call out her mother for her racist comments. There’d be no good woman/bad-woman dichotomy being perpetuated as they embrace each other’s differences. 

[prorevenge]

You wanna take credit for my work? You wanna tell me you hope my family dies? Want to try to fight me for winning-out against your bullshit? Ok how's losing your ability to work in this city and a few years in jail as well as public humiliation?

We have to get a few details about me out of the way:

Backstory TLDR: Do not fuck with me. I'm blunt and stubborn. Also I'm better at my job than you will ever be so just get over that now. Also I hate my career field. I work in tech but I'm not going to be more specific than that.

A note on the stubborn-ness: I am the most stubborn, and blunt (rude if you push me) person you will ever meet. I expect everyone (Doubly so for management) to do the right thing even when no one is looking. One of the things I have learned is that narcissists and sociopaths cannot fucking stand me. They will actively melt down if they work with people like myself. Those people thrive when people have to 'be nice.' The exception to my stubborn bluntness? If you work under me. I help everyone working under me with everything they need 100% of the time and am super friendly unless they give me a reason not to be. I treat people under me (in terms of technical position and in the companies hierarchy) like royalty and the people beside and above me like "You should be at least as competent as myself, no excuses."

Example: If you lie about me/to me? Well I had better be getting an open, and public apology (to the people who you lied to) with admission of guilt or I'm going to make you fucking regret it. Best not be treating anyone else below you bad either. Lots of managers have a problem with this for some reason. Don't want this to happen? Don't lie.

Now with that said I have a constant wave of job opportunities. Every company I've ever worked for (including the one that fired me) begging to have me back at a higher pay rate than what I made when I worked there. Actually about 25% more than the highest pay in the country I live in. So I'm not in any position to care if someone is going to fire me.

Now thats out of the way, at my current job I've worked here for about 2.5 years. I took this job because it was going to allow me to have the time off I wanted: About 35 days of PTO, and 10 weeks (first 2 unpaid) of vacation time. Its a long story but basically I need the time off. I was hired in at about 50% of the standard rate of pay for this reason. Contractually I can take this time off any time I want. I could, if I so desired, leave work mid day and go on vacation.

When I first started the company laid off every other "IT Guy" after about a year aside from two. Those guys are mostly there to cover me leaving suddenly and if someone needs to pull something while I work on something else.

My previous manager actually recommended me to manage the department but I didn't want to take it so the company gave me an open door to take said position any time I wanted and they would just demote anyone in said position. This is where Sociopath comes in: To manage.

First day he pulls us all (My team + one more) into a meeting and talks about how hes a 'nice guy' but is going to drive us to work extra hard. This is where the first altercation occurs "Yeah how is that the case? [Other team] is purely reactionary and our team has literally no issues inside the company and 100% of our work is completed at nearly 3 times the rate of any other business in the area?" "We will hold questions for private meetings." "Ok fair enough."

He pulls me in and the first thing out of his mouth is to yell at me: "I never want you to question me ever again!" I was honestly stunned. "Excuse me?" "You will do what I say when I say! NOW GET OUT!"

He wraps up the 'meeting' by saying "I'm really glad to have gotten this job because I cannot leave this town due to the fact that I am obligated to watch my kids half of the year. So I can't wait to get to know all of you!"

I immediately went to HR as soon at the meeting was over and explained the situation. Thing is HR is the guy who hired me, and we like each other a lot. He tells me "Ok, well, unfortunately it would be against company policy to fire him this quickly. Also I have to take his side of the story first."

He didn't 'yell' at me after I went and spoke to HR but called me in and said "Listen, they are telling me to apologize to you and thats just not going to happen. I'm your boss its my right to treat you how I see fit. I didn't realize you were a rat, but now that I know that I'm afraid that I am going to be extra hard on you. Better do what I say or its your job!"

I replied "Its not your job to yell at people and maybe you should understand that. If you were half as competent as you want to seem I don't think you would ever have a reason to yell at anyone. Also if reporting behavior that is against company policy makes me a rat, then being a rat must be a good thing." He just yelled "GET THE FUCK OUT!" and pointed at the door. I replied "I'm afraid I'm going to have to go to HR again about your behavior if you don't apologize now." Which I did.

The issue? Well I live in a one party state for recording conversations. So I recorded said conversation.

Three weeks later and HR has decided to keep him on because we are still way ahead of everyone in terms of metrics. Since then my team and the other team has gone from loving their job to hating it. Everyone is reporting to me that he is screaming at them constantly but only in private. He doesn't even speak to me. The way he is treating the guys under me is what was really getting to me. They are HIS EMPLOYEES. He SHOULD NOT be treating them this way. I hate to use a quote from the office here but Micheal Scott is 100% correct: "A manager is not here to hire and fire, but to lead and inspire."

Now we are supposed to have certain metrics passed down to us by management but he has 'decided against that' to 'keep morale up.' However I knew what he was up to. So I went to my friend in HR and didn't tell him that he wasn't sending me the metrics (which he is required to do as per company policy) and had him send me a copy of everyone's metrics early "but keep it on the down low!"So he did.

For several months I told my team and the people under me "Just hold out on quitting he won't be here for long, trust me."

Slowly things between myself and him escalate. I make decisions that he doesn't like because "You didn't run that past me first." In reference to my vacations and days off. Contractually I don't have to do this and to be blunt I cant fucking stand him so hes just SOL when it comes to me not being there. This leads to several times of him trying to scream at me while I sat there and was 100% calm and patient but blunt and moving in my position that I can take leave when ever I want contractually and he is just going to have to get over that.

One of the things I specifically remember him yelling at me the last time: "You will do whatever I tell you when ever I tell you. If I throw a ball and say fetch you will fucking retrieve it. Do you understand?"

At this point I lost my patients and said "Are you done yet? Ok great you are going to listen to me now! You are hands down the worst manager I have ever worked under. You are unproductive, and the least competent. The other two guys metrics have been falling since you have been hired..."

Him: "Because your dumbass never listens to me. You are the problem here not me get out NNNNNNOOOOOOWWWW!"

Me: "Are you done? Because I think you are going to want to hear what I have to tell you! Your absolute childish behavior is unacceptable and I don't think that your supervisors or HR are going to appreciate how you have treated myself or this..."

At this point he gets up, grabs the chair in which I'm sitting, and literally rolls it towards his door screaming "I DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING LISTEN TO A DIP SHIT LIKE YOU! I'M THE BOSS DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD!"

I replied: "I hope you know this can be considered assault and battery."

Him: "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" and he promptly rolls me out of the office.

Now here is the thing: Before that meeting I said I wanted an HR rep to sit out side of the office and listen in. They said they couldn't do that but would place one in the meeting. He was late. He over heard he last SHUT THE FUCK UP! Just as he rolls me out into the hall. He then proceeded to look up, see HR and start sweating bullets.

Him:"Oh...huhuh, I was... we were just joking around."

Looking up at him: "No we weren't. He was just screaming at me and insulting me for no apparent reason."

He looks down at me hard and says: "This team always jokes around! I mean it was just a joke!"

I then pull out a small recorder and looked at HR and said "Well given that you missed the meeting I think you should just review it here on this tape as this is "just a joke" apparently performance reviews are 'just a joke' around here now."

HR insists we go over the performance review. He pulls his copy out and begins going over the metrics on it talking about how bad of an employee I am. As soon as he finishes I look at the sheet of paper he is going over I pull the metrics that my buddy in HR sent me. "No...No I'm afraid this is all wrong."

He looks at me "I...I'm sorry."

Me: "Oh yeah, [buddy in HR] sent me my metrics independent of what you sent me. In fact, and I can't believe you didn't know this, all of the metrics are review-able by any employee at any time if they make an inquiry. Actually you have failed to send us any metrics at all as is your job to do weekly."

The HR rep then looks at me "Is that all?"

Me: "Yes."

HR Rep: "Ok I think we are done here."

He requests that I stay, I look at him and reply: "No, I'm afraid I'm done listening to anything you have to tell me. Afraid I have an appointment to review your behavior with HR."

So HR and myself review the tape and their jaws are on the floor. HR Buddy apologizes to me. They ask me what I think should happen as I was the one who was originally up for promotion. I explain that he should not only have to write a letter apologizing for his behavior in email form, but also apologize to all the teams under him in person at one time. Just after they send an email to him I drop by his office and say "Hey man, don't worry. I didn't let them review that tape."

He sends an apology letter and tells me that "You are on my good side now!"

A few moments later HR comes down and tells him that its not enough and to have all the teams gather in front of him. In the mean time I rig up the conference room to have a typed letter of all the times he has yelled at every single person which took me all night to do.

He comes in and makes some bullshit apology thats a non apology "I'm sorry I was so hard on you guys. I just know your potential and...."

I cut him off (HR isn't in the room) "Excuse me? Thats not good enough! I'm afraid you are going to need to apologize for your actual behavior and not give an apology that sounds like "I'm sorry I was trying to help you and you didn't like it." No, I'm afraid you are going to need to actually apologize and admit to wrong doing and tell the actual truth!"

At which point he visibly starts to get angry "I...I AM APOLOGIZING!"

Me: "Ok go on"

Him: [More non apology with him being obviously fake upset.]

I press play on the slide show. "Ok since you didn't get the message the first time we are going to go through these individually. On December 11 2001 you screamed at Robert Robbington where in you failed to give him a review and simply called him a dumbass." I continue: "You need to repeat these words exactly if you want to keep your job: "Dear Mr. Rob, I apologize for being overtly hostile and rude. I apologize for failing at my responsibilities as a manager to both you and the team. I understand I have a problem with anger and am willing to seek help with my clear lack of empathy for other people. As such I will be signing a document admitting fault, under the circumstances that I ever hit you again I want everyone to know that I would be 100% at fault and you would not be, and proof of my misbehavior towards you as proof of my honesty in apologizing two witnesses will be signing this document."

As soon as I finish speaking he stands there and starts turning angrily red and says "MrBurington, we need to speak alone. NOW!"

I reply "No, I'm afraid we don't. If you do not wish to apologize to Robert Robbington then you can apologize to me for this!"

At which point I play the audio of him talking to me "I really hope your [family member] dies. I mean really. I'm your boss and this is your job and you care about [family member]? You think I give a fuck about them or you? You could die for all I fucking care. When [family] dies if you mourn I'll be mocking you. I just want you to know that. Now fuck off." (You see after that little incident I couldn't have given a fuck if I did get fired I just wanted to ruin this guys life.)

He immediately starts howling at me that I 'edited' the audio and runs to get HR. Shortly there after HR comes back and the entire room denies that any of this happened. We all instead go through with a plan I had from the beginning: I was going to expose him for the POS he was/is IF he does not honestly apologize and admit to actual wrong doing.

HR then tells him hes fired. He storms off.

Now this is where the hard core revenge part comes in. I used to work for every single IT Company in this town, or have connections to them somehow. Hell I trained at least half of the management at the last company I worked for. My words have weight. So I make calls to all of the places I have ins at which is literally everywhere in town telling them to black list this guy. However at two companies I request that if he applies I would like to show up and help them interview him. He applied to both jobs and I was sitting there in the meeting room "Oh hey! Just wanted you to know that I knew Mr. Meet for years." Middle of the interview I bring up his behavior with the audio from him telling me that he hopes my family member dies.

I then tell my ex-manager: "Also just note, you may want to write this down, all the tech jobs in our area will have a copy of this audio. So you can go ahead and explain to them why you told me this and they can relay that to me."

As soon as we get out into the parking lot he swings on me and starts screaming "I WILL FUCKING KILL YOU. FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU." I run back into the building and security detains him and calls the police (My buddy recorded this on his phone, as well as obtained a copy of the video from security)

After a quick court case and going to jail he shows up at my house with a knife screaming "I'M GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU! RUIN MY CAREER JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A BITCH." (I think he had the address from working at the company with me)

I called the police, got my gun, and explained the situation while I waited on the cops to show up. He proceeded to be detained and got sentenced to a 2 year stent in prison.

When you get out I hope you read this you see this you stupid fuck.

(source) story by (/u/MrBurington)

[necromancydrewonthecase]

Where I’ve Been, and Where I Am Now

I'll try to keep it short. I have work, yes: I went from two part-time jobs to working full-time in May, just a couple of weeks after starting Sighs of Fire. I also have my grad school class, which has been becoming an increasing challenge.

I haven't been able to take off work since I started this new job, and I'm exhausted. That's not news.

Here's my biggest cause of stress that has forced me away from the Internet.

CW: Assault, mentions of sexual violence

In mid September, a new coworker started at my job, though he outranks me (I am a librarian; he is the assistant branch manager. He has been in the system for several years but was moved to my branch to fill a vacancy.)

The dude was friendly. Too friendly. Would try to high five me every time he saw me (and would grab my hand. THAT’S NOT HOW YOU HIGH FIVE) and touched me on the back several times. Wanted hugs before it is rational to ask a hug of any acquaintance, much less a coworker...I digress.

In late September, two weeks after he started and a day after we talked about what a scumbag Kavanaugh is, he got me alone in the staff office (I went with him because he outranks me, and I assumed he was talking to me as a supervisor) and he started crying and touched me inappropriately but non-sexually (clutched at my calves. Yeah. Creepy as hell).

I reported it, but HR has yet to do anything.

He took leave for the rest of the month, which is a relief, because I refuse to be alone in the same room as this guy. But that leaves a vacancy, which means that tired as I am, I still can't take off, because we are short-staffed as it is.

Friends and those with experience in situations like these told me HR should have given me personal time off while they investigated this, but honestly, it’s been almost a month, and I don’t have expectations that anything is going to happen, especially since the guy is now off until November. So I’m safe for now, but I’m so tired. 

My family believes me, sure, but I have gotten comments from my parents that make it sound like they blame me: my mom gave me a list of things I should not do in the future to avoid interactions like this, and my dad had the nerve to get mad at me for not telling him first, despite the fact he got mad at me the last time I talked to him about being sexually assaulted (different scenario, happened a decade ago). I broke down sobbing multiple times that week because I still had to go to work, and to top it off, I blamed myself for putting myself into a situation where I was groped. 

I told a lot of this to Misha (SaturnineFeline), and she has been a wonderful friend. Em (TheLadyoftheHouse) and V. (my boyfriend; I stole my online nickname from a combination of him and my cat, Vivi) have been amazing IRL supporters, and things are slowly getting better, but my brain is not right still; I know my brain chemistry on a good day, and this ain’t it. I haven’t had the rest and recovery time I needed, I’m pretty sure HR isn’t going to act, and I have other responsibilities piling up. Not to mention that my coworker should be returning soon, so I feel like I’m just working on borrowed time.

I know I’m not mentally myself because I’m angry and I hate things I used to like. Last year, when I was suffering from bad anxiety and family/work stress, The Last Jedi came out and my love for that movie and all things Star Wars cleared a lot of that. Now I’m crushed under a lot more weight, and my usual escapism isn’t enough.

Sometimes, writing is therapeutic, but I know I have let it slide in the past few weeks to just recover. Em has picked up the slack and took charge on I Can Change to make sure that got out in a timely fashion. The next several chapters of Sighs of Fire are mostly ready to go, and updates should be coming on Fridays.

I post this not for pity, but for a desire for transparency. A stab at professionalism when I know I’m not being professional and keeping up my end of a social contract. 

I wear a lot of masks. In a recent performance review my boss even noted that my cheerful demeanor is welcome at my new job. I have tried to keep it on at work, around my family, around a lot of friends, but it is draining to keep it online. My energy in social situations is not what it used to be; I guess I have a lot of trust problems that stem from having the supervisor/employee relationship and the parent/child bonds violated in one day. Some days, it’s hard to wear this mask, so I generally have stepped away from tumblr (even posting the update posts is tiring! Augh!) and Discord and other places. I need to be kind to me, and that means not wearing the Killtheselights mask in my downtime.

Conversations are hard. Replying to comments is scary! I don’t know how to sound genuine anymore! But there has been a tidal wave of love and support for my stories lately, and it’s more of a pick-me-up than you can imagine.

I’ll be back in time. I promise.

Love, Vee

[rex-shadao]

On this day, Channel Awesome...

Is fundamentally unsalvageable and deader than disco.  A combination of non-apologies, screw-ups and unintentional revelations of bigger scandals (that has essentially sickened many people and shattered pristine images) in response to the document of grievance known as “Not So Awesome”.  As we wait for confirmation of the total demise of Channel Awesome, I would like to give out some thoughts:

Admittedly, I had been aware of their problems since around 2016 (or maybe even 2015, I can’t remember for sure) at least on the TV Tropes’ YMMV page of their anniversary movies, where new additions under Harsher in Hindsight and "Funny Aneurysm" Moment have made mention of grievance by many former CA producers, Phelous in particular.  After all the high praises and acclaim from fans (and TV Tropes pages) of what a cinematic masterpiece To Boldly Flee during the heyday of 2012, it is stunning to hear how the behind the scene production is the antithesis of what the movie was defining itself to be.  I had always thought that these projects were a collaborative effort and that the only trouble are the usual ordeals one might face in a professional film production.  But then again, I was young high schooler at the time and did not work for the film industry at all.

This was also the first time I heard about Mike Michaud and his unpleasant behavior, especially towards women.  Apparently, he was the boss managing things behind the scene of CA, and sounded like a very awful person (almost incomparable until I got back into US politics later that year).  Looking back at it, Michaud was always the perfect scapegoat to avoid confronting a unpleasant possibly: That Doug Walker was not what he made himself to be.  How much did Doug Walker know?  How much he didn’t know?  He was involved or was he kept in the dark?  The early accounts seem to depict to Doug as the least complicit of the head management (keyword: least), but his brother Rob Walker came off as rude and almost as bad as Michaud in regards to his attitude towards Obscura Lupa over mid rolls.  Given that even in videos, Rob seems to be a dominating personality, I was not surprised but disappointed nonetheless by this side of Rob.

However, by this point, I did not find myself as emotionally invested with the new Nostalgia Critic episodes as I had in the past (NC’s comedically over-the-top behavior works best when he’s usually the only person in the room).  Occasionally, I would watch an episode here and there, but only out of curiosity of what opinions he had on certain works (And what obscure works I have not encountered yet).  And while the recent allegations made the Nostalgia Critic videos feel a bit uncomfortable to watch, I was hoping (perhaps beyond hope) that this was all in the past and Channel Awesome had improved by then since I cannot imagine them lasting much longer if these allegations get bigger and the site had not addressed them immediately.

And sure enough, that’s what exactly happened.  Within two-three years, the allegations have exploded into revealing details of what was going on behind the scenes.  For me, it began when noticed one of my followed CA producers, Suede, was talking on Twitter about about Marzgurl and Obscura Lupa’s issues with Channel Awesome.  And then Linkara jumped and talked about in a more direct manner.  Though it started off small like any other Twitter feed chat, I cannot help feel this was going to snowball and land on CA’s face because the topic they are talking about is potentially brand tarnishing if not outright creator killer if got bigger attention.  I did not wish to see CA burn to the ground, so I hoped they know how to address (and apologize) for this scandal.  

But when I read the Twitter feed, it reminded me of how horrible Michaud was as CEO.  And that his personality is not the forgiving type and is unlikely to change.  Additionally, I learned that the Nostalgia Critic is actually owned by him, which means that Doug Walker, even if he wants to leave, can’t take the Nostalgia Critic with him.  And Michaud’s actions tells me he would stupidly destroy the Nostalgia Critic brand out of spite, so Doug threatening to walk out will not have as much of an impact as I would hope it will.  And again, that is if Doug Walker is an innocent performer oblivious to everything around him.  According to the tweets, he was apparently involved with some of the most crucial and cruel decisions made by CA. 

It reminded me of the situation regarding Walt Disney and Disney’s personal attorney, Gunther Lessing, during the Disney Strike.  For many of the Disney workers on strike, Lessing was the worst adversary.  He was an anti-unionist, made a phony in-company union to prevent workers from seeking outside unions, launched a smear campaign over the strikers, insisted that nothing was wrong and encouraged Walt Disney’s worst impulses at his own employees.  Yet despite that, Gunther Lessing was the man who helped Walt Disney (and his brother Roy) climb back on their feet after they lost Oswald the Lucky Rabbit and for that, Disney greatly trusts his attorney moreso than he did with his fellow employee animators.  It is surreal to see parallels between that old event and the current event unfolding faster than I can type.  If Gunther can offer us a lesson to this mess, it’s that CA would most likely dug into their heels, try to make amends (without them conceding anything major) and would eventually accuse the opponents as being greedy opportunists and liars, using the employees that remained as good “counter-argument,” before ever admitting defeat when the money finally comes to pinch them.  And Walt almost never recovered from this spectacle as the media talks about it like it was his downfall (and would have been permanent had Disney not made Cinderella).  This means that Channel Awesome would go into a fiery stage of anger and denial would inevitably backfire on them as it did with Walt.  It increases more attention towards the scandals and, if no recover backup plan is made, likely blacklist Doug and crew in the eyes of the fandom.

And that’s what happens.  Quite frankly, it is astonishing that they’ve ignored everyone’s advice and arrogantly post the replies they did.  It was the easiest and dumbest mistakes anyone amateur could made and they’ve blundered right into unironically.

I have more thoughts on CA, but I think I should wrap it up soon.  Overall, Channel Awesome had the chance to become known as a grand website that pioneered the early online video world and a place where critics and Internet reviewers from across the globe gather together and rise into stardom.  Instead, Channel Awesome shall be remember as a cautionary tale of letting greed, pride and incompetence rule your management, and an embarrassing Old Shame for those who had religiously watched their content in their nostalgia youth as well as the famous reviewers who had their careers started on the website once innocently called “That Guy With The Glasses.”

[4evafitstore]

Beats Wireless Earbuds PowerBeats Pro | True Bass Earbuds

Not only in price but also performance it's been quite some time and I'm sorry that's just the truth over the years Beats hasn't really said anything new that is in your audio department but today finally we got the Powerbeats Pro and the specs are quite impressive. Now it's a hefty $250 retail at the time. They're very much on the upper end with the Sennheiser and the Vino truly wireless earphones are priced slightly above and with let's say the bose sound sports the Jabra lineup and also the truly wireless earphones from jaybird those are a little bit below as always. I'll be going over both pros and cons also click on my affiliate links down below for the most updated prices in real time you never know when these things might go on sale. 

Overview

Release Date May 2019 Price $249.95 Bluetooth 5.0 weight Earbuds: 21 grams Model Number PowerBeats Pro Waterproof IPX4 Check Price On Amazon

Physical Features

Going over the physical features first. I anticipated these were going to be bulky and they were going to stick out that the earphones would also bounce around during intense movements with my testing on all fronts. They don't, they're actually quite flush against my ear and for the first time I can run with a hoodie on and the earphones don't feel as though they'll fall out from gently rubbing against that fabric.  Now with more intense movements simply demonstrate myself jump-roping here I'd never had any doubt that they would fall off and more importantly I don't feel that the ear tips will be lifting off my ears and losing sound quality. That's really impressive, these are truly wireless earphones. One of the issues that I've noticed when I had the Powerbeats 3 now of course cosmetically I think they look pretty damn good too. Now all of this praise off physically being stable it's because of these ears they are adjustable and does retain its shape. They do feel more competent than the Powerbeats 3 as it's a bit stiffer and the casing feels a little bit more durable. So, we'll see over time now I love the fit on my draw bars and my Samsung Galaxy buds more recently those who were great but I will admit the ear hooks do provide that extra level of stability.

water resistance

Now moving on beats are claiming these are water and sweat resistant spraying the crap out of these things right here they are still working perfectly fine. I was hoping for some sort of ingress rating or considering that we've had all this time to design these having it be submersible/ Although overkill would have given me more peace of mind there's a few other competitors out there that offers just that why not the Powerbeats Pro. You can't be in your shower listening songs under heavy water pressures. It's water protection rating IPX4 can't help you there, it has physical buttons and not touch buttons. 12 BEST NOISE CANCELING EARBUDS FOR WORKOUT IN 2020

Mic, Buttons & voice commands

But getting a closer look easily identifiable multi-function button. The actions are identical on either side which I really liked. Little volume rocker buttons are located at the very top and also are easily identifiable. Everything is there except for transparency mode. Maybe some people call it here through ambient to air whatever name these companies give them beats does not have the ability to turn on the internal microphones so you can hear your environmental noises nearly. Everyone else is offering it and I know a bunch of you use it for safety while running. Some uses these truly wireless earphones while working to hear if your boss sneaks up on you. We don't get that again with your Powerbeats Pro.  Last test I confirm you can activate Siri with your voice as it seems to always be listening for that command. Awesome feature or of course you can always hold down the beats logo again on either side of these earbuds. Now with Android using my voice didn't work for me. You can only activate Google assistance with the button press or telling the button hold all right.  

Bluetooth & Apple H1 Chip

Now moving on to the good stuff here. The technology there's this new Apple H1 Chip inside and it's working wonders. Yes, you do get amazing fast and seamless bluetooth pairing a very similar experience to those who had ear pods previously and with my iPhone I'm averaging about two seconds when the case opens to when the iPhone brings up this cool 3d spinning thing in battery life. In states definitely fast enough for me though but I love how seamless and more importantly how consistent it's been with Android, it's honestly not a slouch either. On screen is proof with my new pixel 3a I've been testing it connects on average in three seconds. Either scenario either phones by the time you put these earphones back into your ear. Adjust them, get them properly seated. It's already been paired.  Now since we're on the topic of Bluetooth, yes, I can't connect to more than one device at a time. yes, after testing playing video on either Android or iPhone where the YouTuber Netflix, I had zero syncing issues. Now although I couldn't find if the Powerbeats Pro uses bluetooth 5.0 or not which is typically used to signify which version a device uses. Apple States instead on their websites this uses a class 1 signal instead which means the earphones should be good up to 150 to 200 linear feet and yes wireless range and stability it has been great. I've been able to walk my entire apartment here with several walls in between and had zero signal loss. Now I also couldn't find if beats use apdex HD to determine how high of a resolution audio file it can handle but again I usually don't as there's been some great headphone / earphones without that high-resolution designation.  

Battery & charging case

In addition to that chip we get one of the best battery performances on any truly wireless earphones that I've tested. Fast fuel just 5 minutes on that charger gives you back an hour and a half. This is the fastest I've experienced on any pair of truly wireless earphones that I've tested. Not to mention beats claims up to nine hours of use with the case you're getting about an additional 15 hours of use for a total of up to 24 hours. Most truly wireless earphones I have tested, they've ranged from 12 hours to 15 hours give or take an hour for the extremes but the Powerbeats Pros, they're class leading with my testing at 50 percent volume like all my other truly wireless earphones.   Since we're talking about the case or maybe you have seen that in the image here. I know some will say this case is quite large and it is but to be fair how else are you going to have these ear hooks attached to the earphones themselves. The case itself had more than one light to indicate battery life. I wish the case featured USBC versus lightning to have a truly wireless port for all my devices. I know Apple fans will be upset hearing that but the iPad pro has USB C there might be a USB C iPhone coming down the road so if that's the case no pun intended, here that's future proofing yourself that would be ideal unless I don't think there's any other company doing this just yet but if we can make this case dust proof in or water proof that would give me 100% peace of mind. But again, that's me being nitpicky right there and wishing for features at this point.  And before I forget about this, there is audio pause and play when you take off your earphones the audio stops you put them back on and the audio plays again and this also works for video as well. Seconds, you can leave either one of these earphones out of your ear and the audio will still play. You can have the other earphone on the other side of the room if you want and the audio will still continue this signal is not dependent on the other earphone like traditional truly wireless earphones.

Powerbeats Pro Check On Amazon

Audio Quality Noise Canceling

Alright, let's get into some of the audio features. First up, let's talk about the microphone get ready that is and the audio is completely unedited and it's a little bit of breeze. Only guys can tell us by here being all crazy or jacked up right now but let me know what you guys think down the review description below. There's no good sound bad sound to pick it up. Let's test out this audio.  as nice and expensive as my microphones are audio recorded on my end and then played through your speakers are not the best depiction of audio accuracy. It's just a sample but it is better than nothing but hence my filing audio review here the Powerbeats Pro is loud enough for most people. Loud but still comfortable to me is at about 75 percent volume, there is some sound leaking occurring,  So those sitting right next to me in a very quiet room, library whatever. Can hear what you're listening to so just be a little bit cautious about that. The ear tips do sit around the ear canal but they don't sit fully inside. Most people will find that more comfortable but keep in mind that it won't give you the best passive noise isolation as other truly wireless earphones and of course a little bit more sound leaking as well. These do let in some noise as much as it leaks out so if you're in a busy place you might have to turn it up to maybe 75 percent volume to encapsulate yourself here with your own audio and kind of drone out the outside noise. Again, that's only if you're in a very busy environment.  

Powerbeats Pro True Bass

Now jumping into bass. it's deep at loud volumes its rumbling. It feels like I'm wearing wired earphones at times considering how deep these actually go. If you like bass no question the Powerbeats Pro is it the Jaybird X4 run ex tees were the next closest in bass for me but Jaybird X4 offers a punchy variation or more of a bass boosted audio signature. Versus offering deep bass like the Powerbeat Pros. Now going into the mid-range, the louder you go the more basses experience that's pretty obvious but I do notice the mid-range is just ever so slightly overshadowed by bass most. Having most average consumers, I think they'll be fine with this or the tolerance level is still within reason for most consumers.  Now if you're more of a technical audio listener or if you don't like the bass then you might prefer something more has more emphasis on the vocals / mid-range something that may be a little bit more forward in that mid-range frequency. This is simply a matter of preference the high frequencies would never ear in your tingey in my opinion but if anything, that is clear or lacking actually in some resolution or detail on the top and especially that loud volumes at moderate listening levels. It's not a big deal, a little bit more detail a little bit more Sparkle up top would have been much better as for soundstage there isn't much of a wide soundstage either you get decent audio separation but nothing huge or class defining. powerbeats pro These are great with hip-hop and EDM most but not all pop songs will do well. Those favoring vocals, I would consider these. Powerbeats Pros are no question bass ear truly wireless earphones if you prefer a pair that's more so for jamming outs verses technical accuracy, the Powerbeats Pro are recommended to. At least give them a try if you highly value the better life connectivity, the ear hooks alone comfort instability. I'd go from recommended to highly recommend it as not many other are offering the core functionalities at this level. Again, I think the biggest thing for you as a consumer you have to consider if you like Basie audio or not.  check on Amazon Read the full article

[fuck-customers]

inconsistency is balls

this is a fuck managers.

my boss has always been very open and honest with me and other staff. he’s great. id consider him a friend as my work is pretty small so a lot of us get on REALLY well. we’ve hung out after work a few times even if a non-work setting and if i see him out i usually get chatting to him. on a more minor level we tag each other in memes. but. recently he’s really fucked me off. this is gonna be a long rant.

in january i had my performance review, basically it went well. i thought it was going to be bad i suffer from quite bad anxiety (which i know isn’t uncommon) as well as ptsd from trauma so i thought i was going to be criticised for being quiet and reserved, not pushy enough with sales, not being the best service person… nah. my boss was amazing - lots of support and encouragement and good words. gave me positive steps towards improving but didn’t say he felt bad about my service and told me i was the best in back of house which made me feel great cos i always worry about being bad at back of house. i felt really good about it. 

i had a quick chat with my boss in february about summer hours. last summer i got literally the same hours i did the rest of the year and it burned me financially and im still picking up from it so he asked me if i wanted to work full time - up my contract to 30 hours (double my current 15) on a temporary basis so it goes down when i start class again and he’d give me around the standard full time 40 hours a week. if hours not available, id still be guaranteed 30. this deal was pretty fucking sweet so i agreed.

in march i had more than a quick chat with my boss, i was super upset and my anxiety was all over the shot. lots of personal shit going on as well as the stress of class and coworkers and other managers being shitty. we spoke for about two hours about everything and again, i felt really good after it because id been beating myself up and worrying. my boss solved the issues i brought to him and checked up on me a little more both at work n just via facebook or whatever to yak shit because he knew i wasn’t doing to well in my head. 

my classes and exams finish in may. theres two occasions that i speak to him. one is the start of the month when my anxiety is still very bad as i still have exams. something personal thats not directly work related but involves him and other employees. again, a really good talk. after my exams i ask him for more hours and ask him when would be good to do the hours transfer. he tells me he can’t do this - too small a time to have a temporary change to contract, idk. fine. cool. he eases me into 40 hour weeks and now its july and im on my third week of doing a full 40 hours, well actually 45 hours this week as i took a lunch cover shift because of staff absence.

next week i booked off monday for a family wedding and the friday for a friends birthday, not as holidays, just as days off, assuming id work the tuesday-thursday and weekend. nope. he enters me tuesday-saturday, meaning i don’t get my friday off. nobody can swap with me and when i try and give away my shift (usually fine) he starts giving me a lecture about not taking my job seriously… also not how he usually treats me. finally manage to get it off when another manager confirms i asked for this off a while back but he asks me to work twelve hour shifts to cover and i agree cause i cant be bothered with his shit.

he acts moody with me all week, doesn’t make small talk, ignores a text i send him… one morning he doesn’t even fucking brief me ‘you’re in the stockroom all day so check up with x whose up there who’ll let you know what they’re doing’ acts really petty. 

i dont understand why and don’t want to confront him but he’s back acting fine with me like nothing happened like lmao lets ignore the massive hissy fit YOU took with me even though you knew i needed these days off for a while. even more than fine, full of banter mostly - sent me a ‘funny’ text asking me if i could work an extra shift, talks shit to me when im in�� wtf. 

i don’t want him to bring back previous times ive trusted and spoken to him about stuff if he’s gonna get in a mood with me. we get on outside of work, so, it doesn’t make sense. whats worse i have my review coming up mid-july. i feel like its gonna be worse than last time or hes just not gonna bother doing mine right. i really want a promotion thats going as it allows you to work part time so will be ideal when i study but hes not gave me any indication about if id get it... got the last promotion almost asap as well so i really dunno. 

honestly feel like it will happen again.

others have complained about his attitude before but ive never personally felt it until now. just want consistency. either be my friend whose also my boss or just be my boss. he can still be nice to me, just not… yno. i don’t want a boss who pretends to be my friend when it suits.

[thehallofgame]

Review: Tomb Raider (1996)

Release: 1996

My Rating: 9/10

Tomb Raider Review Series: 1/11ish

                Happy new year everyone! My review series for 2018 will be Tomb Raider and will begin in full force after I take a much needed break for the month of January. Best wishes to all my followers, and to everyone out there hoping 2018 will be a more uplifting time than 2017 was.

              Tomb Raider was such a powerful and timely moment in video game history. Though others had tried to transcribe the action-archaeologist antics of Indiana Jones into video game format none did it quite so well. Tomb Raider appeared on the scene and inspired a new genre so fast it was explosive, and playing it today, two decades after release, it holds up. There’s nothing I can point to about that game that isn’t antiquated and yet there’s still such a powerful exuberance and gleeful creativity to the whole experience. I think that’s something distinctive and enchanting about this game, and the whole mid to late 90s era of gaming, in which you can still feel the birth of 3D graphics and the unfurling of new potentials in video gaming. It’s a shame that so few games of this era are incorporated into the reboot and remaster craze.

Tomb Raider is 50 percent action flick, 50 percent tech demo. The story is thin on the ground, overwrought and terribly acted by the voice cast. However, the gameplay and the thrill of the mystery within mystery within ancient ruin within far flung locales keeps players chugging along through the night, noticing the sun coming up the following morning only because it’s casting glare on the screen.

Back in 1996, before she was a household name and subject of several reboots, Lara Croft was introduced as an adventurer whose daily outings apparently included Big-Foot hunts. As such, she’s hired by the mysterious and wealthy Jaqueline Natla to retrieve a mysterious artefact from a forgotten city high in the Andes. After plenty of strange monsters, inexplicable visions and a good dose of backstabbing by Natla’s head goon, Lara decides she wants to race Natla for the rest of the treasures on Natla’s shopping list.

The story here could have come right out of an Indiana Jones movie, and for all it being as spare as most game plots of its day, it’s not bad. Natla is a good villain, and her gimmicky, cringe-inducing goons make thankfully brief appearances.

Which is good because the player will probably have more trouble with the controls than the enemies. It’s hard to say what version of Tomb Raider to recommend in order to make this problem least pronounced. The console versions are probably the most reliable and stable option these days but only allows saving at certain locations. Unfortunately it’s also very easy to die in Tomb Raider, so easy the player can’t even sneeze without tumbling Lara off a ledge to her doom. Meanwhile, the PC version allows saving anywhere, but is very antiquated. It’ll run fairly smoothly in DOSbox via Steam, though stressing DOSbox out will frequently result in crashes. The PC controls are very awkward and require some intense finger contortions to execute complex acrobatics, and lightning key skills to maneuver through combat without accidentally discovering some new keyboard shortcut in DOSbox (I played a lot of combats after accidently turning my display upside down). I personally compromised on programing a controller with the Playstation control configuration for use with the steam version.

There’s a steep learning curve after beginning the game. Not only is Lara almost immediately charged by wolves much faster than she is and easily capable of mowing her down but initial tomb doesn’t take long to ratchet the difficulty up to where the stiff controls can present a real obstacle to continuing. While there is a competent auto-aim feature for Lara’s guns, and no need to reload them, the necessity of pressing a button to draw and then using the ‘action’ button to fire becomes clunky. Lara is also expected to dodge, either by running or by using directional jumps to backflip out of enemies way. Unfortunately the camera is firmly stuck to Lara’s back and happy to get stuck in corners, and running into any obstacle will trigger a stagger animation that will prevent the player from acting for a few precious seconds as enemies chip away at Lara’s health. Combat doesn’t really feel like something that can be mastered and instead boils down to alternating the shoot and jump button to try and simultaneously hit something, or anything at all, while keeping Lara out of enemies’ range.

At literally any moment, however, Lara can open her inventory and heal with a consumable health pack to stay in the fight, which keeps the awful combat manageable. There’s a bit of a hoarding instinct that tries to kick in here, but health packs never become critically scarce if the player is careful to avoid non-combat damage from falling or traps.  

Lara can also switch to more powerful weapons she finds in the course of her adventures from this menu screen, though that takes a very long time, and is best done in advance of a boss encounter. Trying to switch in combat is a recipe for disaster. Interestingly, because there’s usually some trick to defeating bosses, the elite enemies become the bane of the game. These elite enemies and mini-bosses often have ranged attack abilities, either guns or explosives, that make evasion harder than normal  while they demolish Lara’s HP in a matter of seconds. These battles can easily become teeth grindingly frustrating because of how easy it is to be killed in the time it takes the player to wheel Lara around to face the enemy and draw her weapons.

Thankfully, the other highlight of the game is platforming based exploration, and that goes much more smoothly. The controls here can also be difficult, but rather than the fast paced scrum of combat the emphasis here is on precision. Lara routinely performs flying leaps over endless chasms, dangles over spike pits and swims down winding underwater tunnels with no idea if there’s even an exit. And, once the player nails the controls, the experience is exhilarating.

Lara runs head first into danger as a default, and this will easily see her catapulting off ledges without so much as an ‘oops’. This necessitates judicious use of the walk button, which will see her creep up to the very of a precipice without hurtling over, and the ability to switch to first person view to assess whether or not the player is lined up to the ledge they’re aiming for. From there, the player may want to tap the back arrow to jump back the exact distance it takes Lara to execute a running jump to gather that extra bit of distance to reach the next ledge… or perhaps they will keep that walk button held down as they back Lara over the edge, so she’ll slowly lower herself over it so that the player can control her fall or shimmy her left and right to make sure when the player releases the ‘action’ button they have to hold to hang onto a ledge that they’ll land on the approximate two square inches that won’t result in instant death.

The platforming is difficult, but with the exception of the rare timed segment, usually feel rewarding to complete rather than unfair. Indeed, in the later hours of the game the player is assumed to have mastered their technique to the point the path to progression is hidden in places the player never would have thought to look in the early stages of the game.

Sometimes Lara will need to swim in order to maneuver through the current level. The controls for this are ironically smoother than those on land, and with a generous amount of time before Lara runs out of air, aren’t too bad in and of themselves. However, the game can be downright reluctant to recognize when the player is trying to pick up an item or use a lever underwater, requiring Lara to be perfectly positioned to use the item. However, trying to correct Lara’s position at all usually results in her over shooting the mark by several feet. This leads to the kind of sequence one expects the Benny Hill theme to play over as the player desperately tries to open the grate between Lara and the surface as they watch her remaining oxygen levels dwindle.

The game’s levels, taking place in four different locations over the course of the game, are puzzle filled mazes. These see Lara backtracking, manipulating the environment and trying to find the keys for the sometimes endless seeming series of locks blocking her progress. However, there’s something really clever in the level design that shows far more than it tells. While on paper Lara is simply criss-crossing the same rooms and caves, the player is on a personal odyssey to see what’s at the top of the next tower or buried at the bottom of a monumental ruin. The game is packed with secrets stashed in difficult to reach places that can be nigh impossible to get into without seeking the help of a walkthrough, but feel like huge achievements when the player can crack their secrets on their own.

What I’ve written shouldn’t give a favorable impression of the game, but Tomb Raider is so much more than the raw sum of its parts. It’s a great game, and not just because of its iconic concept. No, there’s so much magic in watching this fantastical world come to life out of the limitations of polygons and rudimentary animations. Somehow, Tomb Raider manages to inspire more with the rough blocky outline of a t-rex charging out of the blackness of a criminally short animation draw-distance, then the remake did twenty years later with all the powers of a triple A budget and mastery of High Definition gaming. Whatever happened to the franchise as the years rolled on Raider remains an amazing game that stubbornly refuses to grow old with the rest of its peers.

[gordonlearllc-blog]

High Performance Workplace

Efficiency vs. Productivity

Many business owners and technical consultants will use efficiency and productivity interchangeably. But I look at them as two very different things with two very different approaches. Efficiency is doing the same with less or cutting back on resources without impacting the bottom line. Productivity is doing more with the same resources, thereby increasing the bottom line without increasing resources. Say we owned a trucking company with a fleet of 100 trucks. After some deep analysis, we find out that the way each truck is loaded it is only at 85% capacity. By teaching the crew how to pack the trucks more efficiently, they are now 90% full, reducing the fleet by an entire truck. But now there is an empty truck. So, we reorganize the sales department increasing their productivity and find new clients to fill the 10th truck. This is what I mean by a high-performance workforce. Work smarter AND do MORE.

Improving your Workforce

As a technical consultant, I work with two things in mind when improving a workforce. The tools and the people that use them. Many technical consultants only look at the tools and business consultants tend to focus on the people. But I focus on both. So, I ask you...do you have the latest and greatest tools that are going to save time and energy by increasing efficiencies? Do they have features that allow you to do more with less to increase production? Do you have people in place that can maximize the benefits of these tools? And, if they do not have the skillsets yet, do they have the capacity and attitudes to learn and master? Do you have the expertise to train them? Do you want to get more out of your workforce? Over 20+ years I have recruited, interviewed, hired and trained hundreds of people from part time receptionists to Chief Operation Officers (COO’s). Over the years, I have assembled some of the most diversified and talented teams and created environments for them to succeed. "Every employee has the means to do more, and great companies tap into that discretionary energy" Having a high performing workforce at the helm of your company creates a level of consistency required to be great. It also creates a sense of pride and community for the employees that make up your workforce. Some will say "We are like Family". Your people are the only thing your competition cannot copy. They can copy your products, they can copy your marketing plan and they can try and poach your customers. But no matter what do they cannot copy your workforce which is why keeping your employees long-term and limiting turn over is the key to longevity and dominating the market. In every organization I have been involved in, the workforce I have built and managed has always had extremely low turnover rates with many of the team members still working together this day. I know the Florida labor pool can be tough and small businesses have a hard time competing with salary and benefits but, there are many other things that small business can offer. that bigger companies can’t. These can be a game changer when trying to recruit top talent. After assessing your company, I will be able to identify talent surplus and deficiencies and not only recommend improvements but help you fill them with the perfect people.  I specialize in building high powered high-performing employees.

Set them up to succeed

The Harvard Business Review stated that both the best and the worst companies have the same mixture of good and bad employees. It is just that the great businesses know how to get the most out of them. Employee satisfaction is the number one motivator while money is just part of the equation. Studies have shown that inspired employees can product 125% more output than just satisfied employees. "Discretionary energy" is an interesting term that is the key to tapping into your workforce. Every employee has the means to do more, and great companies tap into that discretionary energy and get out of their employees’ way, enabling them to excel. Many businesses put policies and procedures in place that are focused on preventing the negative, which many times inhibit the positive more than anything else. Changing the mindset to be more about creating a positive effort is the beginning to building a proactive culture. So many times, I have clients point out their super star and say “she is awesome, no matter what goes wrong, she is always willing to go the extra mile and fix it! I don’t know what I would do without her”. My first thought when I hear this is…why didn’t she go the extra mile and prevent it from happening to begin with? It is usually because of the “this is how we always have done it” mentality. Small business staff are usually so bogged down in the day to day they become reactive. There is no innovation or motivation to try new things and a lack of inspiration and time to invoke change. I will show you and your management team how to empower your staff to be great. I will identify areas of your culture that maybe inhibiting your employees to flourish. To really get everything out of your teams they need to be managed properly.

If it isn’t broke

Working as a consultant, I get to see the inside of many businesses. One thing is for sure, resisting change is a hurdle in any organization and many small businesses take it to a whole new level. But my number one mantra about change is “You need to embrace change. Without change you cannot improve”. I was responsible for multi-million-dollar payrolls that were under the cost reduction microscope of 2006-2008. Perfecting doing more with less was not a necessity, but required for survival. I had over 50 families relying on me. I would love to say there were no casualties, but there were. I had to make some really hard decisions and to this day some of them haunt me and motivate me to be better. During those years, I used the phrase “lean and mean” because that is exactly what we had to do. I would lay awake almost every night wondering how I could save headcount and avoid having to make another cut. I had to make my team more efficient and increase productivity. I had to tap into everyone’s discretionary energy at a time when morale was low. "We saved thousands and completed the project before the proposed start time of the original plan. When it was over, I was a changed person." Early in my career at Acterna, I worked for a guy name Richard Kofler. His German accent was as thick as his beard, and not only was he an inspirational leader but extremely frugal. He loved American euphemisms and would tell us all the time (pretty much every time he handed back a purchase order he denied), “Anybody can build a super-duper thingy with a million dollars. It takes a great somebody to build super-duper thingy for no money. Are you a just anybody or are you somebody?” At the time, I didn’t get it but he was my boss, so off I went looking to build my super-duper thingy for no money. We came up with some crazy ideas, many of which we never did, but the process we went through always found the way. He gave us the freedom to turn over every stone until we exhausted every idea we had. He allowed us to think past how things were normally done and invent new ways to do things. He empowered us to be better in a way that made us feel good. At times, I felt like we were in a movie montage where the crazy computer students had to save the world with duct tape and bubble gum. The funny thing was…we did. The result went from a whole new server buildout with months of testing and deployment schedules and a mid-six figure cost, to repurposing current assets and shipping existing servers in 45 days, at a nominal cost. We saved thousands and completed the project before the proposed start time of the original plan. When it was over, I was a changed person and as a technical consultant, I use what I learned during this project almost every day.

Letting Go. Let them Fly

So, when 2006 came, and I was with another company, I had to figure out how to deliver more product with less. I did it by improving the tools and inspiring my team, the same way Richard Kofler inspired me. I had to let go of some steadfast policies that I once fought tooth and nail to keep, and told my team the only rule we had was there were no rules. Any idea was a good one, until we figured out something better. I also had to let go of any preconceived notions I had about my team. I had a habit of putting limitations on them to protect them from a volatile corporate culture. If we were going to do this, I needed to get out of their way. I needed to let them free. Our culture went from “this is how it is” to “anything is possible”. This eventually resulted in some of the best product development I have ever been part of. We were able to take an old clunky client server solution that was vendor locked, with very expensive handheld hardware and build a thin client that was hardware agnostic, faster and easier to deploy and maintain. This solution is still on the market today 5 years after I left the company, and according to their website is now their flagship product.

What does this all mean for you?

Today, there are cloud solutions that have taken the very same approach and now provide tools that allow your staff to work smarter and do more. From co-authoring documents in real time, to removing the need for traditional backups and antivirus. These tools are available to the small business for as little as $12 month. Your employees’ lives will become easier, and in return they will be more willing to tap into their discretionary energy and do more with less. I can assess the talent levels of your workforce and recommend adjustments. I can help replace employees that might not be the best fit and train your staff so they can reach their full potential. Next Steps Let me come in and spend a day with you and your team. I am 100% sure I can find areas where improvements can move the bottom-line, but more importantly, impact your margins. There is zero obligation. I charge nothing for the day. Click the LET'S CHAT below or just give me a call at 941-356-5097

LET'S CHAT

and explore what we can do together. Schedule your FREE pain free 20 minute call now.

CLICK HERE

Growing IT Online

Grow your business by Maximizing your online presence through extending you digital footprint with a revenue producing website, engaged social following and a proven search engine strategy so new customers can find you. Over the last 2 decades I have assembled a set of proven and easy to use tools that are cuttting edge, 100% customizable and cost effective. Read More

Making iT Painless

Websites, Social Media, Online Marketing, Wifi, Search Engine Optimization, Click Funnels, Anti-Virus, eMail, Domain Registration, Cloud Storage, Windows Updates, I get it! You didn't start your business so you could be a technology expert. With me as a partner you don't have to be. Let me take care of IT. Read More Read the full article

[billssefton]

do I have an obligation to tell my bosses about my substance abuse problem?

A reader writes:

I am high-performing mid-level supervisor at my job. That’s not just a self assesment; in my most recent performance review, the GM of my branch told me that he is impressed with my work and he even wants to start preparing me for a management role!

So what’s the problem? Well, I have a history of substance abuse. I am currently in treatment, working with a psychiatrist to address the underlying mental health issues that fuel my self-destructive behavior. I am doing so much better than I was a year and a half ago, and still making progress down the long road to sound mental health. But I am not quite there yet, and in the past year I’ve had a few of slip-ups and ended up calling out because I was too hungover to work. This wasn’t every month or anything, maybe three or four times in 12 months. I’d like to say, “That’s it, last time will be the last time that I screw up like this!” But while an optimistic approach to recovery is good, anyone who has been around an addict or been addicted themselves can tell you that a moment’s determination is no guarantee of long-term success.

So far I have not received any pushback on this. I’m sure it helps that I very rarely get “regular” sick enough to use a sick day, so I have always had plenty of sick time available to cover these incidents. I am highly conscientious about following the call-out policy and giving as much notice as possible, and I am sensitive to how my absences affect the team. I don’t tell them the real reason I’m calling out, just that I’m not feeling well enough to work.

I feel desperately guilty about my behavior. I feel that as a supervisor, it’s my job to put my personal issues aside and be there for my team, and I’m letting them down in a big way. Sometimes I wonder if I have an obligation to be honest with my supervisors about my struggles. Even though my attendance doesn’t look objectively bad from the outside, I know that my behavior is ethically wrong. It’s wrong to impact productivity and make my team take on my workload for something that I technically could have prevented, with just a bit more self-control. On the other hand, I truly love my job, I am interested in advancing eventually, and telling my bosses about how I am secretly a sad booze-bag and it’s impacting my work would almost definitely destroy their confidence in me. I know I’m capable of being better, and when I get there I don’t want my past to hold me back from reaching my true potential.

What do you think I should do?

What would you think you should do if this were a different type of disease? What if you had, say, digestive issues and a few times a year you ate something you shouldn’t and were too sick to work the next day? Would you feel ethically obligated to explain the situation to your employer, or would you feel it was sufficient to simply call in sick on those days?

You’re feeling like substance abuse is different, and it is. But missing work three or four days a year doesn’t rise to the level where you’re obligated to disclose what you’re struggling with.

Missing work because of a hangover feels gross. And because it’s in the context of an abuse problem that you’re working on, I’m sure there’s a huge amount of shame and stigma and guilt attached to it in your head.

But if you accept that substance abuse is a disease, and that you’re not being cavalier about this — and you really don’t sound cavalier about it — I just don’t think you have an obligation to confess your personal struggles.

I do think you have an obligation to be really honest with yourself about your addiction’s impact on your job and your coworkers. But three or four sick days a year is on the low end of what most people take, so any argument that you should disclose the cause of those three or four days would be more about our feelings about substance abuse than it would be about the actual work impact.

I don’t want this answer to read as “rock on with your addiction!” because of course that’s not what I mean. But you’re in treatment, and you’re working on it, and you don’t have to jeopardize your job or reputation just for the principle of it.

You may also like:

I’m a heroin addict and need time off to get clean, my boss told me I’m overpaid, and more

my coworkers mercilessly tease me about my drunken holiday party behavior

my coworker wants us to drink at lunch every Friday

do I have an obligation to tell my bosses about my substance abuse problem? was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.

from Ask a Manager http://www.askamanager.org/2018/04/do-i-have-an-obligation-to-tell-my-bosses-about-my-substance-abuse-problem.html

[randomvariablefactor]

Long Live The Noise!

I just found out a week ago that local rock zine The Noise is calling it a wrap after 36 years. It makes me sad to hear about this. I have many fond memories of The Noise as a reader, writer, and performer. The Noise provided publicity for bands that may not have gotten it otherwise. I know this first hand as many bands I have played in received their first bit of press from The Noise.

Many of my memories of the 80’s are fuzzy because I liked to party excessively, so I can’t remember my first time reading The Noise. I do, however, remember my first time meeting T Max. It was at the Middle East Upstairs during an afternoon show around 1991 or so. I went because the Trojan Ponies were playing and I was a fan. There was also some musical theatre going on with T Max and his son Izzy performing a song about how manly his father was. T then proceeded to dress in drag during the song. It made me laugh and I managed to put two and two together and realized who he was. I complimented his performance and a friendship was formed.

I started going to Lyres shows around that time and I noticed people that day from those shows and others that I went to. It was a game changing day for me as I got to introduce myself to some members of the local music scene for the first time. I would never have guessed that I would cross the line from spectator to performer, but eventually I would with Kenne Highland in 1995. By the way, where did I read about Kenne’s Sunday afternoon jams at the Kendall Cafe? In The Noise. The zine touched my life in many ways.

I wrote my own fanzine called White Trash Music in the mid 90’s and managed to put out four issues. I was about a year and a half into my first tour of duty with Kenne when the first issue came out. I brought some copies to band practice and bandmate J. Lianna Ness told me I should be writing for The Noise. I never thought that people would care to hear my thoughts about music, but I eventually took her up on that offer. She had written for The Noise and Lollipop, among others. I can’t remember what my first review was, either a concert or CD review, but I managed to write about a dozen or so reviews that got published. T Max was generous with praise for a good review and gently constructive in his criticisms if he thought it could provide me with some insight. I wish I could have given more.

I always admired people like Joel Simches and Joe Coughlin who could give their time and efforts freely. Joel also provided his musical talents to Noise related events. Coughlin was one of the most talented people I ever met. He could play a mean guitar, was skilled at drawing, and was the best writer I have ever read. He wasn’t afraid to shower praise on something he liked or be brutally blunt and nasty on something he didn’t. I remember joining a band and wanted him to see us. He was hesitant to come because he didn’t like their CD and let them know it in print. I told him don’t worry, I didn’t like the CD either and that we were a good live band. He became a fan. I miss Joe and think of him every day. His phone number spelled ANYTIME. There has been many a day that I wanted to call and hope he’d pick up the phone and tell me he was pulling an Andy Kaufman on us.

The Noise definitely took a hit when Joe died, but folks like AJ Wachtel stepped up to keep things interesting. To think that The Noise will no longer be in print or online is something I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around. It stung when The Phoenix shut down. Losing The Noise hurts a little more. They welcomed submissions from anybody. Their Letters To The Editor was priceless, especially if somebody didn’t like a bad review. T Max had the best comeback for them. He once asked if they ever saw the scathing review he got on one of his projects. T published it UNEDITED. That took balls of steel on his part. I respected him for doing that. I always felt welcome around people from The Noise and I can’t say that about a lot of people. That sense of being a part of something is what I will miss the most. Even though I hadn’t written anything for them in a long time, I still felt like a part of it. The Noise Board provided countless hours of entertainment and could get crazy at times.

Some of my favorite times involving T Max include drinking beers with my boss while watching Aqualung vs. Billion Dollar Babies at Middle East Downstairs, his segment at a Noise Award Ceremony called Anyone Can Play The Bass involving everybody who wanted to hitting the open E note on a bass to Runnin’ With The Devil, appearances by Mick Mondo, the performance of SF Sorrow, and the Max CD.

It gets harder and harder to keep doing what we do. Our numbers are dwindling. We aren’t as enthusiastic about going out as we once were, but we still do it. We get tired easily. Sometimes we wonder if it is worth it, at least I do. T Max managed to do this for 36 years without taking a break and I never saw his enthusiasm for the scene wane. He was always good to me. He outlasted pretty much everybody. Playing music can be a thankless profession and I hope he gets to do a victory lap for all he has done for the scene. From me to you: Thank You T Max!

[nancyedimick]

Another oblivious critique of Neil Gorsuch and Originalism

In my previous post Out of touch law professor criticizes Judge Gorsuch and “originalism,” I characterized the argument by Richard O. Lempert, the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology, emeritus, University of Michigan, as “ignorant” because it was “apparently unaware of–and uninformed by–the past 25 years or more of originalist theory, methodology and practice.” Now in the National Law Journal (free registration required) comes a new and similarly flawed critique of Judge Gorsuch by David Rudenstine, a professor of law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University (and its former Dean), which is entitled Gorsuch’s Adherence to Originalism Should Keep Him From SCOTUS. I am sad to say that this piece, like Professor Lempert’s, presents a highly distorted description of originalism, which once again attacks a straw man. Let’s see what Professor Rudenstine has to offer (with my additions in bold):

Many oppose the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because, as one Washington Post headline trumpeted, he favors “big business, big donors and big bosses.” While I agree that the values Judge Gorsuch supports or rejects are cause for deep concern, I want to offer a different reason for opposing Gorsuch’s nomination.

Oops, even before we get to originalism, we are off to a bad start. Professor Rudenstine says he shares the concerns about “the values Judge Gorsuch supports or rejects,” but here is the oath he took as a federal judge: “I, Neil Gorsuch, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” So what matters is not whether Judge Gorsuch has ever ruled in favor of “big business, big donors and big bosses” or (as the oath specifies) “the rich” but whether he is biased in favor of these groups. And to answer that question requires an analysis of the merits of the legal arguments presented by the parties before him. About this Professor Rudenstine offers us nothing, and I strongly suspect he has not studied the arguments and facts of the cases decided by Judge Gorsuch to reach an expert opinion about his bias or lack thereof. And yet he published his agreement with the “many” who hold such views. (For links to detailed analyses by Ed Whelan of the very few cases on which this charge is based, see here.)

On the other hand, if Professor Rudenstein judges judges by who they rule for, rather than the merits of the legal arguments presented to them by the parties–whether poor or rich–then he favors federal judges who violate rather than adhere to their oaths. But, without knowing him personally, I would be loath to attribute such a position to a fellow law professor, so let me now turn to his critique of originalism.

I would vote against any nominee to the Supreme Court who stated that he or she adhered to originalism in construing the U.S. Constitution. Given that Gorsuch’s judicial writings are widely understood as presenting him as an originalist, that would be my main objection.

Here’s why.

At its heart, originalism claims to eliminate improper judicial law-making in construing the Constitution. It does that by promising that historical materials pertaining to the Constitution’s adoption contain definitive answers to contemporary constitutional questions.

That attractive idea falls apart upon analysis.

The theory requires that we determine whose understanding of the original Constitution is definitive. But originalists disagree on this critical point.

Some concentrate on those individuals who wrote the Constitution. Others focus on the state representatives who decided to vote for or against the Constitution. And still others emphasize the Constitution’s meaning to the general public. Because these three groups might have had different understandings of the Constitution, this disagreement over such a threshold issue unravels originalism’s promise.

While it is true that some originalists have favored framers intent or ratifiers understanding, most today seek the original public meaning of the text at the time it was enacted. Regardless, for this criticism to be telling, Professor Rudenstein needs to identify circumstances where these different stances would lead to different results or outcomes. After all, the meaning of the words in the text to its framers, to its ratifiers, or to the general public, were very likely to be identical, since the meaning of the English language they employed was the same for all. Indeed, even originalists who ultimately seek the original public meaning of the text consider the meaning attributed to the text by its framers and ratifiers as probative evidence of original public meaning.

To take two examples where I am familiar with the available evidence, the word “commerce” in the Commerce Clause and “arms” in the Second Amendment meant the same thing to all three groups. So the practical constraining effect of originalism is preserved unless these differing audiences can be shown to have had differing understandings of the text, which is quite unlikely. At any rate, Professor Rudenstein offers no such examples of differential meanings.

Although this is not what he wrote, Professor Rudenstein may have in mind the difference between the overwhelming proportion of originalists who seek the original public meaning of the text, and the small minority who today seek the original framers intent. Even here, the results of these inquiries are likely to be identical. But where they differ–as, for example, Justice Scalia’s conclusions about the original public meaning of the Second Amendment in Heller differed from Justice Stevens’ analysis of original framers intent–we can criticize a judge for applying a version of originalism we consider to be incorrect, just as we can criticize the judge for employing any other incorrect approach to constitutional interpretation.

As with Professor Lempert’s critique, this objection by Professor Rudenstein betrays the fact that he does not fully understand the position he has chosen to attack. He continues:

But assuming originalists did agree on this matter, this interpretative methodology is fundamentally flawed for additional reasons.

Originalism requires judges to be historians, and judges are not educated to be historians. Indeed, it is frequently stated in critical terms that judges practice “law office history,” which is not history at all. Judges lack the time to honor the demanding historical method, which requires familiarity not only with secondary sources, but with primary sources such as diaries, letters, memoranda and newspapers.

This is fundamentally inaccurate. Originalism does not require “judges to to be historians.” It merely requires judges to identify the meaning–or communicative content–of the text of the Constitution. More specifically, it requires them to identify where that public meaning when enacted differed from the meaning these words have today. For example, although the Supreme Court has never expanded the actual meaning of the word “commerce” in the Commerce Clause (instead, it expanded the powers of Congress by a capacious construction of the Necessary and Proper Clause), some today may identify the word “commerce” with “economic activity,” though its original meaning was narrower than that. At the time of the Founding, and at least into the mid-Twentieth Century, the word “commerce” referred to an activity distinct from the economic activities of agriculture, husbandry, or manufacturing. While the latter words referred to different manners of producing things, the former referred to the trade and transportation of things that are so produced.

You don’t need a PhD. in history to discover this. But regardless of whether you do, the scarcity of a judicial time and expertise recommends a division of labor in which academics investigate and debate the evidence of original meaning, and judges rely upon the conclusions that emerge from this scholarly peer reviewing process. Moreover, the Constitution is a finite document. As the meaning of each term is settled, judges need only learn the conclusions of this research as these matters are investigated or settled. Once correctly identified and incorporated into judicial decisions, judges are free to move on to other matters.

But in any rate, neither judges nor scholars ought to employ “law office history,” if what is meant by this is “cherry-picking” evidence to fits the conclusions they may wish to reach. An argument against bad originalism is not an argument against originalism.

By the same token, professional historians ought not employ “history office law” that misunderstands the legal doctrines and concepts of the period they are studying. Historians today are largely preoccupied, not with linguistic usage, but with the motives and purposes of historical figures, as well as the effects of their actions. This is why many historians who engage in constitutional analysis insist on reducing “meaning” to the intentions of the framers, by which which they mean what the framers hoped to accomplish rather than what they said. In other words, many historians today adhere to the old proto-originalism based on original framers intent–the position that was tellingly criticized by such nonoriginalists as Paul Brest in the 1980s–the vision of originalism that Professor Rudenstein rejects in this essay!

Originalism assumes that historical evidence yields definitive and comprehensive answers to contemporary constitutional questions. The fallacies here are evident. History is complex and historical inquiries into important and open-ended questions are likely to yield a variety of plausible answers to the same question.

Thus, the premise of originalism is naive, unrealistic and unsupportable.

No, public meaning originalism assumes that language had a meaning–or communicated content–when it was adopted, just as the English language that Professor Rudenstein employed in his essay has a public meaning today. How else are we to understand what he is intending to say when he refers to “diaries, letters, memoranda and newspapers”? He certainly would be unwise to adopt his own private language in which these words refer to, say, methods of public conveyances. That would irrational on his part, as it would have been irrational for the framers of the Constitution and its amendments to use words, the public meaning of which failed to convey their intentions. (An usual exception to this were the various euphemisms the framers of the original Constitution employed to refer to slavery. But because the context of these euphemistic p would have conveyed to the general public that these clauses referred to slavery, that was their original meaning.)

Moreover, what would late 18th century figures have to say about the constitutional authority of a president to use atomic weapons in a peremptory strike against a foreign power when the Congress has not declared war and with which the United States was not then involved in a military conflict?

Are we really looking for “their” answers to such questions, or are we wondering what they would have thought about the Constitution’s meaning if they lived in our time and knew what we now know? This is magical and it makes originalism a farce.

I can assure Professor Rudenstein that originalists are not looking for these things, which the “living originalist” Jack Balkin helpfully labeled “original expected applications.” Way back in the 1980s, I disparagingly characterized the position Professor Rudenstein is describing as that of “channeling the framers.” There is a rich literature about the difference between identifying the communicated content of the text and applying that meaning to particular facts and circumstances–which sometimes goes under the rubric of “interpretation” vs. “construction.” Originalist and nonoriginalist scholars who are familiar with originalism know to what I am referring. Professor Rudenstein would be wise to avail himself of this literature before opining further on this subject.

Originalism also implodes over rights not mentioned in the Constitution — so-called un-enumerated rights — but which are nonetheless considered fundamental.

For example, the text of the Constitution does not guarantee the right to have children. Nonetheless, originalists agreed with others that this is a basic right and that the Constitution protects it as it does rights explicitly mentioned in its text, such as the right to a free press, free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Thus, if a state made it a felony for a person to be the biological parent of more than one child, an originalist would invalidate such a law because it conflicts with an un-enumerated right that should be protected. While that result would be generally applauded, it is flatly inconsistent with originalism’s promise to constrain judicial discretion.

As someone who has been investigating the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for decades,  I can assure Professor Rudenstein that these clauses do have an original meaning–though there is some disagreement among originalists about it. (Most disputes among originalists about unenumerated rights, however, is not about meaning but about the appropriate judicial role, which is the subject of Our Republican Constitution.)

But the issue he is raising about “judicial discretion” is a bit to complicate to unpack, even in a blog post as lengthy as this one. Suffice it to say that no originalist claims that judges have zero discretion or choices to make in applying the the original meaning of the text to the facts of particular cases. They merely claim that the original meaning of the text constrains the decision making of judges to the extent that this meaning must remain the same until properly changed; and that judges cannot properly change the meaning of the text “in light of changing circumstances.” Unless Professor Rudenstine can produce an example of an originalist who claims that the original meaning of the text eliminates all judicial discretion, then he is attacking a straw man.

At this point, it is only fair to ask Professor Rudenstine to identify his own approach to constitutional interpretation and application to see if it performs better or worse than originalism. For is that not the fair test of the relative strengths of competing constitutional approaches? My guess is that, whatever his approach, it will perform worse by every criteria he judges originalism as wanting. But I cannot know this for certain until he informs readers like me of his own allegedly superior approach.

Lastly, although this is not an exhaustive list — the framers of the Constitution were ultimately pragmatists who endorsed a brief Constitution. That meant that only the Constitution’s “great outlines [were] … marked” and its “important objects” designated. The duty of all who were called upon to construe the Constitution was, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “never [to] forget that it is a constitution we are expounding,” by which he meant that it was written in general terms to permit it to be construed in light of changing circumstances.

Thus, the Supreme Court appropriately adapted the Constitution to modern technology when it applied the Fourth Amendment to telephone surveillance and broadly construed the commerce clause power. Nonetheless, an originalist must reject such sensible thinking as inconsistent with the theory’s basic tenets.

Uh, no. With respect to the Fourth Amendment, they mustn’t because it isn’t. But with respect to the Commerce Clause, they should, because it is.

However, what to do about these “constitutional mistakes” today is separate issue than whether or not the original meaning of the text when enacted is discoverable. Many originalists adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis or precedent. And even an originalist (like me) who doubts that erroneous past judicial decisions can ever trump the original meaning of the text, can hold the view that settled cases have been settled–res judicata–but that the mistaken reasoning of these decisions of long-dead justices should not rule us from the grave; that, even if we do not reopen previously decided cases, originalism has a gravitational force in deciding future ones. In particular, erroneous reasoning should not be further extended, and we should gradually return to the original meaning in a case-by-case fashion as new statutes are enacted and challenged.

Because of its fatal flaws, originalism fails to be descriptive of more than 200 years of Supreme Court history and makes promises that cannot be kept.

Anyone who is as able as Gorsuch knows that. As a result, instead of being a modest judge who states that he will not make law, he knowingly misleads the American public as to the scope of discretionary authority originalism invests in a judge. In my mind, this disqualifies him from becoming a Supreme Court justice.

Here, by so publicly claiming that an honorable man like Neil Gorsuch is “disqualified … from becoming a Supreme Court justice” because he “knowingly misleads the American people,” Professor Rudenstine is arguing in a manner unbefitting a member of the academy. Nevertheless, even though he chose to publish this woefully inaccurate and unfair account of originalism, I would not characterize Professor Rudenstine the way he characterizes Judge Gorsuch. Rather than “knowingly misleading” the readers of the National Law Journal, a more charitable explanation is–whatever else may be his academic expertise–that Professor Rudenstein just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/14/another-oblivious-critique-of-neil-gorsuch-and-originalism/

[wolfandpravato]

Another oblivious critique of Neil Gorsuch and Originalism

In my previous post Out of touch law professor criticizes Judge Gorsuch and “originalism,” I characterized the argument by Richard O. Lempert, the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology, emeritus, University of Michigan, as “ignorant” because it was “apparently unaware of–and uninformed by–the past 25 years or more of originalist theory, methodology and practice.” Now in the National Law Journal (free registration required) comes a new and similarly flawed critique of Judge Gorsuch by David Rudenstine, a professor of law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University (and its former Dean), which is entitled Gorsuch’s Adherence to Originalism Should Keep Him From SCOTUS. I am sad to say that this piece, like Professor Lempert’s, presents a highly distorted description of originalism, which once again attacks a straw man. Let’s see what Professor Rudenstine has to offer (with my additions in bold):

Many oppose the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because, as one Washington Post headline trumpeted, he favors “big business, big donors and big bosses.” While I agree that the values Judge Gorsuch supports or rejects are cause for deep concern, I want to offer a different reason for opposing Gorsuch’s nomination.

Oops, even before we get to originalism, we are off to a bad start. Professor Rudenstine says he shares the concerns about “the values Judge Gorsuch supports or rejects,” but here is the oath he took as a federal judge: “I, Neil Gorsuch, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” So what matters is not whether Judge Gorsuch has ever ruled in favor of “big business, big donors and big bosses” or (as the oath specifies) “the rich” but whether he is biased in favor of these groups. And to answer that question requires an analysis of the merits of the legal arguments presented by the parties before him. About this Professor Rudenstine offers us nothing, and I strongly suspect he has not studied the arguments and facts of the cases decided by Judge Gorsuch to reach an expert opinion about his bias or lack thereof. And yet he published his agreement with the “many” who hold such views. (For links to detailed analyses by Ed Whelan of the very few cases on which this charge is based, see here.)

On the other hand, if Professor Rudenstein judges judges by who they rule for, rather than the merits of the legal arguments presented to them by the parties–whether poor or rich–then he favors federal judges who violate rather than adhere to their oaths. But, without knowing him personally, I would be loath to attribute such a position to a fellow law professor, so let me now turn to his critique of originalism.

I would vote against any nominee to the Supreme Court who stated that he or she adhered to originalism in construing the U.S. Constitution. Given that Gorsuch’s judicial writings are widely understood as presenting him as an originalist, that would be my main objection.

Here’s why.

At its heart, originalism claims to eliminate improper judicial law-making in construing the Constitution. It does that by promising that historical materials pertaining to the Constitution’s adoption contain definitive answers to contemporary constitutional questions.

That attractive idea falls apart upon analysis.

The theory requires that we determine whose understanding of the original Constitution is definitive. But originalists disagree on this critical point.

Some concentrate on those individuals who wrote the Constitution. Others focus on the state representatives who decided to vote for or against the Constitution. And still others emphasize the Constitution’s meaning to the general public. Because these three groups might have had different understandings of the Constitution, this disagreement over such a threshold issue unravels originalism’s promise.

While it is true that some originalists have favored framers intent or ratifiers understanding, most today seek the original public meaning of the text at the time it was enacted. Regardless, for this criticism to be telling, Professor Rudenstein needs to identify circumstances where these different stances would lead to different results or outcomes. After all, the meaning of the words in the text to its framers, to its ratifiers, or to the general public, were very likely to be identical, since the meaning of the English language they employed was the same for all. Indeed, even originalists who ultimately seek the original public meaning of the text consider the meaning attributed to the text by its framers and ratifiers as probative evidence of original public meaning.

To take two examples where I am familiar with the available evidence, the word “commerce” in the Commerce Clause and “arms” in the Second Amendment meant the same thing to all three groups. So the practical constraining effect of originalism is preserved unless these differing audiences can be shown to have had differing understandings of the text, which is quite unlikely. At any rate, Professor Rudenstein offers no such examples of differential meanings.

Although this is not what he wrote, Professor Rudenstein may have in mind the difference between the overwhelming proportion of originalists who seek the original public meaning of the text, and the small minority who today seek the original framers intent. Even here, the results of these inquiries are likely to be identical. But where they differ–as, for example, Justice Scalia’s conclusions about the original public meaning of the Second Amendment in Heller differed from Justice Stevens’ analysis of original framers intent–we can criticize a judge for applying a version of originalism we consider to be incorrect, just as we can criticize the judge for employing any other incorrect approach to constitutional interpretation.

As with Professor Lempert’s critique, this objection by Professor Rudenstein betrays the fact that he does not fully understand the position he has chosen to attack. He continues:

But assuming originalists did agree on this matter, this interpretative methodology is fundamentally flawed for additional reasons.

Originalism requires judges to be historians, and judges are not educated to be historians. Indeed, it is frequently stated in critical terms that judges practice “law office history,” which is not history at all. Judges lack the time to honor the demanding historical method, which requires familiarity not only with secondary sources, but with primary sources such as diaries, letters, memoranda and newspapers.

This is fundamentally inaccurate. Originalism does not require “judges to to be historians.” It merely requires judges to identify the meaning–or communicative content–of the text of the Constitution. More specifically, it requires them to identify where that public meaning when enacted differed from the meaning these words have today. For example, although the Supreme Court has never expanded the actual meaning of the word “commerce” in the Commerce Clause (instead, it expanded the powers of Congress by a capacious construction of the Necessary and Proper Clause), some today may identify the word “commerce” with “economic activity,” though its original meaning was narrower than that. At the time of the Founding, and at least into the mid-Twentieth Century, the word “commerce” referred to an activity distinct from the economic activities of agriculture, husbandry, or manufacturing. While the latter words referred to different manners of producing things, the former referred to the trade and transportation of things that are so produced.

You don’t need a PhD. in history to discover this. But regardless of whether you do, the scarcity of a judicial time and expertise recommends a division of labor in which academics investigate and debate the evidence of original meaning, and judges rely upon the conclusions that emerge from this scholarly peer reviewing process. Moreover, the Constitution is a finite document. As the meaning of each term is settled, judges need only learn the conclusions of this research as these matters are investigated or settled. Once correctly identified and incorporated into judicial decisions, judges are free to move on to other matters.

But in any rate, neither judges nor scholars ought to employ “law office history,” if what is meant by this is “cherry-picking” evidence to fits the conclusions they may wish to reach. An argument against bad originalism is not an argument against originalism.

By the same token, professional historians ought not employ “history office law” that misunderstands the legal doctrines and concepts of the period they are studying. Historians today are largely preoccupied, not with linguistic usage, but with the motives and purposes of historical figures, as well as the effects of their actions. This is why many historians who engage in constitutional analysis insist on reducing “meaning” to the intentions of the framers, by which which they mean what the framers hoped to accomplish rather than what they said. In other words, many historians today adhere to the old proto-originalism based on original framers intent–the position that was tellingly criticized by such nonoriginalists as Paul Brest in the 1980s–the vision of originalism that Professor Rudenstein rejects in this essay!

Originalism assumes that historical evidence yields definitive and comprehensive answers to contemporary constitutional questions. The fallacies here are evident. History is complex and historical inquiries into important and open-ended questions are likely to yield a variety of plausible answers to the same question.

Thus, the premise of originalism is naive, unrealistic and unsupportable.

No, public meaning originalism assumes that language had a meaning–or communicated content–when it was adopted, just as the English language that Professor Rudenstein employed in his essay has a public meaning today. How else are we to understand what he is intending to say when he refers to “diaries, letters, memoranda and newspapers”? He certainly would be unwise to adopt his own private language in which these words refer to, say, methods of public conveyances. That would irrational on his part, as it would have been irrational for the framers of the Constitution and its amendments to use words, the public meaning of which failed to convey their intentions. (An usual exception to this were the various euphemisms the framers of the original Constitution employed to refer to slavery. But because the context of these euphemistic p would have conveyed to the general public that these clauses referred to slavery, that was their original meaning.)

Moreover, what would late 18th century figures have to say about the constitutional authority of a president to use atomic weapons in a peremptory strike against a foreign power when the Congress has not declared war and with which the United States was not then involved in a military conflict?

Are we really looking for “their” answers to such questions, or are we wondering what they would have thought about the Constitution’s meaning if they lived in our time and knew what we now know? This is magical and it makes originalism a farce.

I can assure Professor Rudenstein that originalists are not looking for these things, which the “living originalist” Jack Balkin helpfully labeled “original expected applications.” Way back in the 1980s, I disparagingly characterized the position Professor Rudenstein is describing as that of “channeling the framers.” There is a rich literature about the difference between identifying the communicated content of the text and applying that meaning to particular facts and circumstances–which sometimes goes under the rubric of “interpretation” vs. “construction.” Originalist and nonoriginalist scholars who are familiar with originalism know to what I am referring. Professor Rudenstein would be wise to avail himself of this literature before opining further on this subject.

Originalism also implodes over rights not mentioned in the Constitution — so-called un-enumerated rights — but which are nonetheless considered fundamental.

For example, the text of the Constitution does not guarantee the right to have children. Nonetheless, originalists agreed with others that this is a basic right and that the Constitution protects it as it does rights explicitly mentioned in its text, such as the right to a free press, free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Thus, if a state made it a felony for a person to be the biological parent of more than one child, an originalist would invalidate such a law because it conflicts with an un-enumerated right that should be protected. While that result would be generally applauded, it is flatly inconsistent with originalism’s promise to constrain judicial discretion.

As someone who has been investigating the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for decades,  I can assure Professor Rudenstein that these clauses do have an original meaning–though there is some disagreement among originalists about it. (Most disputes among originalists about unenumerated rights, however, is not about meaning but about the appropriate judicial role, which is the subject of Our Republican Constitution.)

But the issue he is raising about “judicial discretion” is a bit to complicate to unpack, even in a blog post as lengthy as this one. Suffice it to say that no originalist claims that judges have zero discretion or choices to make in applying the the original meaning of the text to the facts of particular cases. They merely claim that the original meaning of the text constrains the decision making of judges to the extent that this meaning must remain the same until properly changed; and that judges cannot properly change the meaning of the text “in light of changing circumstances.” Unless Professor Rudenstine can produce an example of an originalist who claims that the original meaning of the text eliminates all judicial discretion, then he is attacking a straw man.

At this point, it is only fair to ask Professor Rudenstine to identify his own approach to constitutional interpretation and application to see if it performs better or worse than originalism. For is that not the fair test of the relative strengths of competing constitutional approaches? My guess is that, whatever his approach, it will perform worse by every criteria he judges originalism as wanting. But I cannot know this for certain until he informs readers like me of his own allegedly superior approach.

Lastly, although this is not an exhaustive list — the framers of the Constitution were ultimately pragmatists who endorsed a brief Constitution. That meant that only the Constitution’s “great outlines [were] … marked” and its “important objects” designated. The duty of all who were called upon to construe the Constitution was, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “never [to] forget that it is a constitution we are expounding,” by which he meant that it was written in general terms to permit it to be construed in light of changing circumstances.

Thus, the Supreme Court appropriately adapted the Constitution to modern technology when it applied the Fourth Amendment to telephone surveillance and broadly construed the commerce clause power. Nonetheless, an originalist must reject such sensible thinking as inconsistent with the theory’s basic tenets.

Uh, no. With respect to the Fourth Amendment, they mustn’t because it isn’t. But with respect to the Commerce Clause, they should, because it is.

However, what to do about these “constitutional mistakes” today is separate issue than whether or not the original meaning of the text when enacted is discoverable. Many originalists adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis or precedent. And even an originalist (like me) who doubts that erroneous past judicial decisions can ever trump the original meaning of the text, can hold the view that settled cases have been settled–res judicata–but that the mistaken reasoning of these decisions of long-dead justices should not rule us from the grave; that, even if we do not reopen previously decided cases, originalism has a gravitational force in deciding future ones. In particular, erroneous reasoning should not be further extended, and we should gradually return to the original meaning in a case-by-case fashion as new statutes are enacted and challenged.

Because of its fatal flaws, originalism fails to be descriptive of more than 200 years of Supreme Court history and makes promises that cannot be kept.

Anyone who is as able as Gorsuch knows that. As a result, instead of being a modest judge who states that he will not make law, he knowingly misleads the American public as to the scope of discretionary authority originalism invests in a judge. In my mind, this disqualifies him from becoming a Supreme Court justice.

Here, by so publicly claiming that an honorable man like Neil Gorsuch is “disqualified . . . from becoming a Supreme Court justice” because he “knowingly misleads the American people,” Professor Rudenstine is arguing in a manner unbefitting a member of the academy. Nevertheless, even though he chose to publish this woefully inaccurate and unfair account of originalism, I would not characterize Professor Rudenstine the way he characterizes Judge Gorsuch. Rather than “knowingly misleading” the readers of the National Law Journal, a more charitable explanation is–whatever else may be his academic expertise–that Professor Rudenstein just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/14/another-oblivious-critique-of-neil-gorsuch-and-originalism/

[4evafitstore]

Beats Wireless Earbuds PowerBeats Pro | True Bass Earbuds

Not only in price but also performance it's been quite some time and I'm sorry that's just the truth over the years Beats hasn't really said anything new that is in your audio department but today finally we got the Powerbeats Pro and the specs are quite impressive. Now it's a hefty $250 retail at the time. They're very much on the upper end with the Sennheiser and the Vino truly wireless earphones are priced slightly above and with let's say the bose sound sports the Jabra lineup and also the truly wireless earphones from jaybird those are a little bit below as always. I'll be going over both pros and cons also click on my affiliate links down below for the most updated prices in real time you never know when these things might go on sale. 

Overview

Release Date May 2019 Price $249.95 Bluetooth 5.0 weight Earbuds: 21 grams Model Number PowerBeats Pro Waterproof IPX4 Check Price On Amazon

Physical Features

Going over the physical features first. I anticipated these were going to be bulky and they were going to stick out that the earphones would also bounce around during intense movements with my testing on all fronts. They don't, they're actually quite flush against my ear and for the first time I can run with a hoodie on and the earphones don't feel as though they'll fall out from gently rubbing against that fabric.  Now with more intense movements simply demonstrate myself jump-roping here I'd never had any doubt that they would fall off and more importantly I don't feel that the ear tips will be lifting off my ears and losing sound quality. That's really impressive, these are truly wireless earphones. One of the issues that I've noticed when I had the Powerbeats 3 now of course cosmetically I think they look pretty damn good too. Now all of this praise off physically being stable it's because of these ears they are adjustable and does retain its shape. They do feel more competent than the Powerbeats 3 as it's a bit stiffer and the casing feels a little bit more durable. So, we'll see over time now I love the fit on my draw bars and my Samsung Galaxy buds more recently those who were great but I will admit the ear hooks do provide that extra level of stability.

water resistance

Now moving on beats are claiming these are water and sweat resistant spraying the crap out of these things right here they are still working perfectly fine. I was hoping for some sort of ingress rating or considering that we've had all this time to design these having it be submersible/ Although overkill would have given me more peace of mind there's a few other competitors out there that offers just that why not the Powerbeats Pro. You can't be in your shower listening songs under heavy water pressures. It's water protection rating IPX4 can't help you there, it has physical buttons and not touch buttons. 12 BEST NOISE CANCELING EARBUDS FOR WORKOUT IN 2020

Mic, Buttons & voice commands

But getting a closer look easily identifiable multi-function button. The actions are identical on either side which I really liked. Little volume rocker buttons are located at the very top and also are easily identifiable. Everything is there except for transparency mode. Maybe some people call it here through ambient to air whatever name these companies give them beats does not have the ability to turn on the internal microphones so you can hear your environmental noises nearly. Everyone else is offering it and I know a bunch of you use it for safety while running. Some uses these truly wireless earphones while working to hear if your boss sneaks up on you. We don't get that again with your Powerbeats Pro.  Last test I confirm you can activate Siri with your voice as it seems to always be listening for that command. Awesome feature or of course you can always hold down the beats logo again on either side of these earbuds. Now with Android using my voice didn't work for me. You can only activate Google assistance with the button press or telling the button hold all right.  

Bluetooth & Apple H1 Chip

Now moving on to the good stuff here. The technology there's this new Apple H1 Chip inside and it's working wonders. Yes, you do get amazing fast and seamless bluetooth pairing a very similar experience to those who had ear pods previously and with my iPhone I'm averaging about two seconds when the case opens to when the iPhone brings up this cool 3d spinning thing in battery life. In states definitely fast enough for me though but I love how seamless and more importantly how consistent it's been with Android, it's honestly not a slouch either. On screen is proof with my new pixel 3a I've been testing it connects on average in three seconds. Either scenario either phones by the time you put these earphones back into your ear. Adjust them, get them properly seated. It's already been paired.  Now since we're on the topic of Bluetooth, yes, I can't connect to more than one device at a time. yes, after testing playing video on either Android or iPhone where the YouTuber Netflix, I had zero syncing issues. Now although I couldn't find if the Powerbeats Pro uses bluetooth 5.0 or not which is typically used to signify which version a device uses. Apple States instead on their websites this uses a class 1 signal instead which means the earphones should be good up to 150 to 200 linear feet and yes wireless range and stability it has been great. I've been able to walk my entire apartment here with several walls in between and had zero signal loss. Now I also couldn't find if beats use apdex HD to determine how high of a resolution audio file it can handle but again I usually don't as there's been some great headphone / earphones without that high-resolution designation.  

Battery & charging case

In addition to that chip we get one of the best battery performances on any truly wireless earphones that I've tested. Fast fuel just 5 minutes on that charger gives you back an hour and a half. This is the fastest I've experienced on any pair of truly wireless earphones that I've tested. Not to mention beats claims up to nine hours of use with the case you're getting about an additional 15 hours of use for a total of up to 24 hours. Most truly wireless earphones I have tested, they've ranged from 12 hours to 15 hours give or take an hour for the extremes but the Powerbeats Pros, they're class leading with my testing at 50 percent volume like all my other truly wireless earphones.   Since we're talking about the case or maybe you have seen that in the image here. I know some will say this case is quite large and it is but to be fair how else are you going to have these ear hooks attached to the earphones themselves. The case itself had more than one light to indicate battery life. I wish the case featured USBC versus lightning to have a truly wireless port for all my devices. I know Apple fans will be upset hearing that but the iPad pro has USB C there might be a USB C iPhone coming down the road so if that's the case no pun intended, here that's future proofing yourself that would be ideal unless I don't think there's any other company doing this just yet but if we can make this case dust proof in or water proof that would give me 100% peace of mind. But again, that's me being nitpicky right there and wishing for features at this point.  And before I forget about this, there is audio pause and play when you take off your earphones the audio stops you put them back on and the audio plays again and this also works for video as well. Seconds, you can leave either one of these earphones out of your ear and the audio will still play. You can have the other earphone on the other side of the room if you want and the audio will still continue this signal is not dependent on the other earphone like traditional truly wireless earphones.

Powerbeats Pro Check On Amazon

Audio Quality Noise Canceling

Alright, let's get into some of the audio features. First up, let's talk about the microphone get ready that is and the audio is completely unedited and it's a little bit of breeze. Only guys can tell us by here being all crazy or jacked up right now but let me know what you guys think down the review description below. There's no good sound bad sound to pick it up. Let's test out this audio.  as nice and expensive as my microphones are audio recorded on my end and then played through your speakers are not the best depiction of audio accuracy. It's just a sample but it is better than nothing but hence my filing audio review here the Powerbeats Pro is loud enough for most people. Loud but still comfortable to me is at about 75 percent volume, there is some sound leaking occurring,  So those sitting right next to me in a very quiet room, library whatever. Can hear what you're listening to so just be a little bit cautious about that. The ear tips do sit around the ear canal but they don't sit fully inside. Most people will find that more comfortable but keep in mind that it won't give you the best passive noise isolation as other truly wireless earphones and of course a little bit more sound leaking as well. These do let in some noise as much as it leaks out so if you're in a busy place you might have to turn it up to maybe 75 percent volume to encapsulate yourself here with your own audio and kind of drone out the outside noise. Again, that's only if you're in a very busy environment.  

Powerbeats Pro True Bass

Now jumping into bass. it's deep at loud volumes its rumbling. It feels like I'm wearing wired earphones at times considering how deep these actually go. If you like bass no question the Powerbeats Pro is it the Jaybird X4 run ex tees were the next closest in bass for me but Jaybird X4 offers a punchy variation or more of a bass boosted audio signature. Versus offering deep bass like the Powerbeat Pros. Now going into the mid-range, the louder you go the more basses experience that's pretty obvious but I do notice the mid-range is just ever so slightly overshadowed by bass most. Having most average consumers, I think they'll be fine with this or the tolerance level is still within reason for most consumers.  Now if you're more of a technical audio listener or if you don't like the bass then you might prefer something more has more emphasis on the vocals / mid-range something that may be a little bit more forward in that mid-range frequency. This is simply a matter of preference the high frequencies would never ear in your tingey in my opinion but if anything, that is clear or lacking actually in some resolution or detail on the top and especially that loud volumes at moderate listening levels. It's not a big deal, a little bit more detail a little bit more Sparkle up top would have been much better as for soundstage there isn't much of a wide soundstage either you get decent audio separation but nothing huge or class defining. powerbeats pro These are great with hip-hop and EDM most but not all pop songs will do well. Those favoring vocals, I would consider these. Powerbeats Pros are no question bass ear truly wireless earphones if you prefer a pair that's more so for jamming outs verses technical accuracy, the Powerbeats Pro are recommended to. At least give them a try if you highly value the better life connectivity, the ear hooks alone comfort instability. I'd go from recommended to highly recommend it as not many other are offering the core functionalities at this level. Again, I think the biggest thing for you as a consumer you have to consider if you like Basie audio or not.  check on Amazon Read the full article