#may cull some of the statistics later

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Once again, I'm absolutely staggered by all the possiblities of seaweed if handled correctly

For World Ocean Day, Gaia Vince finds out how the planet’s seas could help us to generate clean power, capture CO2 and feed the world. Gaia is joined in the studio by science journalist and marine biologist Olive Heffernan. She dives into the controversy regarding the potential of mining in deep oceans and discusses whether the seas could become the location for Industrial Revolution 2.0.

We’re used to seeing seaweed wrapped around our sushi rolls but it’s so much more than that. As well as being a tasty addition to what we eat, seaweed plays a vital role in absorbing CO2. Gaia speaks to Vincent Doumeizel, a senior adviser on oceans to the UN Global Compact; he’s also the food programme director at the UK-based charity Lloyd’s Register Foundation. He’s confident that seaweed could enable us to sustainably feed a growing global population in the coming decades.

Phytoplankton – microscopic species of algae that exist on the surface of the sea – also absorb huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. Sir David King, founder and chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group and former chief scientific adviser to the UK Government has the radical idea that artificial whale poo could boost phytoplankton growth, leading to an increase in fish stocks and, consequently, improved biodiversity in the oceans. He tells Gaia about his project and the potential it has for carbon capture.

When we think of energy generation from the oceans, we tend to think of offshore technology such as wind turbines. But what about generating electricity using the water itself? Gaia speaks to Eco Wave Power’s Inna Braverman who reveals how her project harnesses the power of the waves by attaching to existing coastal structures such as piers and jetties, to provide a source of clean, renewable energy.

[travllingbunny]

The 100 rewatch: episodes 3x11-3x16

This post contains reviews of the following episodes:

3x11 Nevermore

3x12 Demons

3x13 Join or Die

3x14 Red Sky at Morning

3x15 Perverse Instantiation, Part One

3x16 Perverse Instantiation, Part Two

And with this, I’ve finally finished season 3. It took much longer than I planned, because I got behind with these write-ups due to actual work, and had to write a bunch of them at the same time. But the good thing is, since, like so many other fans, I’ve already seen 6x01 and 6x02, I can now give myself more time to finish my rewatch - two more weeks, before 6x03 premieres. 18 days should be enough for 26 episodes, I hope. It’s also a good thing that I’ll be able to talk about the first 2 episodes of season 6 in my season 5 write-ups.

In these posts, I spoil all of the first 5 seasons, but I won’t talk about season 6 before it officially premieres.

3x11 Nevermore

More literary allusions: after Dante, we get an Edgar Alan Poe reference – and of course an episode focusing on Raven Reyes would be named after a quote from ���Raven”.

Timeline: This episode starts pretty much immediately after the end of 3x10 (Jasper, taking a rover to save Raven and run from Arkadia, runs into Clarke) and takes place during one night, during which our group of friends stay at Niylah’s place and try to free Raven from ALIE’s control, while ALIE is trying to find out their whereabouts, because she wants to find the second AI, which is contained in the Flame/chip that’s currently in Clarke’s possession.

This is where the season finally has a big upswing in quality, and it really helps that this one and the following episodes are focused on the original characters from season 1, whose bonds with each other have been developed since the start of the show, but who have mostly been apart, not just physically and emotionally but also narratively - as part of different storylines – during the first part of the season. It also helps that it’s so focused and that it is not all about the plot, but about the characters’ emotional states.

The interactions between Jasper and Clarke are just as unpleasant as you could expect, knowing that Jasper blames Clarke for Maya’s death and for pretty much anything ever, which he does throughout season 3 and at least some of season 4. It’s understandable and annoying at the same time – he’s being very unfair most of the time, but he’s also in a bad place, struggling with mental illness, so I can’t really blame him.

Just as Jasper is blaming Clarke for everything, Octavia is blaming Bellamy for pretty much everything, and that also continues throughout season 3 and a lot of season 4, but I’m struggling more with this – after all, Jasper may say harsh things to and about Clarke, but he hasn’t beaten her up. Octavia sums up Bellamy’s actions in season 3 this way: "You were hurt and you lashed out, because that's what you do"… which is not wrong, but it’s also ironic she says that, because who does that also remind you of…?

Jasper also has a moment where he calls Bellamy out (which is a really rare thing for him, since he’s usually focused on blaming Clarke, except for an occasional moment when he blames Monty), when he gets annoyed with Bellamy for trying to calm him down and telling him not to get angry, and reports: “When you are angry, people die” Which reminds me of Bellamy’s angry words to Clarke in 3x05: “When you’re in charge, people die”.

There’s also the 4th time, by my count, that Clarke’s friends tell Clarke she doesn’t have the right to give them orders (Bellamy, Raven and Octavia did that at various points in season 2) – this time it’s Jasper. But while Clarke normally does have a tendency to take charge when there’s a problem, this time it makes perfect sense for her to be telling them what to do since she’s the only one with a clue what’s going on.

Good thing Clarke noticed one of the Delinquents’ wristbands at Niylah’s place in 3x01, since they turned out to be crucial for disconnecting the chip and ALIE’s influence from Raven (through some technological mumbo-jumbo I won’t even try to understand). But until they do, ALIE uses the opportunity to use Raven to taunt the others and try to torment them emotionally by trying to get to what she thinks are their secret fears and insecurities, so they would lose their cool and maybe reveal theie location to ALIE. However, since ALIE has never been inside Clarke’s, Bellamy’s and Jasper’s minds, this has to mean that the things ALIE!Raven says are at least partially the things Raven has thought about her friends or that Raven thinks would be a good way to hurt them. And while Raven normally wouldn’t say such hurtful things, she can certainly be b*tchy at times and say harsh things to her friends – but this is way exaggerated beyond what normal Raven would say.

When it comes to the actual things ALIE!Raven says to taunt them, the first two things that always came to my mind were: it’s all kind of sexist? Just compare the way she tries to undermine Clarke’s confidence - telling her she’s “poison” to everyone who gets close to her, including blaming her for Finn’s death not just because she mercy killed him but because she previously “broke his heart” (because it’s a woman’s fault when a guy does awful things because of his feelings for her, even though she did nothing wrong and definitely never wanted him to do any of those awful things? Let’s blame her “feminine wiles” or whatever instead of the guy who chose to do these things?) to how she tries to do it with the men – calling Jasper weak and calling him out on failing to save his girlfriend; trying to undermine Bellamy’s sexual confidence (that was the first thing she went for, but it didn’t seem to do anything), later implying that Bellamy is in subjugated position to Clarke and is taking her orders? Which is BS. If she wanted to make a case for Bellamy being a “follower”, citing his relationship with Pike would have been a much better argument. But what’s worse for a man than to be taking orders from a woman, right? I choose to interpret that as ALIE being sexist or thinking that sexist ideas are what humans believe in, so that’s how she should get them, because otherwise I’d have to think that either Raven is sexist (which I don’t think is true – in spite of her bias in how she blamed Clarke for Finn’s failings, which is more of a reflection of her blind spot regarding Finn and her bitterness over him falling in love with Clarke and loving her more) or that the writers are.

And secondly, while some of what she said may sound like “harsh truths”, it’s actually mostly very skewed, unfair or just pure BS. I would hope that there aren’t many people take these things literally. But, unfortunately, I know that there are portions of the fandom who do take some of it as gospel truth, in spite of what source is comes from. I think (or at least hope) that there that there aren’t many people who really think Clarke is to blame for her father’s or Wells’ or Finn’s or Lexa’s deaths (blaming her for Finn’s death especially gets me angry, because of all the reasons above and because she has already been blamed for that and for Finn’s murder spree in season 2, which was the biggest bull*hit ever and angered me the first time as well). And whatever Jasper is, he’s certainly not a coward, as ALIE!Raven calls him. But I can see a lot of people in the fandom agreeing with her when she says “we’ve all lost someone – you don’t see us falling apart” – which is an unfair argument as people simply react to trauma differently; some people break, but that doesn’t make them weak and annoying, and some people can endure and soldier on, but that doesn’t make them insensitive. Or, for instance, she blames Bellamy not only for deaths he directly caused, but also those he indirectly caused (the culling) and even his mother’s death – because he tried to do something nice for his sister. This is a small child’s – or an android’s - view of how morality works – only the consequence of actions matter, not the motivations, intent and whether you even know what would happen, or whether your action was good or bad in itself, all it matters is what the result was. (Which is, for instance, why small children can’t understand why an attempted murder is a worse crime than accidental killing.) But some fans will cite statistics from the 100 wiki as to how many deaths this or that character “caused”, directly or indirectly, as if context and motivation don’t matter. And then there’s another thing that a lot of fans definitely take too literally…

“A good little knight and his queen” – This line is interesting for more than one reason. First off, it’s the first time anyone in the show has ever tried to define the relationship between Clarke and Bellamy in any way – except for the general reference to Bellamy as one of Clarke’s “friends” or her “people, and vice versa. (The fandom, reviewers, people working on the show may talk about them as friends, best friends, platonic partners, non-romantic soulmates at the moment, etc. but on the show, Clarke and Bellamy have never actually defined their relationship or put it in words what they are to each other. Most of the time, neither do people around them. ) And it’s a romantic reference – “knight and his queen” invokes the Courtly Love tradition. (The other time someone on the outside – in that case, not a close friend, but someone who’s just met and observed them – puts a label on their relationship, it’s Diyoza in season 5, who assumed Clarke was Bellamy’s  girlfriend.) In case someone missed that, ALIE!Raven also taunts Bellamy by comparing his feelings for Clarke and his feelings for his now dead girlfriend: “Too bad you were never that devoted to Gina”. Bellamy says she has no idea what she’s talking about, so he may not be thinking of his relationship with Clarke in the same terms, though, not at this point. I don’t think he has really defined what Clarke is to him, at this point. (He doesn’t stay silent and look guilty, as he does in season 5 when Octavia calls him out on loving Clarke.)

But there’s also the implication that Bellamy is supposedly subjugated to Clarke and is a “follower” – (“She has just returned and you’re already taking orders”), which a lot of people in the fandom have cited (usually to bash Clarke and Bellarke). And I’m asking, when? How? This may be what Raven/ALIE senses Bellamy fears or is insecure about, maybe what he really is insecure about – but I really don’t think it’s the objective reality.  Bellamy and Clarke have always had an equal relationship; sometimes they work together and consult and support each other, other times they disagree and even get into conflicts, and things don’t go as well then. They were co-leaders in season 1; in season 2, Bellamy got demoted, but that wasn’t because of Clarke, it was because Kane and Abby and the other adult elite from the Ark came down and took over. Clarke only had some say because she was the Chancellor’s daughter. Then Lexa, and with her the rest of the Grounders, saw Clarke as the leaders, which allowed Clarke to take the power away from her mother – and Bellamy was already on his mission in Mount Weather at the time. Mission which was always his idea and his plan and that he insisted he wanted to. (Something that many fans, oddly, tend to forget.) Then she left and he was the one who was looking over the Delinquents, though with Abby and Kane as the official power in Arkadia. (Which was the objective reality, even if Bellamy had wanted to challenge that status quo, he didn’t have Grounders behind him to stage a coup like Clarke did in season 2.) ALIE!Raven even asks him if he’s upset that he doesn’t get “credit” for the “genocide” at Mount Weather – I think he was upset because he wanted to share that responsibility, but Clarke kept taking it all on herself. But as to the reason why Clarke was called “Wanheda” and considered her the only one responsible – that’s simply because Grounders saw her as the leader in season 2, and Grounders tend to assign all responsibility to just one person that they see as the leader (because they can’t imagine a power structure that isn’t as hierarchical and based on obedience as theirs is). Bellamy was in subjugated position to the Chancellors, and one can certainly argue he started acting like a follower in season 3 with Pike, and to the lesser extent Kane previously, but Clarke? She already came back in 3x05, and she couldn’t Bellamy to do what she wanted, at all (she had much more success with getting Lexa to do what she wanted). And now that Clarke is back again… well, as I said, the fact is that she’s the only one (except Raven) who knows what’s up with the chip and the Flame and what to do, so it makes sense for people to listen to her. (And in season 4, when Clarke is the leader in Arkadia, she is consulting with Bellamy the same way he did with her in season 1, when he was more in the semi-formal leadership position.) Frankly, I think this is something similar to the phenomenon of people thinking that women dominate conversation if they talk 30% of the time, let alone 50%, because women being in power = shocking, conspicuous, OMG, let’s all talk about it. But Clarke was shown listening exactly at this point, so she may have been thinking, is this how Bellamy, Raven and the others see her, as someone who just goes around and gives them orders and acts like some sort of a tyrant?

Also, regarding the “knight/queen” thing is a pretty big oversimplification of their relationship, since Clarke has done at least as many things to save/protect Bellamy as vice versa,  (Not to mention, if we’re talking Courtly Romance, the Knight’s “subjugation” to the Lady was basically a poetic convention, a pretend thing, not actual social reality – in reality, it was the Lady’s husband who usually had all the social power.)

Bellamy was the only one out of the three who did not lose his cool, no matter what ALIE!Raven was throwing at him – and she kept throwing various things and changing tactics. But he later showed anger when he left the room, so at least some of it was actually upsetting him. I would say that most of all, it’s the guilt over his recent actions and killing people, because that’s what actually bothers him - making mistakes that cost lives, causing deaths, failing to save people. I don’t think he loses much sleep over the rest.

But ALIE gets lucky because, while Bellamy didn’t crack, Niylah overheard the part about his role in the killing of Lexa’s army. And, as she told Clarke earlier in the episode, her father was one of the warriors who were killed – but Clarke claimed that none of them had anything to do with it. So not only does Niylah find out one of Clarke’s friends she brought with her was one of the people responsible for her father’s death, but she finds out in a really bad way – so it’s no surprise she loses it and lets ALIE see her, which lets ALIE know where they are.

I was a bit uncomfortable the first time I watched season 3 with the way Clarke was treating Niylah – not that it was ever malicious or callous, it was the situations she was in, but she was kind of using Niylah whenever she needed something, first she found a place to stay when she was roaming around on her own, some comfort and casual sex in 3x01 when she was only able to get intimate with someone she had no stronger feelings for, then she left without goodbye, and only returned now that she needed help with Raven and brought a bunch of friends, and then lied about Bellamy because she was scared they wouldn’t be let in (understandable, but not right), which Niylah called her out on. And Niylah just told her she lost her father recently, but Clarke is instead spending all the time worrying about how Bellamy feels and trying to comfort him. But to be fair, at least Clarke never pretends to feel anything stronger than she does – Clarke may be manipulative, but she’s never using love or sex or friendship for that purpose. Instead, she gets people to do what she wants by appealing to who they are – like telling Niylah she knew she isn’t someone who would let an innocent girl (Raven) suffer. And I feel better now that we know Niylah was eventually pretty chill about all of it, as we see in season 4, and didn’t expect anything from Clarke emotionally that she knew she couldn’t give her (if she had some feelings of that kind in season 3, she certainly got over them), so no one was getting hurt.

Bellamy being confronted with Niylah was a very important moment for him, because seeing someone who lost a loved one because of him made him confront his guilt the way he hadn’t before – not just saying “I’m sorry” to Niylah (an apology which she wasn’t ready to take– though later she seemed to not have a problem with him, though we’ve never really seen them talk to each other again since), but to really question his whole mindset and change it. This is where he realized “I was just trying to save my people” is not a good enough justification, if you end up hurting/destroying other people. It allowed him to progress beyond that mindset.

Another callback to season 2: “What do you do when you realize you may not be a good guy?” – Bellamy questioning everything he had believed in. He was where she was before. And Clarke’s answer is Abby’s line “Maybe there are no good guys”.

Like Bellamy, Clarke also gave an apology that wasn’t accepted – to Jasper, for Maya’s death.

Bellamy/Clarke moments in this episode are quiet, subtle and, at first, somewhat awkward. It’s the first time they see each other after their last, explosive confrontation, and at first, they just stop in their tracks and look at each other. If this was Clarke from seasons 1-2, I would have found it weird that she wasn’t even somewhat upset with Bellamy over the way he treated her that last time, but she’s been much mellower this season and more forgiving in general, and after she forgave Lexa for a massive betrayal in just a couple of days, it’s not surprising that she’s not showing any anger at Bellamy. Especially since she is still worrying whether he is still angry at her, feeling bad that she hurt him by leaving after MW, and feels relieved that he doesn’t act like he hates her. They are not ready to talk about any of it, but while they’re wrapping each other’s wrists, the physical touch looks a lot more meaningful and feels like the first step towards reconciliation (and visually recalls and feels like a contrast to the handcuffing scene).

After being freed from ALIE, Raven smiles at Jasper and apologizes for the things she told him. (We don’t see her apologizing to Clarke or Bellamy, though.) Those two have always had a sweet friendship.

Speaking of sweet friendships, Octavia and Monty’s friendship never got a huge focus, but it has some of the nicest moments between Octavia and anyone. These two go on a mission to the dropship to get an important piece of technology, and run into Monty’s mother, chipped and determined and almost unstoppable, the way chipped people are, due to not feeling any pain. Monty has always been the unsung hero of The 100, but season 3 is when we really get to see his quiet strength and heroism. He suffers some of the biggest losses and has to make one of the biggest sacrifices, when he is forced to kill his mother to save Octavia.

Earlier, Octavia wanted to leave and said she feels like she has no home because she lost Lincoln, who was her home. But Monty reminds her of the bond she shares with the rest of the original 100. This bond was something that was severely tested and almost broken for all of them. He gets through to her – in the end, she changes her mindset and tells the others that they will survive together.

But Monty and Jasper’s friendship is still in a bad place, and this time, Jasper tried to offer Monty comfort for his mother’s death, but Monty didn’t want to accept it. Maybe he felt angry because Jasper is always showing his pain, while Monty swallows it and soldiers on.

When Octavia thanks Niylah before leaving, it’s the first little signs of the friendship between Octavia and Niylah, which is going to develop in season 4.

They come pretty close in this episode to destroying the Flame (and this is not the last time this happens – see: fake Flame-smashing scene from season 4). What saves it is Clarke not wanting to destroy it because “it’s Lexa”. Kind of? I’ve never been sure how exactly the Flame is supposed to work, but this is another thing that the fandom tends to take too literally – a version of/remnant of Lexa may be in it, but so are Becca and a bunch of other past Commanders, so whatever it is, it’s not exactly a person, or not one person.  In any case, it’s fortunate they didn’t destroy it this time, since they needed it to defeat ALIE, but at that point, they still weren’t aware of it. But there was also the fact that they needed it to expose Ontari and get her away from power – another good reason for Clarke to not want it destroyed.

Body count: 

Hannah Green, killed by her son – another character still “alive” in the City of Light.

Rating: 9/10

=====================================================

3x12 Demons

I like the way the opening scene plays with the horror genre tropes. It happens at night, Miller tells a creepy ghost story to Harper and Bryan, and then they all get abducted in what looks like a scene from slasher movie. In fact, the entire episode plays out a lot like a slasher movie, with creepy atmosphere and an initially threat/monster abducting the characters one by one.

Most of the episode is about Emerson’s attempt to get his revenge on Clarke by watching him kill her friends before killing her. It was always obvious that letting Emerson go would result in him returning to cause more trouble, and kill more people (poor Sinclair was the victim - RIP). But at least he’s finally dead. All the leading figures of the Mount Weather regime were evil, but none of them were as annoying as Emerson had become by season 3. I have zero sympathy for his obsession with revenge, because dude is a major hypocrite. Here he was doing things like using his dead son’s toy/music box (IIRC) as a distraction and symbolically, because it’s supposed to make Clarke feel bad for the deaths of the children at MW, including his son. I kind of wish someone had told him that they feel sorry for his son but not at all for him, which is how I feel. Dude, you were killing and torturing people in cold blood for years and tried to kill all of Clarke’s people, and you have the gall to blame them for defending themselves when you pushed them into a corner and left them no choice? F*ck off.

Emerson again says that Clarke “murdered 381 people” – which is a wrong number, but as I realized after 3x06, the writers were clearly lazy and didn’t bother checking the numbers of Mountain Men still alive by the time of season 2 finale.

Before the whole Emerson thing goes down, our heroes go back to Arkadia, now completely empty. They find Lincoln’s body and his things.

Clarke explains the whole Nightblood and Flame thing for everyone and why they have to look for Luna to achieve both goals – expose Ontari and remove her from power, and defeat ALIE. Octavia finds a drawing in Lincoln’s sketchbook that includes a drawing of the map to Luna’s place.

Becca’s journal, which Clarke took with her together with the Flame, proves useful, as Raven reads it and starts figuring out how to activate the Flame. It has a password, as an actual computer, and Sinclair is the one who figures out, thanks to his knowledge of Latin, that it’s Ascende superius” – “Seek higher things”. This proves especially important later when Clarke uses the Flame to kill Emerson, because it kills non-Nightblood people it bonds with. (BTW, the Flame looks creepy AF when it starts connecting with someone’s head – it looks like the computer version of a parasite or the Thing.) So, in a way, Sinclair gave Clarke the means to kill his murderer.

Raven says that the Flame’s program got degraded over time and that parts of it have been lost. This may be a way for the writers to try to explain the plot holes such as, why did the Grounders lack all of Becca’s technological knowledge? But then we later see that Madi does have some other Becca’s memories…? Also, it’s weird that this has never come up since.

In any case, we know from 3x11 that Clarke genuinely thinks, at least at this point, that Lexa is really in the Flame, and this episode and at a couple of other late season 3 episodes have moments when she tenderly looks at the computer chip (she even says “Sorry” to it in 3x15 after not being able to find it a host), and little moments when Bellamy notices her looking at it. It’s only been about 2 or 3 days since Lexa’s death (and the rest of season 3 finale takes place over a few days, so the season 3 finale happens less than a week since her death), so that wound is very raw.

Just like with the Flame, there’s some debate over whether people are still “alive” in some way in the City of Light. When Monty wonders if his mom is still alive, Raven says “that depends on what you think is alive”.

A lot of nice relationship moments in this episode:

Seeing Octavia grieve, Jasper tells her he knows how she feels. It’s the first time they’ve interacted since 3x02, when she was offering him comfort.

Sinclair and Raven try to save each other (and trying to save Sinclair is how Raven gets caught).

Even though Bellamy and Clarke have not really made up yet, they work together and reaffirm the trust and care they have for each other: Clarke entrusts Bellamy with taking the Flame to Luna, because she plans to offer herself to Emerson for their friends. She says blames herself for letting Emerson go and feels responsible for Sinclair’s death, and says she won’t let anyone else die for her mistake – which is almost the same as what Bellamy said earlier in the season (when she was not around) “I won’t let anyone else die for my mistakes”. But Bellamy, of course, says there’s no way he’s letting her risk her life herself, and this time he does suggest something else when she asks him to give her another plan, to attack Emerson while she distracts him. But unsurprisingly, this fails the moment Emerson uses Bellamy’s ‘weakness” and threatens Octavia’s life.

How many times throughout the show has Clarke offered her life for her the lives of people she cares about? How many times has she saved them? Count this episode on the list.

Before Clarke, Bellamy, Octavia and Jasper leave to find Luna, while the others stay in Arkadia, they have a funeral/cremation for Sinclair and Lincoln, Bellamy says “Your fight is over” in Grounder speak.

The B-plot takes place in Polis and is mostly about Murphy and Emori. 

Emori has learned that Murphy was Ontari’s new Skaikru “Flamekeeper” and believes that he’s running a really good scam. He kind of tries to explain to her that things aren’t exactly like that and that Ontari is crazy (“and coming from me, that says a lot” – good line), but doesn’t tell her the whole story or or the fact that he’s her sex slave.

Memori have sex for the first time (that we know of) – in Becca Pramheda’s shrine.

They have a talk about Becca, and it turns out that Emori had no idea how Commanders were made, Murphy had to explain it to her. I find this really hard to believe, that ordinary Grounders would know so little about their whole tradition/religion/succession rules.

Unfortunately, Emori has already been chipped, so their relationship is, at this point, mixed with betrayal, because chipped people would do anything ALIE tells them to. It turns out that Jaha is planning to chip Ontari. Murphy’s hatred for Jaha resurfaces as he hopes Ontari would kill Jaha, but she instead almost kills Murphy for revealing her secrets to Emori and this way to Jaha. Murphy is locked up again, while Jaha wins Ontari over, convincing her that he can make her a “real Commander”.

And with this, all our season 3 villains have fallen by the wayside as ALIE becomes the one and only threat.

Body count:

Sinclair, killed by Emerson

Emerson is FINALLY dead, killed by Clarke using the Flame as a weapon, which connected to him and made him bleed internally (certainly an original way to kill someone!)

Rating: 8/10

=====================

3x13 Join or Die

This is by far my favorite season 3 episode, and this is in large part because of the flashbacks. I always love getting flashbacks to the life on the Ark before the timeline of the show (so far, there has been four such episodes – the previous ones were 1x03 with Clarke’s flashbacks involving her father, mother, Wells and Thelonius Jaha; 1x07 with Bellamy’s flashbacks about his relationship with Octavia, going as far back as her birth; and 2x08 with Raven’s flashbacks that showed her relationship with Finn, what really happened with the ‘spacewalking’ and how Finn ended up imprisoned, and Sinclair deciding to give her a job as mechanic in spite of her health issues).

But this time they don’t only help give more insight into Pike and who he was as a teacher of “Earth skills” on the Ark, they are also a nostalgic look into the past – very recent past, technically, as they set only six months before the present day due to the show’s compressed timeline, but it feels so distant. It’s a reminder of just how much everyone has changed, including the show itself. Nothing highlights the difference more than the brilliant show motion scene in the last flashback, with the Delinquents walking towards the dropship, set to the Koda slow, plaintive cover of “Radiactive”. It’s one of the best uses of music on the show, with a stark contrast to the energetic, poppy original by Imagine Dragons, which played in the Pilot when the kids landed on the planet – and which seemed to promise a relatively light-hearted teen soap.

Quite a few of the dead Delinquents made a comeback in the flashbacks: while Finn was not there (he was presumably in another group, since 98 students in one class would be too much), we see a lot of minor characters like Roma, Dax, John Mbege (died in season 1), Fox (season 2) and Monroe, who died very recently in season 3. (There’s one other guy called Jones, but I had to look him up and we never saw him die.) We also get to see Octavia, Jasper, Murphy, Harper and Miller with their season 1 looks and remember the way they used to be then, which is a stark contrast in the case of Jasper and Octavia.

There’s also non-chipped, rational Jaha, Kane and Abby at the time when they still didn’t get along because Kane was a bit of a d1ck back then.

How convenient that there were 99 teenage prisoners they were initially going to send to Earth, two weeks before the Pilot (including Clarke, who was in solitary still, as she had been for a year, because Jaha didn’t want to risk her telling the population the truth about the Ark dying) - so when Wells got himself arrested for something so he could follow Clarke, just a day before they were to leave (just how much more obvious he could be?), he made up the nice round number of 100.

Some people have argued that Pike’s flashbacks should have happened much earlier in the season, so viewers would get a more complete and sympathetic picture of him, but for me, they only confirmed what I figured in the first place, that he is a fighter and was someone who genuinely wanted to protect his people, but that this eventually led him down a dark path. You can see his basic character traits in the flashbacks – that he wanted to protect the kids so much that he begged Jaha to let him go with them, and his final and main lesson to the kids – to “keep fighting at all costs, against all odds” is very much in character. You even see him resorting to questionable methods in desperation – like hitting Murphy to get all the kids to fight against him, in order to teach them to stick together and fight, since he wasn’t allowed to tell them the truth that they were going to be sent to the ground, and they didn’t take anything seriously since they didn’t know the truth. (Ironically, he decided to play the role of a villain in that ‘graduation’ class to spur them into action.)

The last flashback also includes an unconscious Clarke being carried onto the dropship, while Kane has a moment when he’s nice to Abby and tells her he’s sorry about Clarke; and Bellamy barging in pretending to be a guard and dragging a random girl by the hand - which happened to be Roma; the same girl who would later become one of his friends with benefits and a part of the group who went to rescue Octavia and died at the hands of the Grounders in 1x06, which Bellamy felt guilty about, because he knew she only came along because of him. The last flashback is a reused shot from the Pilot, with Clarke awake on the dropship, and brief glimpse of Wells

The flashbacks were nicely intertwined with the present day scenes, which highlighted the contrast between the characters as they were then and now – e.g. between the old Kane, and the new, idealistic, bearded and Jesus-like Kane, who gets literally crucified for refusing to take the chip. ALIE observes that Kane is strong (as she had previously said about Raven), and Jaha agrees:  Yes. Always has been”.

The initial attempt to have chipped Abby seduce and manipulate Kane into taking the chip fails, because Kane knows her well enough to see the difference between chipped Abby and the way she is when she is herself. He withstands torture, but eventually caves in when Jaha threatens to kill Abby. Threatening loved ones is one of ALIE’s methods to get people to do what she wants – that’s how she got Abby to take the chip (to save Raven’s life), it’s how in 3x14 she gets Luna’s husband to take the chip (by threatening Luna) and how in 3x15 she tries to get Clarke to tell her the password, to save Abby’s life, but that time she failed.

The scenes in Polis were generally horrific, with ALIE’s army of chipped, almost mindless slaves, blood in the streets, and crucified people. The cinematography was interesting: ALIE’s red dress deliberately stood out in, while everything and everyone else was in muted greenish-yellow colors.

This is where the unlikely alliances of everyone not-chipped start, with the really unexpected partnership-by-necessity between Indra and Pike. But first, after they found themselves in the same big cell with Murphy and a few others, Indra starts having her revenge by doing the “300 cuts thing”. Pike is also being himself and going “so get on with it” and enduring it, as she apparently does quite a few cuts (but conveniently, those are mostly surface cuts across his chest and not the horrific scenario Lincoln described in season 2 as something that would happen to Finn; actually, we didn’t see that scenario – mutilation, gorging eyes, etc. – with Gustus, either, for obvious reasons, it’s CW) that didn’t disable him, before Murphy and another Grounder woman changed Indra’s mind (just as she was about to kill Pike) and convinced her that they need Pike, as a strong fighter he is, to fight their way out and fight ALIE’s chipper army.  Murphy asks Indra: “Do you want revenge or do you want your people to survive?” and she decides she wants both, but “I’ll get my revenge but not today”. Getting that pragmatic is a sign how much character development she’s had since she was introduced in early season 2.  

(But since Indra used a rusty nail she pulled from the wall to cut Pike, realistically he was going to get an infection if Octavia hadn’t killed him in the S3 finale.)

Meanwhile, Clarke, Bellamy, Octavia and Jasper find the way to Luna’s place but are confused since it’s a beach with some rocks, but with some luck and help from Lincoln’s notebook, they find a way to signal Luna’s Boat people. They spend most of the episode on the beach before Luna’s people show up, but it is an opportunity for some important character moments.

I was glad to see that Bellamy has finally had enough of Octavia’s constant blaming, and that he stands up for himself a bit, by reminding her of the fact that he came to her and offered help to get Lincoln out, and she declined it. But as he starts to say: “If you had trusted me...”, he stops himself, probably realizing what he’d be saying and that it’s the last thing she needs to hear - that Lincoln’s death was partially her fault. It is much easier for her emotionally if she just blames him instead. So he just turns and walks away, while Clarke is looking at him, concerned.

I think that their confrontation in 3x05 made Clarke realize how hurt Bellamy was because she left, and chose to deal with her Mount Weather trauma on her own, instead of letting him support her emotionally and supporting him emotionally, so she is now very attentive to Bellamy’s emotional needs, and she now believes they can only get through their traumas together. It’s a bit funny that Bellamy starts by trying to act tough and telling her he doesn’t need her help, even calls her Wanheda and tries to talk as if he did in 3x05, but as she just keeps looking at him in the same caring, compassionate way, it all falls away in 2 seconds and he starts confiding in her about his problems with his sister. This is a dynamic that continues well into season 4 – Octavia still blaming Bellamy, Bellamy unhappy over it, Clarke trying to comfort him about it.

Bellamy says “Forgiveness is hard for us” – and some may see it differently, but I think he means himself and Octavia. Clarke has, in fact, become one of the people who forgive fastest and most easily, and she rarely even holds grudges the way she did in season 1 (against her mother, Wells, Finn to an extent). Octavia definitely finds it hard to forgive; Bellamy is debatable. He can hold grudges, but he’s also shown an extraordinary capacity for forgiveness. But at the same time, that does not have to mean full forgiveness. After all, he already has had a pseudo-parental relationship with Kane – but he’ll still throw it in Kane’s face in season 4: “You floated my mother”. The fact that by season 5, not only is Murphy one of his best friends, but Echo is his girlfriend, says a lot. But it did take him 3 years of being stuck with her on a ship with just 5 other people to forgive her. He forgave Clarke at the end of season 5 pretty quickly, as soon as he realized how she felt about him – but whether it is full forgiveness in his heart… that’s another matter. Back to this episode – he tells Clarke “I was so angry at you for leaving… I don’t want to feel that way anymore”. It’s not that he’s not angry anymore, but that he tries to work on not being angry. And he’s certainly right about his relationship with Octavia, as she is the one person he is refusing to forgive as of the end of S5.

When the Boat people turn up, their Captain calls them “Skaikru are Bringers of Death” – which is something we saw a Grounder say in season 2. So, that term (which I’ll never stop rolling my eyes at, since it’s obvious that Grounders had lots and lots of death in wars between clans and at the hands of Mountain Men way before any of the Sky people landed) has been a thing for a while, we don’t know how it started – maybe because of those llares that ended up burning a village. But how did the Boat people hear it, when they seem so isolated from everyone?

Octavia is the first to go with it and take the pill that makes people lose consciousness (but that, as far as they know, may as well be a poison) – saying “I trust Lincoln”. Jasper does it next and says his repetitive catchphrase “See you on the other side” (which he first said in the Pilot, and which will never sound again after you have seen 4x11).

Sorry, but it’s almost funny – these Bellamy/Clarke scenes are some of the most romantic-looking stuff I’ve seen:  the incredibly intense and long hug, where both of them seem to lose themselves in the physical comfort of it, and which only ends because Luna’s people interrupt them; the way they drink the potion at the same time, gazing into each other’s eyes and repeating their catchphrase “Together”- “Together”(it’s the second time they are using it, the first one was in the season 2 finale). It’s almost as if the people making the show are running some sort of a social experiment to see how far they can go and still have many people argue “What? It’s just how BFFs act with each other!”

Luna finally makes an appearance, after being talked about since season 1. The rising music and everything in the scene makes it look like it’s going to be a big moment where she says yes to Clarke’s suggestion to take the Flame and become the next Commander, but she flat-out says “no”.  

The episode ends on the reveal that Luna’s people live on oil rig. (Which is the second time that an episode ends with a reveal that a Grounder location is actually something we recognize as a piece of modern technology.)

Timeline. The present day events seem to take place over one day, as most episodes of The 100 do –they start during daytime (when Clarke, Bellamy, Octavia and Jasper get to the beach), continue during that night (which the four of them spend on the beach) and it’s morning/daytime at the end of the episode when they wake up on the oil rig. Most of the action in Polis scene takes place during the night.  Which should mean that it’s been about 3 days since Clarke reunited with her friends, or about 19-21 days since the start of season 3.

Flashbacks: The first flashback is set six months before, which is two weeks before the Pilot. This is the first time we get a clear info on how much time has passed since the 100 first landed on Earth. The last flashback takes place at the time when the 100 plus one are on the dropship, five and a half months before the present day action. Season 1 probably lasted a little over 3 weeks, season 2 even less than that, then there was a time jump of almost 3 months (86 days) between the seasons, and with the 3 weeks that season 3 has lasted – it makes up almost 5 and a half months (a little less, actually).

Body count: An unknown number of people in Polis-(some are seen crucified, blood is in the streets) – presumably the 3% who refused to take the chip, so it depends how many people lived in Polis to begin with

Rating: 10/10

===================

3x14 Red Sky at Morning

According to The 100 wiki, the title comes from an old saying that goes:"Red sky at night, sailors' delight. Red sky at morning, sailors take warning". I suppose that’s a way of saying, dangerous waters ahead for our characters?

Luna was one of the most interesting and charismatic characters on the show, and her Boat People are a refreshing new addition – as the first Grounder group we see that doesn’t have the warlike way of life and doesn’t believe in Blood must have blood and all that stuff. They’re unique so far, almost like an isolated hippie commune, who accept orphans and try to help people in need, and maybe the only community in the show that seems like they’re living a good life.

Clarke and Luna discuss Lexa briefly, and Clarke says that Lexa was “special, she was working towards peace”. I get why Clarke says that, since she had fallen in love with Lexa and Lexa died just a few days ago, but it’s a pretty simplified and idealized picture. Lexa only worked for peace for the last few days of her life, after Clarke convinced her; before that, she spent most of her life and rule adhering to the traditionalist views of war, and revenge, ruthlessness in service of your people – so it’s ironic that Clarke is saying that to Luna, who had rejected violence all on her own when she was a little girl.

Luna’s history, which we learn here, is also fascinating – that she was traumatized by being pitted against her own brother in the Conclave and killing him, and then ran away from that terrible custom not because she was afraid of losing, but because she knew she would win – killing other kids and getting to be the next Commander. Lexa was the one she was supposed to meet in the next round, which I guess was why Lexa was reluctant to talk about Luna.

Clarke’s decision to force the Flame onto Luna is something that initially quite upset me, because it’s obviously wrong and a serious violation. I was agreeing with Octavia, who was against it. Bellamy wasn’t too happy about it, but since he (just as in Mount Weather) couldn’t come up with a better plan when Clarke asked him to, he agrees with Clarke’s decision. This is one of the reasons why I don’t understand why so many fans argue that Bellamy convincing Madi to take the Flame in season was OOC, which was motivated by the same things that this was – a pragmatic move to save your people by making a new Commander who will have the authority among Grounders to oppose a tyrant.

Well, this time, the Sky people did end up being the “Bringers of death” – because ALIE was following them, and found the Boat people that way, which resulted in several deaths – including Luna reliving her trauma and having to kill her husband Derrick, after he had been chipped (which he agreed to because ALIE made other chipped people torture Luna).

A minor in-character moment: Bellamy is naturally the one to immediately look to the little girl, Luna’s daughter, and make sure she’s safe.

Jasper meets a new love interest, only to lose her immediately because of ALIE. This brief moment of hope and the way it is crushed made his emotional state even worse and more vulnerable – making him take the chip (which is only hinted in this episode and revealed in the next).

I used to like Luna a lot (I still do quite a bit), and I was upset when she had her sudden character turn in 4x10, going from her non-violent philosophy to “everyone should die”. But now on rewatch, her flaws are more obvious to me. She gives good anti-violence speeches to Octavia (immediately reading Octavia and summing her up: “You know only of fighting and death”) and she makes good points to Clarke that she has become too ruthless, too ‘end justifies the means’, which is indeed a problem with how Clarke has changed because of everything she has had to do. But when she said: “You believe that to defeat an enemy that will stop at nothing, you must stop at nothing… How is that different from blood must have blood?” – I was thinking: but it is different… because one is about revenge, which is not necessary, and the other is about doing whatever it takes to save the world and stop an absolute disaster, such as ALIE making everyone into brainwashed slaves. By refusing to get involved, Luna is basically shirking responsibility and letting the rest of the world go to hell, even though she has the power to save it, because she doesn’t want to get her hands dirty again. She prefers to keep her moral high ground and judge others, like Clarke, for ruthless things they do to save people and the world. But Clarke is the one trying to save the world. Maybe Luna’s eventual turn is not so out-of-character after all – it was the ultimate expression of her judgmental views of people: either they are perfectly good and don’t engage in violence or any ruthless actions out of necessity and desperation, or they don’t deserve to survive and should all die.

Seeing the outcome of this plotline – after pretending to agree to take the Flame, Luna makes the group drink something to lose their consciousness and sends them back to the shore after the boat has left – makes all of this like a huge waste of time. After all the build-up, Clarke, Bellamy and Octavia are left where they started, wondering what to do to stop ALIE. But knowing Luna’s role in season 4, the story had a purpose.

In Arkadia, Monty had two huge things happen to him: the beginning of his relationship with Harper, and having to “kill” his mother for the second time.

Marper would become one of the healthiest and happiest romantic relationships on the show, but it starts more or less out of the blue, with very little build-up (except for Monty defending Harper in season 1 when Jasper called her “low hanging fruit”, and a few scenes of Monty caring about Harper’s life in season 2). Harper decides to make a move and Monty is pleasantly surprised and goes for it. It seems like a “we could all die, so let’s have sex” kind of thing. But Harper says in bed that she hasn’t felt happy and safe in a long time.

Raven is determined to find a way to shut down ALIE for good, instead of waiting for Clarke to come back. It’s personal for her at this point – she even tells ALIE “I’m coming for you!” But Jaha again has an idea how to get to people – by using Hannah against Monty. (Jaha has been a huge asset to ALIE because he understands humans, which ALIE probably does not by herself.) But Monty stays stronge even after his mother’s consciousness tells him “I love you” – he says “I love you, too” and deletes her code. This is probably one of the two best scenes in this episode.

But just as Raven was preparing to hit the kill switch, ALIE withdraws, It’s one of the rare moments when Monty loses his temper (and they all happened this season – the last one was after he had to kill his mother in 3x11) and takes it out on Raven, blaming her and asking her if she wants to take the chip again.

The best moment in this episode and one of the best lines belongs to Emori. Unlike her brother and Gideon, she did not change her body in its digital version in the City of Light. When Jaha tells her she could correct her defects, she replies “I would, if I had any”. She has not internalized ableism, her disability is something she accepts as a part of herself – she just would love to change the fact that the world treats her as an outcast over it.

Timeline: It has been two days since 3x12 (Harper says: “Two days no one has been trying to kill us”), so I guess it’s been 20 to 22 days since the start of season 1.

Body count:

Shay, because all of Jasper’s love interests must die.

4 people in Polis controlled by ALIE: 2 killed by Indra, 2 by Pike,

4 Boat People controlled by ALIE, killed by Luna – including her husband/partner Derrick and the Captain

A Polis sentry who got to live on in the City of Light. Interesting that everyone in the City of Light modern clothes, including the Grounders – though the guy still has the Grounder tattoos.

Arguably, the consciousness of Hannah Green

Rating: 8/10

=========================

3x15 Perverse Instantiation, Part One

I prefer this first part of the season finale to the second, because it has some strong and tense emotional scenes, especially between Jasper and Monty, and between Clarke and Abby.

Roan is an interesting character, and it’s fun to see him again. He has an fun dynamic with Clarke and Bellamy, and there’s even a rare light-hearted moment when Bellamy shoots and lightly injures Roan to make sure he’s not chipped – taking an opportunity to get him back for the knee injury in 3x02 – and Roan comments: “Now we’re even”.

The fact that Clarke is now ready to put the Flame into Ontari shows just how desperate she is to stop ALIE. After the Luna plan failed, she thinks she can either do that, or go looking for another Nightblood throughout Grounder villages. But the latter might make ALIE destroy another community and they could still fail.

But plans keep failing – the plan they come up with fails because Jasper is chipped and ALIE has all the info about it. Roan gets injured and everyone is captured by Jaha and ALIE’s other slaves. The plan was for Clarke to tell Raven the kill switch, but now that it failed, Raven wants  to find a way to kill ALIE herself.

In Arkadia, the reveal about Jasper being chipped comes right after a too-good-to-be-true scene in which Jasper seemed happy and at peace and apologized to Monty for all the trouble he had caused. But he was happy only because of the chip. ALIE-controlled Jasper goes on to stab Monty and knocks out and takes Harper hostage, trying to stop Raven in her plan to shut down ALIE. Monty, Raven and Harper have to find a way to defeat their friend.

Jasper reveals the full depth of his hopelessness in this speech where he says to Monty: “They sent down here to see if the Earth is survivable… from what I can see, it is not” and starts listing all the Delinquent deaths that happened since they landed. (Some of what he says is factually wrong – he’s skewing facts the same way a Clarke hater fan would: for instance, he says Clarke killed Dax, when it was Bellamy, and it was in self-defense after Clarke saved Bellamy���s life; he also says “death by Clarke” as a cause of death of Atom and Finn, not mentioning that both were mercy kills.)

Clarke is captured and tortured by ALIE, chipped Abby and Jaha, trying to make her tell them the password that ALIE needs to access the Flame. Clarke tries to do the “mom, I know you’re still in there” thing, but it doesn’t work – you can’t just talk down a chipped person.

After Clarke withstands torture, Abby tells ALIE that she was right when she pointed out that Clarke is more likely to break if someone she cares about is tortured or threatened: “Her friends are her weakness… Start with Bellamy Blake”. This is the second time it’s been implied that Bellamy is Clarke’s “weakness” – since 2x09, when Clarke first heard that “Love is weakness” and tried to not let her feelings for him interfere in leadership decisions, so she wouldn’t be “weak”. Abby is right that a danger to Bellamy’s life is the easiest way to get Clarke to agree to something – as we’ve seen in 2x12, 3x02, and later in 4x05. Clarke is terrified and in tears at the prospect of Bellamy being tortured or possibly killed if she doesn’t give up the password. But it never comes to that, since Murphy, Pike and Indra come at the right moment and save Bellamy and the others.

Instead, Abby decides to threaten/take her own life to make Clarke fold, so she hangs herself. It’s a very intense, emotional scene, where Clarke is crying and begging her mom to stop, but somehow manages to stay strong and not give up the password, knowing she would be condemning the human race to being brainwashed and enslaved.

Octavia showed concern for Bellamy when they were about to take him away, which is one of the very few times she shows warmer feelings for him in season 3b and 4.

There’s some snark between Murphy and Miller, and then Bellamy and Murphy have their first conversation since season 2. It’s kind of awkward, because Bellamy doesn’t trust Murphy yet and is confused as to why Murphy is doing anything heroic. Murphy is like ‘you’re welcome” – but he should understand that saving people doesn’t mean you don’t have to apologize for the crap he did in the past (and he will realize that and start really trying to do better in season 4). He compares Bellamy’s concern for Clarke for his concern for Emori, saying “You’re not the only one trying to save someone you care about”, but he’s still doing putting on the antiheroic, cynical front, saying he will stop doing the right thing after this.

The reunion between Bellamy and Pike also may be slightly awkward, since Bellamy turned him over to the Grounders the last time they saw each other, but Pike doesn’t seem to particularly care about this. He’s still his old self, but now focused on the new threat (or rather, the threat whose importance he failed to realize back in Arkadia when he was in power and Jaha started preaching about the City of Light, but Pike doesn’t tend to question himself or look in the past, as Bellamy does).

There’s a lot of fighting in this and the next episode, but at moments, it was hard to see what was going on, because it all took place inside the tower, in half-dark.

Indra has finally started using guns! She also gets to fight chipped Kane and saves him.

Bellamy tells everyone to try to not kill any of the chipped people, but Pike and Indra don’t care about that and kill them anyway. Bellamy only does it when he’s forced to in order to save Murphy’s life, even though it is obviously difficult for him now and that he feels bad about killing someone again.

Octavia can’t stop thinking about killing Pike, even though Indra tells her they have to focus on fighting ALIE’s slaves instead. Octavia again expresses how hopeless she feels without Lincoln, saying “he was my home”.

As they finally get to the throne room, Murphy saves Abby, while Bellamy gets the Flame, but the plan to put it into Ontari can’t work because Jaha hit her on the head with a hammer ,which left her braindead.

Is this the only time in the entire show when an episode has ended with “TO BE CONTINUED”?

Timeline: This episode seems to take place over roughly 24 hours – during daytime, night, and the daytime of the following day. Which means, by my count, it’s been 21-23 days since the start of season 3.

Body count:

9 chipped people: 1 is killed by Roan, 5 by Pike and Indra (2 Grounders, 2 Arkadia guards, 1 Delinquent - ?), 2 Grounders shot by Pike, 1 Arker shot by Bellamy  

Ontari is braindead, which made me incredibly relieved the first time I watched season 3.

Several other people were injured – Roan was shot and injured, Pike and Bryan were by Kane, Jaha shot by Bellamy (again!), but all the major characters except Ontari survived.

Rating: 8/10

==============================

3x15 Perverse Instantiation Part Two

This is the only The 100 season finale I’m not a big fan of. The first time I watched it, it was one of my least favorite season 3 episodes. The fact that, after all the tensions and complicated conflicts in the previous part of season 3, everything turned into “let all fight together against the evil robot” felt dull and anticlimactic, and it didn’t help when so much of the finale was Matrix-lite. After all, it’s not like the viewers were ever in any doubt if they were going to defeat ALIE or not. Yes, we could guess they were going to defeat the Mountain Men in season 2, but what was shocking was how they had to do it; season 1 finale wasn’t that surprising, but the shocking part was what Clarke had to do to save the Delinquents. There was no real sense of danger in this fainel. The only thing I really found exciting was the reveal about the upcoming Praimfaya.

I liked it a bit more this time, but not much more, because I didn’t expect anything from it this time, so I could focus on the good moments.

After all the talk about how only people with Nightblood could take the Flame, it feels like a bit of a cop-out that, as it turns out, one can temporarily bond with it if they simply get a transfusion of black blood – though, of course, it’s still a risk. And of course it’s Clarke who takes it upon herself to have a transfusion from Ontari, take the Flame and take the chip in order to defeat ALIE.

The Matrix-lite scenes in the City of Light were moderately OK, but nowhere near as good as many other virtual reality storylines I’ve watched. It was a nice touch to see Clarke having the hair and clothes more like those from seasons 1-2, instead of the ugly Grounder-style pseudo-dreadlocks (WTF was that even about?) and an equally ugly dress that looks like a cheap reject that no one wanted to buy at a Goth clothing store, which she has been wearing throughout season 3. But there’s just not enough interesting things happening:

Clarke sees a bunch of people who don’t see her, I liked the part where Clarke meets Jasper eating an ice-cream.

Then they see her, after ALIE alerted them, and she is chased by them.

Then Flame!Lexa appears, fights them and saves her, and they kiss and Clarke tells her “I love you” for the first time. It says a lot about how messed up Clarke’s love life has been, that she’s only ever said ILY to people who are about to die (Finn) or already dead (Lexa). The only time she’s managed to say ILY to someone who’s alive and likely to stay alive was not romantic - it was to Madi in season 5. I used to think this Lexa was very OOC, because she was much warmer, nicer and more open than real Lexa was ever when alive. But I suppose Flame versions of people are different – maybe that’s what Lexa would be like without the role of Commander, without power and responsibility.

However, where are all the other Commanders? Why do we only see Lexa and Becca? Aren’t the others at all interested in what’s going on with ALIE? Also, for some reason, Flame!Lexa repeats the line about her spirit choosing wisely – even though it doesn’t make sense. Her spirit didn’t choose anything – Clarke chose to have the transfusion and the Flame and the chip so she could save the day. That line never made sense once we learned about the Conclave, anyway: previous Commanders didn’t choose anything, it was a bunch of kids fighting and killing each other.

Then Clarke meets Becca and ALIE and they have a talk, which is supposed to be the climax of theseason, but I still find Becca to be an insufferable megalomaniac and don’t care about her. Clarke argues with ALIE about pain and happiness, and that pain should not be removed, as ALIE believes – one must overcome it. Clarke admits that she tried to run away from pain, and this should be a great moment that rounds up her season 3 arc. This would work if Clarke had a great, well developed arc in season 3 about learning to overcome her pain, but unfortunately, I don’t see it. She did start off running away from everyone and ended up getting back and acting more like her old self, but what was in the middle felt plot-driven and ships-driven more than it was about any deep characterization. I see really good character arcs for other characters in season 3 – Bellamy, Jasper, Monty, Raven, even Octavia, but Clarke, not so much.

In the real world, Octavia lets her desire for revenge overtake the need to fight the chipped army, and gets Pike in danger, before Bellamy saves him. Bellamy has two conversations that are supposed to be resolutions of his character arc in S3. To Octavia, he says that she shouldn’t let the desire for revenge overtake her, and that his own “need for revenge” made him to awful things. But that line doesn’t work, because that’s not what actually happened – back in 3x04-3x08, Bellamy was not motivated by revenge. At no point was he like “Grrr, Grounders killed my girlfriend, now I want to kill them!” No, he was motivated by the desire to protect his people in a better way, and his fear that trusting the Grounders again would make him fail them and make the same mistakes that he did when he trusted Echo in 3x03.

The talk between Pike and Bellamy is better-written. They argue about whether they chose to wrong side – and Pike says it wasn’t the wrong side and brings up the likelihood that the Grounder army would have attacked Arkadia the moment Lexa was killed and Ontari took over. Which is a good point. That’s the thing with Pike, he makes some good points, but his solutions are all too extreme and unlikely to ever lead to any positive outcome, just a constant cycle of war and violence. Pike doesn’t question himself or feel guilty, which is a huge difference between him and Bellamy, who thinks of the people he killed and replies that all he knows is that he has to live with the things he has done.

One really bizarre minor moment is when Abby makes Murphy massage the heart of his braindead former rapist, so the transfusion could work. And hey, how funny is it that we literally get to see Ontari’s black heart?

In the final moments of fighting, there was a mayhem where Pike saved Octavia’s life, while chipped Kane almost strangled Bellamy. After ALIE is defeated, everyone is relieved, except Jasper, who is again in pain and desperate, while Monty tries to comfort him, and they apologize to each other for the violent things they did to each other while Jasper was chipped. Clarke tells Abby to go to Kane (she’s picked up on her mom’s new relationship pretty quickly – maybe she had already figured out before that something was going on there). Clarke and Bellamy have a moment, but he sees that she doesn’t seem like someone who has saved the world, and she replies that the world is not saved, because she’s learned about Praimfaya from ALIE.

And then the last moment of the finale is Pike about to make some sort of a gesture of respect/”you fought well”/bygones, and Octavia stabbing Pike. It says a lot about how bored I was with this finale the first time I watched it, that I was glad this happened even though I didn’t hate Pike or want him dead. I was simply glad to see at least one character not singing Kumbaya like everyone else was doing. I didn’t want all the tensions and conflicts of season 3 – even if they were badly done – to be simply forgotten because the evil robot was defeated. And Octavia was being in character; that’s who she is, and you always knew that’s what she was going to do to the person who killed Lincoln. In hindsight, it was a necessary moment in Octavia’s arc. I’m neither upset nor happy about Pike’s death – he simply had Pike “had” to die not because his crimes were too bad for him to live (I mean, come on, even Echo, who was worse and less developed, got to survive and get a so-called ‘redemption”…) but because Octavia would never spare him.

Timeline: the entire episode lasts a few hours, and season 3 on the whole between 22 and 24 days, at most.

Body count: 

Four chipped Grounders, 2 shot by Bellamy, 1 killed by Pike, 1 shot by Abby (I took this from The 100 wiki, there’s no way I would have noticed how many people were being killed in all that mayhem.) This is the first time Abby has killed someone.

ALIE, terminated by Clarke.

Ontari, braindead and then presumably dead-dead after Murphy stopped massaging her heart.

Pike, stabbed by Octavia.

Rating: 6/10

[whatiswildness]

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Moral Values in Management

“Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Moral Values in Management” was a talk I gave to the Cambridge Conservation Initiative Annual Symposium 2019

Background

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), centred on the Yellowstone National Park, is an area of twenty-two million acres — over a third of the total land area of the UK. Spanning part of three western states in the USA, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, the area is comprised of five national forests, three national wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land Management holdings, state lands, two national parks, Indian lands and five million acres of private land. Within this landscape milieu, wild things are appearing in places they have not been seen for generations. From the Yellowstone National Park at the GYE’s centre, bison, grizzlies and wolves are being restored to the periphery. 

As the simultaneous restoration of the ‘full suite’ of wild things, rewilding began with the reintroduction of the wolf in 1994-5—the last, large animal present during pre-European times to be returned to the Yellowstone National Park. Through subsequent rewilding practices, its range and population increased, and similarly for the grizzly bear (grizzly) and bison although some of those changes preceded the wolf by several years. Beyond the boundaries of the Park, wild things, increasingly, are hopping fences, sinking their teeth into cattle, running from hunters, scrumping for apples, grazing gardens, and occasionally injuring and killing people. Rewilding in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, to put it simply, is ‘restoring wild things’, significantly, ‘restoring bison, grizzly bears and wolves’.

Before reintroduction, only the occasional wolf had been sighted and no viable packs seen for almost 100 years. Wolves number approximately 100 individuals which reside mainly in the Yellowstone National Park and 500 in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The leading cause of death overall (around 80%) is humans, especially by hunting, followed by other wolves (which is the leading cause of death inside the Park) and next, disease.

Bison, which have a much less extensive range in the GYE, were estimated to number 4,527 in August 2018 before this winter’s cull and hunt. The leading cause of death is again humans. The National Park captures and sends to slaughter several hundred each year while hunting makes up the rest. Last winter just over a thousand were killed. Wild bison were thought to number around 23 individuals following their near-total eradication during the 19th century. Captive breeding and much later, bison release, occurred in the Park during the 20th century. Bison have only begun to migrate beyond the Park boundaries since the 1980s.

In 1975, there were 136 individual grizzlies in the Park. Now they may number 1,000 in the GYE although good estimates are notoriously difficult to obtain. They were recently removed from the endangered species list, many feel prematurely. They were relisted in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem by a Federal judge in 2018. Their range in the GYE has expanded significantly over recent years and there is much talk of grizzlies traversing agricultural and developed areas to the NW of the GYE. This could connect them with populations in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, and thus Canadian populations. Humans have controlled grizzly numbers here for over 100 years and their low in 1975 was generally thought to be a result of Park policy. This included removing open rubbish dumps resulting in the bears’ dispersal, then the killing of bears which roamed outside of the Park.

I find in my research that the landscape here tells a recent and surprising story of humans restoring wild things. I’m not so interested in the science of which predator eats which prey, changing which ecological indicator (although it is fascinating). I am interested in WHY people rewild. Really WHY, as in deep motivations, and for that matter why they fight this kind of thing. This is a question of love, fear, enchantment and anger around wildness, which is totally mixed up in what’s going on in wider society; cultural questions of identity, heritage, belief and power. Some people are passionately engaged in occupational practices aimed at expanding the ranges and numbers of wolves, bison and grizzly bears over a huge area already occupied by people. Others are radically opposed and dedicate much of their working life to resistance, politically, or very directly through the barrel of a gun. What is fundamentally meaningful and motivating to these groups?

Surely, it’s not all about money for the objectors? Or on the other side, purely about scientific data for the advocates?

Why do some of these people advocate for more rewilding? And why do others resist?

Methods

“Not everything that counts can be measured; and not everything that can be measured, counts.”

I like this quote. Amongst many esteemed biologists, ecologists (natural scientists) here, it helps to explain why I spent six months doing empirical research in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, measuring precisely nothing. Instead, I undertook semi-structured interviews and observed people at work over extended periods of months to try and make sense of the things which count for them, but can’t be measured.

My research population included those whose work centred on three iconic wild things: grizzlies, bison and wolves because these species emerged as quintessential embodied wildness for both those for and against rewilding. I focussed on land managers, state and federal scientists, activists, lobbyists and campaigners in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and not least those who have lived and worked on the land their whole lives, but who don’t have a college degree.

Problem

All are battling with the reality that their work, their measurements and claims to knowledge, often don’t count politically or socially. Wildlife scientists and ranchers alike struggle to articulate why their knowledge often doesn’t count in practice. In fact, hidden moral values are at play.

If there is one take-away from this talk, it is that if you believe in rewilding, it seems you will need a range of means of articulating the ways in which wildness is meaningful and valuable; in which it counts. Science can only go so far in winning hearts and minds. Gaining trust must involve acknowledging that all science has bias: acknowledging that there is no objective understanding of what a ‘good’ landscape looks like and how it works best. There are only contingent understandings.

Let me give you an example from the Yellowstone which demonstrates the schism.

Recent publications on grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have shown quite convincingly that grizzly bear movements through landscapes can be predicted with a surprising level of statistical certainty. Potential pathways between isolated populations have been mapped with at least one clear implication, that we now have an excellent idea of where best to create corridors and we have the evidence to justify strategic land restoration and preservation.

But this research, its conclusions and its implied applications are based on two subjective assumptions: a) there were more grizzlies over larger areas at some (rather arbitrary) point in history and b) therefore; there should be more again. Actually this is more about belief.

For many this science counts for nothing. From diverse professional backgrounds, some looked at this type of research and were totally appalled that these groups even got funding or contributors were even in a job. They cast it aside to get on with what they felt was the real business. For instance, making wildlife management or planning decisions based on human need, lobbying for the cattle industry, and running farming operations. Activities that are equally values-driven. It’s not easy to define and measure why they cast it aside with such disgust, the same as it is tough to define and measure why the researchers spend years of their life contributing to wildlife conservation through science, but whatever the reasons, they sure count.

So let’s have a look at some of the cultural and historical factors which I believe influence decision-making on the ground, and produce conflict through opposing values in Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. As I go, parallels should emerge with rewilding in Europe and the UK. At times, there was something oddly similar about the ways in which people in very different cultural and environmental contexts, the western USA and Europe or the UK, think about wildness.

So first, what are some of the reasons people value wildness and wild things in the GYE?

Take the ‘wolf-watchers’ for instance, who spend each day watching wolves, most often in the northern part of the Park. They generally know one another, hike together, and attend the same social events in the Gardiner, Livingston and Bozeman areas—Park and Gallatin Counties, Montana. Most are from ‘out-of-state’ but now live in the area permanently or for months at a time. ‘Wolf-watchers’ are generally wealthy, retired, semi-retired, or have business interests elsewhere that do not occupy their time.

Wild things, for the ‘wolf-watchers’, are profoundly beautiful and reminiscent of an imagined, perhaps beguiling past before their eradication, perhaps even before people. It was common for the wolf watchers to refer to key American authors, sometimes directly quoting them: Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness (Abbey 1968) and A Sand County Almanac (Leopold 1970) were especially well cited. Thematic literature informed discourse and even expressions of feeling. Their focus on wild beauty in conversation regularly drew upon ideals which can be traced back in American literature. This was fairly unique amongst a relatively small number of wealthy in-migrants, generally college-educated and with a passion for restoring wildness.

Wilderness ideals in literature began to become formative of beliefs around wildness in the 18th century. Roderick Nash claims of its earliest aesthetic appreciation, that by the mid-eighteenth century, “wilderness was associated with the beauty and godliness that previously had defined it by their absence”. In the 19th century, the ‘sublime’, which “captivates while it awes, and charms while it elevates and expands the soul” entered into aestheticism of ‘nature’ also informing beliefs around wildness. Later, the American literary contributions of Henry David Thoreau were influential: famously, “this world is but a canvas to our imagination.” and “in wildness is the preservation of [that] world”. Also, of John Muir, and later still, Edward Abbey who wrote extensively on wildness, “out there is a different world, older and greater and deeper by far” (1968). The beauty of the ‘ecological wholeness’ of nature came to the fore with Aldo Leopold (1887–1948) who also led a paradigm shift towards aesthetic acceptance of carnivores, contrasting to an earlier time in which, for instance, statesman and wildlife enthusiast Theodore Roosevelt reportedly described wolves as “beasts of desolation and waste”. Wild things now embody a positive and influential aesthetic of wildness. This is only reaffirmed through experience for the wolf-watchers who also perceive beauty in every howl, growl or bellow.

Aesthetic appreciation is primarily why they do what they do, also providing important public, volunteer and financial support to the rewilding cause.

Here’s an example of another way of moralising in support of wildness.

A government wolf biologist I interviewed, angered by degradation of natural processes and biodiversity, pins his hopes on the wild wolf. He foregrounds its scientific value as a keystone species within a natural ecosystem, an ecosystem which is not complete, as he believes it once was, without the wolf. He does not question concepts of naturalness, categorisations of that nature, or that a particular past was necessarily more “complete”. For him, this ecosystem, and the wolf’s functional place in it, is somehow fully scientifically knowable and measurable. It is the moral imperative to defer to science, which favours wolves for the government biologist. They have historical primacy in an ecosystem which is imagined to have functioned “correctly” in a time before European settlers. This reveals a belief in the ‘goodness’ of a particular past. It also reveals a certain belief in the system, the science and the scientific and bureaucratic structures which give it legitimacy such as the National Park Service and ultimately the democratically elected US government. In parts of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem this faith was largely absent. It was particularly marked among Federal, less so State, employees.

So, what are some of the reasons people do not value wildness and wild things in the GYE?

I want to read a passage from my field diary.

The cow heaved painfully, sucking air through its torn, bloody nostrils. The whites of its eyes showed clearly as it tried to sense its surroundings, exhausted and unable even to turn its head. As ranchers pulled up in large trucks one at a time and took their place at a respectful distance, the cow followed the sounds with just one remaining ear. Terese briefed me so that no one else could hear. It had been chased by feral “pit bulls”—terriers—, separated from the herd, and had run, terrified, into a cattle grid where two legs remained deeply wedged. Its open side glistened in the afternoon sun, crimson and specked with flies, tooth marks clearly visible. Two burly men dressed in flannel shirts and cowboy hats tried to slide a wooden plank between the suffering beast and the bars of the cattle grid in an effort to lever it into a position that it might escape. It had no fight left and made only feeble movements with its free hooves. The ranchers then roped the cow to the tow bar of a pickup, attempting to drag it free. As the rope tightened, the man with the beast grimaced and gestured urgently to stop. The cow’s leg was broken and its innards began to spill through the hole in its flank. None of those present owned the cow or the land. The owner, was unreachable on his mobile and none were willing to carry out the inevitable, put a gun to the animal’s head, without consulting him first. The mood was sombre and the ranching men and women became largely silent for several minutes. Few shifted their gaze from the animal, close to death, and as the nearby road quietened also, the only sounds were the wind in the couch grass, and the fading breath of the cow. Although they tried to hide it, all were visibly upset. One or two returned to their trucks to sit alone, but they didn’t drive away. The animal was worth between $1,300 and $2000 depending on breeding potential, not a huge financial loss and none at all to the neighbours present. It was one of many which die or are severely injured by pit bulls each year on the Wind River reservation. It occurred to me that I was witnessing mourning. The emotion was palpable and the respect for the soon-to-be-deceased unshakeable. The ranching folk stood in reverence for the cow itself.

Typical for many ranchers I spoke to about wolf and bear attacks: the emotional impact of wild things harming domestic animals, which they care deeply about as the fruit of their labour and respect in some way as sentient beings, was hard to grasp in interview alone. Experiencing the ‘mourning’ gave such descriptions deeper meaning.

Here is an extract from an interview with another rancher and lobbyist.

“after they [the wolves] mauled this one cow up so bad that I had to shoot her… and the cows tore down the fence in the middle of the night, and they were all running down the highway, and I'm out there at 5 o'clock in the morning trying to push them back, that's when I completely lost it.”

Utilitarianism and dominionism are connected notions which frame animals and the environment as being for the use of people. This set of values influences practices for those who saw ‘wildness as bad’: generally the part of the research population involved with ranching, outfitting or more broadly having had parents and grandparents involved in such activities in the tri-state area. Ranchers are intimate with their charges. They felt consumers or wildness advocates—outsiders—often don’t “understand the profound experience of working with [livestock]”. And ranchers “care for the land in a way that only those who are invested can care, by history in and love of a place”. Further, the emotional importance of “holding on to the land to both honor family heritage and continue the legacy of stewardship” should not be underestimated. Perhaps this goes some way to making sense of the loss felt by many of those who find wildness to be bad. This morality is further engendered by rewilding, that might only be conceived of as continued forfeiture and bereavement as wild things are restored. The wolf or the bison are reminders that wild things are in and the cowboy is out.

Conclusion

My research population in the Yellowstone tended towards polarised beliefs about wildness, that it was either good or bad (although they generally agreed that wolves, grizzlies and bison were together central to its meaning and embodiment one way or another).

Those beliefs seemed to have stood the test of recent decades and were reaffirmed by each person’s experience - that’s why I describe them as moral values. That wildness was either good or bad was pretty fundamental to these people.

The reasons for these values are historical and cultural. As we have discussed here, I believe on one hand they are to do with aestheticism, a belief in science and “the system”, and which we haven’t had time to discuss, aspiring to native Americaness, coopting indigenous spirituality around wild animals. On the other hand, values underpinning resistance to rewilding were about using and caring for the land in a quest for the pastoral ideal and perhaps continuing the American pioneer dream; and separately which I haven’t mentioned again, about rugged individualism and a deep distrust of Federal government, especially in land management.  

The data gathered offers an insight into the motivations of those at either end of the rewilding spectrum in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. My research was empirical, but I don’t claim to be unbiased. Although we will not all emerge as winners, that includes some of the wildlife we currently live with: with careful listening to all stakeholders, creative expression, and honesty, I hope we do see a wild rumpus return to the UK soon.

[lindoig3]

Monday, 25 February

We spent some time in the morning trying to trouble-shoot our DC power problem without success – batteries both fully charged, all the fuses intact, rebooted the charger, nothing worked – so I rang our trusty service people in Melbourne – and they couldn’t help either.  Our mobiles kept breaking up badly trying to talk to them so in the end, I drove into Bourke proper (our van park is at North Bourke, 5km from town) and made the call successfully from there.  I also refuelled and refilled the jerrycans – 170 litres put another $250 on the credit card!  Had a couple more calls to and from ADP Caravans during the day, but still no answers – so we are making do with AC power, supplemented a little with battery torches, but it is no hardship. I hope to call into an auto-electrician on our way out of town tomorrow and he said we would try to find the problem if it was quick and easy, but he has little available time.  If all else fails, we can easily get home without DC power given that we have gas and AC duplicates for almost everything.

I also spent time editing and culling photos and I prepared some to post to my blog and I finally posted 24 all up.  I took a few more pics later in the day so may get around to posting some more before we get home.

We needed to get a few odds and ends at the supermarket so we went back in to town this arvo and I made some phone calls in the car while Heather stocked up on our needs.  Back at camp, I went birding again, once down to the river and twice around the actual van park.  I really enjoy just roaming around with binoculars and camera and seeing what there is to see.  Very relaxing, but with a touch of excitement every now and then – like watching a Collared Sparrowhawk trying (unsuccessfully) to convert a Pied Butcherbird into dinner. I saw them both really well and up close and then photographed the Butcherbird after the Sparrowhawk gave up.

For my own interest and in case anyone else is silly enough to care, I thought I would set down a few statistics about our trip so far.

We have now driven a little over 7300 km on this trip with our trusty little calaboose trundling along behind for 3400+ (almost half) of that.  Last night was the 707th night we have slept in this van - getting close to 2 years in aggregate. That is something of a milestone, but yesterday also ticked off 151,000 clicks of adventure in this van with 102,000 km of that wagging its tail behind us.

We have seen only 3 new bird species for us so far this trip, but subject to clarifying a few minor issues around nomenclature, I think that puts our Aussie count up to 720, including the 140 species we have identified during this trip.  I have submitted 62 surveys to eBird during the trip, identifying and reporting 130 species (3654 birds) in the process.

Anyone (apart from me) silly enough to care?

[voyageviolet]

I actually sat down and read all of To Siri With Love since there’s been so much talk about it. I have a lot of thoughts about it; it has several problems that haven’t been discussed much because its biggest problems are so egregious. Writing all of that down would make one hell of a long post, though, so right now I’m just going to talk about the worst of it: the eugenics.

I don’t have page numbers for citations because I’m using the ebook version, but I’ll include the chapters the quotes are from.

Here’s the full quotation of the first time in the book that Judith Newman advocates eugenics against her son, in Chapter 8:

A vasectomy is so easy. A couple of snips, a couple of days of ice in your pants, and voilà. A life free of worry. Or one less worry. For me.

How do you say “I’m sterilizing my son” without sounding like a eugenicist? I start thinking about all the people, outliers in some way, who had this fundamental choice in life stolen from them—sometimes cruelly, sometimes by well-meaning people like me. The eugenics movement can be traced back to psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and penal law expert Karl Binding, who in 1920 published a book called The Liberation and Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life.  Its popularity fostered the first eugenics conference in the United States in 1921. The term “eugenics” means “the good birth.” Sample papers: “Distribution and Increase of Negroes in the United States,” “Racial Differences in Musical Ability,” and “Some Notes on the Jewish Problem.”

“Liberation” is such a wonderful euphemism, and in this context many people like my son—and undoubtedly some even less impaired—were “liberated” from the burden of life by those enthusiastic proponents of culling the herd, the National Socialists. An estimated four hundred thousand “imbeciles” were euthanized during Hitler’s rule, but not before they were the subjects of all sorts of medical experimentation. For a while there, Austria seemed to have cornered the market on brains in jars.

The idea of outright murdering “nature’s mistakes,” as the disabled were called, was softened somewhat in the United States. As the psychiatrist Leo Kanner was observing and defining autism, he was also lobbying for sterilization, but not death, of disabled populations. This was considered a progressive view at the time. (He believed there were all sorts of repetitive tasks autistic people could perform that would be good for society, and he wasn’t wrong here, that’s for sure. But we didn’t have computer programming at the time, so he proposed a population of ditch diggers and oyster shuckers.) Around the same time Hans Asperger, the Austrian pediatrician who was the first to identify autism as a unique mental condition, was concluding that “not everything that steps out of the line, and is thus ‘abnormal,’ must necessarily be ‘inferior.’”

That was an even more radical line of thought, and one society struggles with to this day. But wherever you stand on this question, when you start considering how the history of disability is inextricably intertwined with the history of euthanizing and enforced sterilization, you come away unsettled. I began to question my certainty that Gus should never have kids. There is a good success rate in vasectomy reversals, and surely there will be even easier, more reversible methods for men soon. And when there are, I’m going to be the first in line to sign him up. Kids at twenty or twenty-five? No. Thirty-five? I can hope.

I know this is a long quote, but I wanted to share it because I think it’s noteworthy that Newman is aware of the history of eugenics. She knows that it’s the ideology that Nazis used to justify the Holocaust; she knows that it’s been used in the United States to discriminate against disabled people. She knows that it’s a racist and antisemitic tool of oppression. And yet, she still wants to forcibly sterilize her son.

She reiterates her stance in Chapter 13, after watching her son go on a date.

Newman repeatedly emphasizes that vasectomies are reversible, as though that’s a justification for medical abuse. That’s not always true, though:

It's best to consider a vasectomy to be completely permanent. Although the procedure is reversible, and advances in microsurgery techniques have made vasectomy reversal far more successful in recent decades, it is not always a guaranteed success.

...

If fewer than three years have passed since the original vasectomy, patency success rates are around 97 percent and pregnancy success rates are 76 percent. But success rates can fall over time. In men who had a vasectomy 15 years or more before their reversal, the likelihood of restoring the vas deferens is 71 percent and chances of subsequent pregnancy hover around 30 percent.

Since Newman states that she wants to have power of attorney to make a decision about a vasectomy when her son turns 18, and since she later says that she “can hope” her son might have children at 35, it’s most likely that the lower rates of success would be the relevant statistics.

More importantly, though, I think we can all agree that abuse is still abuse even if the medical effects truly are reversible.

If the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy is such a major concern, wouldn’t the best solution be sex education, the same as any child needs? Newman has some thoughts on this in Chapter 13:

Nobody really thinks she has to teach her children about sex. I mean, not really, not in the way you might have to teach them, say, how to use a credit card (amazing how fast they catch on to that). Kids learn the basics of reproduction, what goes where, and then their natural curiosity takes over. They ask a zillion questions, of either you or their idiot friends, and eventually they figure it out.

This strikes me as rather irresponsible. Newman assumes that all parents share her position on this, but I find that very unlikely; at the very least, my own parents were much more proactive than Newman seems to be. Sex education is too important a topic to leave up to chance. Especially when you consider that a key part of autism is struggling with communication, it’s irresponsible to assume that an autistic child will be able to know the right questions to ask, and also that he’ll be comfortable enough to talk about it on his own.

Newman mentions trying to discuss sex with her son, again in Chapter 13:

... it was very distressing that he seemed to not understand anything about reproduction and sexually transmitted disease, never mind anything about affection and romance. Could I let him be in high school—even a high school for other special ed kids—with this degree of ignorance? But I just didn’t know how to broach the subject, because when I mentioned it—“Gus, do you know where babies come from?”—he’d say, “They come from mommies,” and then continue talking about the weather or sea turtles or whatever happened to be on his mind at that moment.

At another point in the book (Chapter 8), Newman describes a time when Gus’s brother teasingly asks him where babies come from, and Gus changes the subject. From this, and from the above quote, Newman assumes that her son knows nothing about sex, but she never considers the possibility that he might be embarrassed to talk about it. This may be because of her bizarre belief that her son can’t feel embarrassment.

From Chapter 6:

But what if you have a child who cannot be embarrassed by you—and doesn’t understand when he embarrasses you? What then? Nothing makes you appreciate the ability to be embarrassed more than having a child immune from embarrassment.

Later in the same chapter:

Do I want my son to feel self-conscious and embarrassed? I do. Yes. Gus does not yet have self-awareness, and embarrassment is part of self-awareness. It is an acknowledgment that you live in a world where people may think differently than you do. Shame humbles and shame teaches. One side of the no-shame equation is ruthlessness, and often success. But if you live on the side Gus does, the rainbows and unicorns and “what’s wrong with walking through a crowd naked” side of shamelessness, you never truly understand how others think or feel. I want him to understand the norm, even if ultimately he rejects it.

This is actually a fairly common misunderstanding for neurotypicals to have: that if an autistic person doesn’t show an emotion the same way that a neurotypical person does, they must not experience that emotion. Still, you’d think that a mother writing a book about her autistic child would make the effort to figure out if her assumptions were true, or at least that an editor might have brought this to attention. Since it seems that no one involved in the book’s publishing process seems to have figured this out, let me clarify: Autistic people absolutely feel embarrassment. In fact, I’d say it’s a major factor in the prevalence of depression and anxiety among autistic people because of the social rejection many if not all of us have had to deal with.

Back to the original point, however: In Chapter 13, Newman looks through her son’s internet search history (ignoring the “tiny flicker of alarm in Gus’s eyes” - because, after all, he can’t be embarrassed, right?) and finds the porn that he’d been looking at. Clearly, then, he has more understanding of sexuality than Newman realizes, but as far as anyone knows, he’s had to learn it from porn rather than his parents.

As anyone reading this probably already knows, Newman has faced a lot of criticism about her book. For the most part, she’s responded to it badly. Some of her reaction can be seen in this article from the Observer:

While Newman’s stories are meant to be humorous, one of the hallmarks of people with autism is that they think literally and have difficulty understanding jokes. Newman knew this and wrote it that way on purpose.

“This book really wasn’t written for an autistic audience,” she said. “It was written for parents, neighbors, people who may love and hopefully will work with someone who is on the spectrum.”

Setting aside the childish implication that anyone who disagrees with her book must not understand it, what stands out to me in this quote is how unreasonable it is to write a book about autistic people and which affects autistic people and then to say it’s not “for an autistic audience.”

A common mantra for disability activism is “Nothing about us without us” - that is to say, we have a right to be involved in things that affect us. In the above quote, Newman stands against this maxim. She assumes that she can say whatever she wants about without being criticized - and that she can communicate her ideas to all of the people around autistic people without any consideration for autistic people themselves.

Newman doubles down on this in a tweet from a few days ago:

Beginning to think well meaning people of #actuallyautistic are in fact enemies of free thought and free speech.  Which is not so good, coming from a group who say they’ve been silenced.

This tweet equates us with oppressive censors rather than people who’ve been hurt by her work. She portrays us as unreasonable for opposing eugenics against our community.

We might sigh a small breath of relief from this quote from the Observer article: 

“I am much less worried now and hoping to be a grandmother someday,” she [Newman] said. “That’s a result of my son’s growth and my own.”

That may be good news for her son, but it’s far too little too late for the autistic community at large. Her book is still being printed as it was written. We still have to contend with a critically acclaimed book that advocates for eugenics. There is a great deal of ignorance about autism in our society, and now the ideas in this popular book will be what some of that ignorance is replaced with.

[cowbroughcommunications]

In defence of seagulls

The bad PR award of the week must surely go to seagulls.

If it isn’t pictures of a Larus Argentatus eating a whole rat in the Daily Mail it has been a 14 stone man being put in hospital by the flying terrors.

From the media hysteria it would seem the whole country is living through a set of Hitchcock’s The Birds.

One expert from the Gull Awareness League even telling any media outlets that would listen that it will be babies next, snatched from their cots in broad daylight.

Let’s have a cull seems to be the tabloid answer, when in doubt shoot first, ask questions later.

But according to seagull expert Peter Rock on the BBC culling may not be the answer, we need to study their behaviour and make a decision on how best to live with the seagulls based on evidence. To call them seagulls incidentally is a misnomer, there are many different species of gulls, none of them restricted to coastal areas specifically – the first breeding pair of gulls recorded this year for instance was in Leicester.  Gung Ho pest control from past experience said Mr Rock is simply displacing the problem elsewhere.

Anyway let’s get this in some sort perspective. What is it that they have actually done to deserve such a bad press apart from doing what birds do, look for food ?

No one has actually died or been mutilated by the beak of a gull yet which, is more than can be said for the nation’s favourite pet, dogs.

According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) there are on average between two and six deaths every year by dog attacks over the last decade. There are also on average 6000 hospital admissions annually, the majority of them young children.

Where are the calls for mass culling of canines? Silly season in the media it may be, but one alleged killing of a family tortoise and few Aberdeen FC fans deprived of their half time pies does not warrant the forest of column inches and hours of airtime devoted to demonising an icon of seaside life.

They may not be as cute as dogs but they have hidden depths, just read Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach for a glimpse behind the squawking, dive bombing nuisances the media picture paints before advocating avian genocide.

Image by Arne Larson

[stephenmccull]

Mysterious Ailment, Mysterious Relief: Vaccines Help Some Covid Long Haulers

An estimated 10% to 30% of people who get covid-19 suffer from lingering symptoms of the disease, or what’s known as “long covid.”

This story is part of a partnership that includes NPR and KHN. It can be republished for free.

Judy Dodd, who lives in New York City, is one of them. She spent nearly a year plagued by headaches, shortness of breath, extreme fatigue and problems with her sense of smell, among other symptoms.

She said she worried that this “slog through life” was going to be her new normal.

Everything changed after she got her covid vaccine.

“I was like a new person. It was the craziest thing ever,” said Dodd, referring to how many of her health problems subsided significantly after her second shot.

As the U.S. pushes to get people vaccinated, a curious benefit is emerging for those with this post-illness syndrome: Their symptoms are easing and, in some cases, fully resolving after vaccination.

It’s the latest clue in the immunological puzzle of long covid, a still poorly understood condition that leaves some who get infected with wide-ranging symptoms months after the initial illness.

The notion that a vaccine aimed at preventing the disease may also treat it has sparked optimism among patients, and scientists who study the post-illness syndrome are taking a close look at these stories.

“I didn’t expect the vaccine to make people feel better,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at the Yale School of Medicine who’s researching long covid.

“More and more, I started hearing from people with long covid having their symptoms reduced or completely recovering, and that’s when I started to get excited because this might be a potential cure for some people.”

While promising, it’s still too early to know just how many people with long covid feel better as a result of being vaccinated and whether that amounts to a statistically meaningful difference.

In the meantime, Iwasaki and other researchers are beginning to incorporate this question into ongoing studies of long haulers by monitoring their symptoms pre- and post-vaccination and collecting blood samples to study their immune response.

There are several leading theories for why vaccines could alleviate the symptoms of long covid: It’s possible the vaccines clear up leftover virus or fragments, interrupt a damaging autoimmune response or in some other way “reset” the immune system.

“It’s all biologically plausible and, importantly, should be easy to test,” said Dr. Steven Deeks of the University of California-San Francisco, who is also studying the long-term impacts of the coronavirus on patients.

Patient Stories Offer Hope

Before getting the vaccine, Dodd, who’s in her early 50s, said she felt as if she had aged 20 years.

She had trouble returning to work, and even simple tasks left her with a crushing headache and exhaustion.

“I’d climb the subway stairs and I’d have to stop at the top, take my mask off just to get air,” Dodd said.

After she got her first dose of the Pfizer vaccine in January, many of Dodd’s symptoms flared up, so much so that she almost didn’t get her second dose.

But she did — and a few days later, she noticed her energy was back, breathing was easier and soon even her problems with smell were resolving.

“It was like the sky had opened up. The sun was out,” she said. “It’s the closest I’ve felt to pre-covid.”

In the absence of large studies, researchers are culling what information they can from patient stories, informal surveys and clinicians’ experiences. For instance, about 40% of the 577 long-covid patients contacted by the group Survivor Corps said they felt better after getting vaccinated.

Among the patients of Dr. Daniel Griffin at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, “brain fog” and gastrointestinal problems are two of the most common symptoms that seem to resolve post-vaccination.

Griffin, who is running a long-term study of post-covid illness, initially estimated that about 30% to 40% of his patients felt better. Now, he believes the number may be higher, as more patients receive their second dose and see further improvements.

“We’ve been sort of chipping away at this [long covid] by treating each symptom,” he said. “If it’s really true that at least 40% of people have significant recovery with a therapeutic vaccination, then, to date, this is the most effective intervention we have for long covid.”

A small U.K. study, not yet peer-reviewed, found about 23% of long-covid patients had an “increase in symptom resolution” post-vaccination, compared with about 15% of those who were unvaccinated.

But not all clinicians are seeing the same level of improvement.

Clinicians at post-covid clinics at the University of Washington in Seattle, Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, National Jewish Health in Denver and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center told NPR and KHN that, so far, a small number of patients — or none at all — have reported feeling better after vaccination, but it wasn’t a widespread phenomenon.

“I’ve heard anecdotes of people feeling worse, and you can scientifically come up with an explanation for it going in either direction,” said UCSF’s Deeks.

Why Are Patients Feeling Better?

There are several theories for why vaccines could help some patients — each relying on different physiological understandings of long covid, which manifests in a variety of ways.

“The clear story is that long covid isn’t just one issue,” said Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, which is also studying long covid and the possible therapeutic effects of vaccination.

Some people have fast resting heart rates and can’t tolerate exercise. Others suffer primarily from cognitive problems, or some combination of symptoms like exhaustion, trouble sleeping and issues with smell and taste, he said.

As a result, it’s likely that different therapies will work better for some versions of long covid than others, said Deeks.

One theory is that people who are infected never fully clear the coronavirus, and a viral “reservoir,” or fragments of the virus, persist in parts of the body and cause inflammation and long-term symptoms, said Iwasaki, the Yale immunologist.

According to that explanation, the vaccine might induce an immune response that gives the body extra firepower to beat back the residual infection.

“That would actually be the most straightforward way of getting rid of the disease, because you’re getting rid of the source of inflammation,” Iwasaki said.

Griffin at Columbia Medical Center said this “viral persistence” idea is supported by what he’s seeing in his patients and hearing from other researchers and clinicians. He said patients seem to be improving after receiving any of the covid vaccines, generally about “two weeks later, when it looks like they’re having what would be an effective, protective response.”

Another possible reason that some patients improve comes from the understanding of long covid as an autoimmune condition, in which the body’s immune cells end up damaging its own tissues.

A vaccine could hypothetically kick into gear the “innate immune system” and “dampen the symptoms,” but only temporarily, said Iwasaki, who has studied the role of harmful proteins, called autoantibodies, in covid.

This self-destructive immune response happens in a subset of covid patients while they are ill, and the autoantibodies produced can circulate for months later. But it’s not yet clear how that may contribute to long covid, said John Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Another theory is that the infection has “miswired” the immune system in some other way and caused chronic inflammation, perhaps like chronic fatigue syndrome, Wherry said. In that scenario, the vaccination might somehow “reset” the immune system.

With more than 77 million people fully vaccinated in the U.S., teasing apart how many of those with long covid would have improved even without any intervention is difficult.

“Right now, we have anecdotes; we’d love it to be true. Let’s wait for some real data,” said Wherry.

This story is part of a partnership that includes NPR and KHN.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Mysterious Ailment, Mysterious Relief: Vaccines Help Some Covid Long Haulers published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

[differentnutpeace]

Mysterious Ailment, Mysterious Relief: Vaccines Help Some COVID Long-Haulers

An estimated 10% to 30% of people who get COVID-19 suffer from lingering symptoms of the disease, or what's known as "long COVID." หวย บอล เกมส์ คาสิโนออนไลน์

Judy Dodd, who lives in New York City, is one of them. She spent nearly a year plagued by headaches, shortness of breath, extreme fatigue and problems with smell, among other symptoms.

She says she worried that this "slog through life" was going to be her new normal.

Everything changed after she got her COVID-19 vaccine.

"I was like a new person, it was the craziest thing ever," says Dodd, referring to how many of her health problems subsided significantly after her second shot.

And she's not alone. As the U.S. pushes to get people vaccinated, a curious benefit is emerging for those with this post-illness syndrome: Their symptoms are easing and, in some cases, fully resolving after they get vaccinated.

Judy Dodd suffered lingering symptoms of COVID-19 for nearly a year, until she got her vaccine.

Judy Dodd

It's the latest clue in the immunological puzzle of long COVID, a still poorly understood condition that leaves some who get infected with wide-ranging symptoms months after the initial illness.

The notion that a vaccine aimed at preventing the disease may also be a treatment has sparked optimism among patients, and scientists who study the post-illness syndrome are taking a close look at these stories.

"I didn't expect the vaccine to make people feel better," says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at the Yale School of Medicine who's researching long COVID.

Article continues after sponsor message

"More and more, I started hearing from people with long COVID having their symptoms reduced or completely recovering, and that's when I started to get excited because this might be a potential cure for some people."

HEALTH

Iwasaki On How The Coronavirus Vaccines Affect Long-Haul COVID-19 Patients

Add toPLAYLIST

Toggle more options

While promising, it's still too early to know just how many people with long COVID are feeling better as a result of being vaccinated and whether that amounts to a statistically meaningful difference.

In the meantime, Iwasaki and other researchers are beginning to incorporate this question into ongoing studies of long-haulers by monitoring their symptoms pre- and post-vaccination and collecting blood samples to study their immune response.

There are several leading theories for why vaccines could alleviate the symptoms of long COVID: It's possible the vaccine clears up leftover virus or fragments, interrupts a damaging autoimmune response, or in some other way "resets" the immune system.

"It's all biologically plausible and importantly should be easy to test," says Dr. Steven Deeks of the University of California, San Francisco, who is also studying the long-term impacts of the coronavirus on some patients.

Patient stories offer hope

Before getting the vaccine, Dodd, who's in her early 50s, says she felt like she had aged 20 years.

She had trouble returning to work and even simple tasks left her with a crushing headache and exhaustion.

"I'd climb the subway stairs and I'd have to stop at the top, take my mask off just to get air," Dodd says.

After she got her first dose of the Pfizer vaccine in January, many of Dodd's symptoms flared up, so much so that she almost didn't get her second dose.

But she did — and a few days later, she noticed her energy was back, breathing was easier and soon even her problems with smell were resolving.

"It was like the sky had opened up. The sun was out," she says. "It's the closest I've felt to pre-COVID."

SHORT WAVE

What's It Like To Be A COVID-19 'Long Hauler'

In the absence of large studies, researchers are culling what information they can from patient stories, informal surveys and clinicians' experiences. For instance, about 40% of the 577 long COVID patients contacted by the group Survivor Corps say they felt better after getting vaccinated.

Among the patients of Dr. Daniel Griffin at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, "brain fog" and gastrointestinal problems are two of the most common symptoms that seem to resolve post-vaccination.

Griffin, who is running a long-term study of post-COVID illness, initially estimated that about 30% to 40% of his patients felt better. Now, he believes the number may be higher, as more patients receive their second dose and see further improvements.

"We've been sort of chipping away at this [long COVID] by treating each symptom," he says. "If it's really true that at least 40% of people have significant recovery with a therapeutic vaccination, then, to date, this is the most effective intervention we have for long COVID."

A small U.K. study, not yet peer-reviewed, found about 23% of long COVID patients had an "increase in symptom resolution" post-vaccination, compared to about 15% of those who were unvaccinated.

But not all clinicians are seeing the same level of improvement.

Clinicians at post-COVID clinics at the University of Washington in Seattle, Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, National Jewish Health in Denver and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center tell NPR that so far, a small number of patients — or none at all — have reported feeling better after vaccination, but it wasn't a widespread phenomenon.

"I've heard anecdotes of people feeling worse, and you can scientifically come up with an explanation for it going in either direction," says UCSF's Deeks.

Indeed, doctors and online surveys also have found that a smaller fraction of patients say their symptoms worsened after vaccination, although generally doctors continue to advise that those with long COVID get vaccinated to protect against reinfection.

Why are patients feeling better?

There are several theories for why vaccines could help some patients — each relying on different physiological understandings of long COVID, which manifests in a variety of ways.

"The clear story is that long COVID isn't just one issue," says Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, which is also studying long COVID and the possible therapeutic effects of vaccination.

Some people have fast resting heart rates and intolerance to exercise. Others suffer primarily from cognitive problems, or some combination of symptoms like exhaustion, trouble sleeping and issues with smell and taste, he says.

As a result, it's likely that different therapies will work better for some versions of long COVID than others, says Deeks, the UCSF professor.

SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS

When Does COVID-19 Become A Disability? 'Long-Haulers' Push For Answers And Benefits

One theory is that people who are infected never fully clear the coronavirus, and a viral "reservoir," or fragments of the virus, persist in parts of the body and cause inflammation and long-term symptoms, says Iwasaki, the Yale immunologist.

According to that explanation, the vaccine might induce an immune response that gives the body extra firepower to beat back the residual infection.

"That would actually be the most straightforward way of getting rid of the disease because you're getting rid of the source of inflammation," Iwasaki says.

Griffin at Columbia Medical Center says this "viral persistence" idea is supported by what he's seeing in his patients and hearing from other researchers and clinicians. He says patients seem to be improving after receiving any of the four different COVID vaccines, generally about "two weeks later when it looks like they're having what would be an effective, protective response."

THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS

1 Shot Or 2 Shots? 'The Vaccine That's Available To You — Get That'

Another possible reason that some patients improve comes from the understanding of long COVID as an autoimmune condition, in which the body's immune cells end up damaging its own tissues.

A vaccine could hypothetically kick into gear the "innate immune system" and "dampen the symptoms," but only temporarily, says Iwasaki, who has studied the role of harmful proteins, called autoantibodies, in COVID-19.

This self-destructive immune response happens in a subset of COVID-19 patients while they are ill, and the autoantibodies produced can circulate for months later. But it's not yet clear how that may contribute to long COVID, says John Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Another theory is that the infection has "miswired" the immune system in some other way and caused chronic inflammation, perhaps like chronic fatigue syndrome, Wherry says. In that scenario, the vaccination might somehow "reset" the immune system.

With more than 53 million people fully vaccinated in the U.S., teasing apart how many of those with long COVID would have improved even without any intervention is difficult.

"Right now, we have anecdotes, we'd love it to be true, let's wait for some real data," says Wherry.

Real data — and more answers on how the vaccine might help — may come as soon as the next few months, says Topol, of the Scripps research institute.

"We have no treatment and the vaccine is the first real candidate treatment," he says. "That's why this is a desperate situation."

[thexerohour]

Show Notes for 10/30/2020

[[[Episode 53 is not yet posted]]]

Facebook deletes multiple accounts after linking lead singer in Christian rock band to QAnon

CANTON (WXYZ) — The lead vocalist of the Christian rock band, Sweet Crystal, was stunned when he went to log onto Facebook one day last week and discovered all nine of the accounts he administers for the band, their brand and business had been deleted because the Goliath of social media had somehow linked him to the conspiracy movement known as QAnon.

"So, because my profile disappeared, they all disappeared. They're all gone," said Marq Andrew Speck of Canton. "That's 11 years of my life and I have never posted anything political in my life. My stuff is all inspirational or videos, photos of the band, that kind of stuff. And it was just a kick in the gut."

QAnon is a far-right movement that believes satan-worshipping pedophiles in the "deep state" are plotting against President Donald Trump.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/local-news/facebook-deletes-multiple-accounts-after-linking-lead-singer-in-christian-rock-band-to-qanon

Trump the Defender 

Trump was less articulate about the very good people on both sides comment, because he was more concerned with defending citizens from the press than he was about PR. Defended Rush Limbaugh on interview on Fox and Friends when the journalist asked who the next conservative voice is. Trump cut her off, saying that we need to take a moment to acknowledge rushes accomplishments, and recognizing how much Rush supported Trump from day one. This was a very positive redirection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ji8OzFQ-bU

QAnon

This article is about the baseless far-right conspiracy theory.

QAnon is a “far-right conspiracy theory” alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US President Donald Trump, who is battling against the cabal. The theory also commonly asserts that Trump is planning a day of reckoning known as "The Storm", when thousands of members of the cabal will be arrested. No part of the theory is based on fact. QAnon has accused many liberal Hollywood actors, Democratic politicians, and high-ranking officials of being members of the cabal. It also claimed that Trump feigned conspiracy with Russians to enlist Robert Mueller to join him in exposing the sex-trafficking ring and preventing a coup d'état by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George Soros.

Learn More

This Documentary is graphic and disturbing. You’ve been warned.

Fall of the Cabal - https://odysee.com/@besthiking1:8/Fall-of-the-Cabal-Full-Documentary----by-Janet-Ossebaard:3

Out of the Shadows - https://odysee.com/@Juan-Sumoradis:d/OUT-OF-THE-SHADOWS---OFFICIAL-DOCUMENTARY---FULL:5

Let’s Talk about Leftist Conspiracies, Activists, and how Dangerous they are

Miles Taylor

Miles Taylor is an American former government official in the George W. Bush and Trump administrations, best known for his previously anonymous criticisms of Donald Trump.

In 2018, while deputy chief of staff to Nielsen, he wrote the New York Times op-ed "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" under the pen-name 'Anonymous', which drew widespread attention for its criticism of Trump. In 2019, he published the book A Warning.

In August 2020, while on leave from his job at Google, he produced an ad for Republican Voters Against Trump, denouncing Trump and endorsing Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Taylor was the first former senior Trump administration staffer to endorse Biden.[4] As of August 2020, he is the highest-ranking former member of the administration to endorse Biden.

In October 2020, Taylor revealed himself to be 'Anonymous'.

Neil Morris Ferguson - 1st Coronavirus Models

Neil Morris Ferguson OBE FMedSci (born 1968) is a British epidemiologist[3] and professor of mathematical biology, who specialises in the patterns of spread of infectious disease in humans and animals.  In February 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was first detected in China, Ferguson and his team used statistical models to estimate that cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were significantly under-detected in China. He is part of UK's Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. 

On 5 May 2020, it emerged that Ferguson had resigned from his position as a government advisor on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) committee after admitting to "undermining" the government's messages on social distancing by meeting up with a married woman. 

Neil has a squeky clean image if yo use Google. if you use Qwant, you can find these kinds of results.

“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”

John Fund writes:

[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. 

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

Just telling people what they want to hear.

guy? https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/

The Scientist Whose Doomsday Pandemic Model Predicted Armageddon Just Walked Back The Apocalyptic Predictions

British scientist Neil Ferguson ignited the world’s drastic response to the novel Wuhan coronavirus when he published the bombshell report predicting 2.2 million Americans and more than half a million Brits would be killed. After both the U.S. and U.K. governments effectively shut down their citizens and economies, Ferguson is walking back his doomsday scenarios.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/26/the-scientist-whose-doomsday-pandemic-model-predicted-armageddon-just-walked-back-the-apocalyptic-predictions/

James Hodgkinson  - Congressional baseball Shooter

On June 14, 2017, during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika. A ten-minute shootout took place between Hodgkinson and officers from the Capitol and Alexandria Police before officers fatally shot Hodgkinson, who died from his wounds later that day at the George Washington University Hospital.[7][8] Scalise and Mika were taken to nearby hospitals where they underwent surgery.[9] Hodgkinson was a left-wing activist. The Virginia Attorney General concluded Hodgkinson's attack was "an act of terrorism... fueled by rage against Republican legislators". Oh yeah, and he’s a Bernie Bro

He earned some hitjbs from media outlets, that hid his motives for the attack, but offered plenty of information for discredit him as a crazy person on his own 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/james-hodgkinson-history_n_59414028e4b003d5948c6f50

https://heavy.com/news/2017/06/james-hodgkinson-alexandria-gop-baseball-shooter-shooting-gunman-identified-illinois/

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/14/james-t-hodgkinson-congressional-shooter-dead-239547

Other Bernie-Bros

 The 19-year-old’s focus on Biden started in the spring, according to the order… Days after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) suspended his presidential campaign, Treisman, who had suggested in a Reddit post that he had to “save bernie,” posted a meme with the caption questioning whether he should kill Biden. 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jim-treacher/2020/10/23/bernie-bro-with-van-full-of-guns-and-explosives-plotted-to-assassinate-biden-media-buries-the-lede-as-usual-n1082276

Project Veritas Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC3V2vTTrx4

Willem Van Spronsen - Ice Bomber

The 2019 Tacoma suicide bomber attack occurred when an Antifa domestic terrorist with an assault rifle firebombed a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility housing hundreds of children with a massive explosion in Tacoma, Washington; The attacker was shot and killed by police. He also burnt a car and was attempting to ignite a large external propane tank.

https://loomered.com/2019/07/14/antifa-terrorist-attacks-ice-detention-facility-with-bombs-and-rifle-leaves-manifesto-behind/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tacoma-ice-police-shooting-washington-willem-van-spronsen-antifa-detention-centre-a9004131.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/14/armed-man-throwing-incendiary-devices-ice-detention-center-killed-officer-involved-shooting-police-say/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/tacoma-ice-facility-terror-attacker-ided-as-antifa-activist/

[rauthschild]

Was The World Hit With An Ethnic BioWeapon?

Was it a Russian weapon? Let's look at some evidence.

On April 13, 2020 at 11PM Dr. Fauci was in a presidential news conference. He stated, "African Americans and other minorities have worse outcomes." "Worse outcomes" is a politically correct medical term for patients who DIE more often than others. Corona virus may be an attempt to globally "cull the world's races" by the globalists. It provides two functions: culls the world population while at the same time destroying the world economy. Something to think about when you see your stimulus payment. How could this be spread world-wide so quickly? Drones were sent around the world over all the major cities, colored flat black with dark stealth radar coatings. They can fly at night with Covid-19 spray systems. In 1997 - "U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen referred to the concept of an ethnic bio-weapon as a possible risk. In 1998 some biological weapon experts considered such a "genetic weapon" plausible, and believed the former Soviet Union had undertaken some research on the influence of various substances on human genes."

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ethnic_bioweapon That was stated 22 years ago. Certainly more than enough time for designing/perfecting the virus and mass-produce it using existing, mature recombinant DNA technology to create enough virus material to spray all the cities. It is interesting that VERY FEW Russians are infected and have died from the Corona Virus. Here are the facts: As of this writing, "18,328 Russians infected - 148 died" in all of Russia as of April 14, 2020.

Source - https://www.arcgis.com/apps/ opsdashboard/index.html#/ bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ec f6 Were all the Russian deaths Caucasian? Was this a weapon replacing a nuclear strike? Or was the virus made by another country? In documentary films, how many black people do you see walking the streets of Russia and China? Corona strain A has been tracked genetically and came from China directly to America's west coast, while A and B were tracked genetically and came from Europe. It may be that B and C strains from Europe were designed to attack certain non-Caucasian races, such as blacks. Slowly the race statistics for those infected are coming out. APRIL 8th 2020 - SURPRISING RACE DETAILS: " The limited details released Wednesday showed that Latinos accounted for 23 percent of cases, a number higher than the 12 percent they represent of the state's population. Black patients made up 18 percent, which was also disproportionately high for a group that accounts for 9 percent of the state's population."

Source -  https://www.bostonglobe.com/ 2020/04/08/nation/state- releases-sparse-coronavirus- race-ethnicity-data-making- viruss-impact-hard-assess/ This implies these Corona virus strains were bio-engineered for use as a population control weapon on the world's races. What were CDC personnel doing in China working with Chinese scientists before the pandemic began then later recalled to America? China is a sworn enemy of America. Is it possible one of the "other races" Fauci referred to in the press conference is Latino? No one is talking. But France is flirting with easing its lock-down as soon as May 11.

It is well known that 11 is a number often used by New World Order people and progressives. Think 11 is a conspiracy theory? Look at the dates of these events:

* In a talk before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 11, 1990 George Bush Sr. stated, "We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective & madsh; a new world order — can emerge: a new era — freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony."

Source - https://www.dallasnews.com/ opinion/commentary/2017/09/08/ the-other-9-11-george-h-w- bush-s-1990-new-world-order- speech/ * Exactly one year later on 9/11/1991 the World Trade Center was attacked by explosive-laden pickup trucks in the basement which failed to bring down the towers. * Exactly 11 years later to the day 9/11/2001 occurred. All just a coincidence of course... Ted Twietmeyer

[cromadeals456]

perfumes blog

At fragrancereviews.in , we like to think of ourselves as “perfume human beings.” To earn that name, we should stay at the pulse and know the entirety that’s going on inside the fragrance global—attending conferences, speakme to our colleagues around the world, and journeying with others inside the enterprise.

Our marketing, sales, and leader perfumers additionally read everything that they are able to approximately perfumes which includes information, reviews and extra. Within the past 15 years, lots of information has been shared via fragrance blogs that are written with the aid of folks who are just as obsessed on scents — we’re a large fan of many of the ones blogs, and we like the ideas and data they proportion.

While there are so many exquisite fragrance blogs available, we felt we need to slim our list to the Top 8 sites we follow to live in touch, so you can see a number of the blogs and writers we follow and find out why they’re on our radar. We accept as true with, the extra educated a ability buyer is, the much more likely they're to shop for fragrances based on their precise wishes, and the more thrilled they will be with their purchase.

While buying perfume is a personal preference that has been approximately the in-man or woman revel in, there’s plenty of on line assist to be had. Keep in thoughts, too, that the Millennial generation is much more likely to check blogs earlier than making purchases, so more statistics is higher to your capacity clients—regardless of their age.

Best All-Around Perfume and Scent Blogs Bois de Jasmin isn’t simplest a perfume weblog. It also explores different life-style subjects consisting of splendor, artwork, and meals. This blog’s writer, journalist and photographer Victoria Frolova, has been authoring the weblog when you consider that 2005, but has many extra years of enjoy as a professionally educated perfume professional and perfume enterprise analyst. Her interests are eclectic and may not mainly tie into the perfume enterprise, however are interrelated. One week, she’ll explore constructing a perfume dresser, and the next will offer product evaluations, accompanied through a recipe. She additionally boasts a large following and counts the The New York Times, Women’s Wear Daily, and Vogue as lovers.

Fragrantica is a big internet site that’s arguably one of the optimum perfumery web sites to be had. The amount of information is culled from each online sources and contributions from Fragrantica’s print magazine. The web site talks about trends, making it valuable for perfumers and heady scent businesses. There’s statistics approximately perfumes each beyond and gift, and user can discuss all of it inside the huge on line community. This is THE location to be if you love all things fragrance.

Best Vintage Perfume Blog Yesterday’s Perfume is a treasure trove of statistics for individuals who love antique perfume. Anyone who has spent time as a infant playing with their grandmother’s atomizers and spritzing herself with Chanel No. Five is in all likelihood to be a fan of this weblog. The writer has reviewed hundreds of perfumes, consisting of older, 1920s scents like Arpege through Lanvin and Shalimar via Guerlain, however also the ones in later years, such as 1975’s Halston. Each evaluate breaks down the scent to talk about pinnacle notes, coronary heart notes, and base notes.

Best Scent Gift Blog If you love thoughts about the best scented presents—in particular for birthday presents or holiday gifts—then The Perfume Expert is your ace inside the hole. Need to shop for your girlfriend perfume? This is the region to be. Want to replace your mother’s heady scent palette by means of understanding what she likes now? Come on by means of. While this website online produces high-quality fragrance reviews, it additionally offers professional pointers and has a “Perfume a hundred and one” section, which is best for novices. With articles that include topics like, “How to Pick Out Cologne,” “How to Shop for Perfume,” and “How to Find Your Signature Scent,” it’s possible to move from fragrance novice to fragrance gourmet just by means of setting aside a while to read this informative weblog.

Best Outside-the-Box Scent Blogs Ayala Moriel, who writes Ayala’s Smelly Blog, creates herbal artisan perfumes. She runs a small perfume business from her domestic and enjoys talking approximately the fragrances that come from plants and culmination around the arena, entire with images to describe not only the scents that she encounters, but her average adventure thru her lifestyles. During her travels, she talks approximately the myriad of latest scents that she encounters. Her reviews are in-intensity, and she or he comments often on olfactory articles and herbal perfumery. She perspectives perfume as a part of a way of life choice that consists of food, drink, entertainment, tour, and innovative pastimes, making sure that she blends in specific elements to create thrilling blogs with lots of information.

Indie Perfumes is all about hand-crafted and microniche perfumes. The writer loves how innovative and creative new scents can be, and the way their may be used to enlarge a perfume business’ logo, as well as the logo of the enterprise’ customers.

Best Perfume Sites for Beginners If you want to begin carrying cologne, but require some help, you have to visit Cologne Masters. They have a Cologne 101 Beginners sections, a Getting Started Guide, or even an editorial on How to Wear Cologne. There’s additionally a few aesthetics blanketed, consisting of the item, “The Top Coolest Looking Fragrance Bottles.” This web page has concept of the entirety, and it’s additionally a brilliant aid for folks that want to buy a friend or member of the family a fragrance, but don’t understand where to start. After perusing this website online, you’ll never be afraid to select out a cologne once more.

If you’re seeking out a selected fragrance or fragrance based to your love of floral or sandalwood, then Perfume Posse’s award-triumphing blog is for you. They’re also concerned with perfume training, so that you’ll see such things as “How to Find Perfume Samples,” or a primer on how to decant your own perfume, plus some greater advanced subjects. This blog has been featured within the Fashion and Style section fo the New York Times’ and Daily Mail Online.

In Conclusion

These fragrance blogs personify the high-quality of scent reviews, information, and tendencies in our industry. If you’re searching out perfumers for custom heady scent creation, our skilled staff at Alpha Aromatics can assist.

[universityheadquarters]

Writing a Winning Personal Statement for Grad School

  Going to graduate school is a big deal. Even as more and more undergraduate students see their baccalaureate degrees as stepping stones more than academic endpoints, it’s can still be an arduous process. You’ll need to be prepared to delve deeply into your core subject. After all, the goal of graduate school is to become a master of your chosen subject.

Thus, your personal statement needs to reflect that you have not only the academic credentials, but the personal wherewithal to do this. After all, graduate programs are a bit more personal than most undergraduate departments. You need to demonstrate a deep interest in the subject and a history that reflects dedication and determination.

This page is dedicated to the process of writing a personal statement for graduate school. This is one part of your application that serves as your true introduction to the department. From this essay, no matter any apparent negatives in your full application, you may be asked to interview or even enroll. After all, if the school is considering another student with the same grades and test scores, the final decision will likely come down to who had the better essay.

  What Is It?

Steps to Take

How to Write

  What is A Personal Statement for Graduate School?

A personal statement for graduate school is sort of like a mission statement for a business or other project. You'll discuss why you want to attend that specific program and what you intend to accomplish while you are enrolled. It will certainly help to discuss how your background supports your estimated success.

Since this is a personal statement, you can feel free to take a more casual, conversational tone. It is with the help of this essay that you can give the reviewers more than statistics and let a little of your personality shine through. However, that does not imply using slang or poor grammar. Keep a personable, but professional tone throughout the piece. Be objective and realistic with your goals but also show how your personal story aligns with your academic and professional aspirations. Thus, if your motivation to attend medical school stems from watching a doctor heal a family member, you should certainly include that along with how that experience kicked off a lifelong fascination with disease prevention, anatomy, etc.

When Do you Need to Have a Personal Essay Ready?

Your personal essay needs to be ready at the same time as the rest of your application. In fact, it may be helpful to write your personal essay well in advance of your application process. However, keep in mind that you should tailor your personal statement to match specific graduate programs.

For instance, if you are applying to MBA programs you will need an essay that details your business history and future. However, certain programs may offer concentration areas that are of particular interest and you'll want to focus on those specifically, altering your essay for each program's unique features. On the other hand, you might be applying to traditional MBA programs alongside dual-degree programs. For those you should consider how you plan to synthesize your learning in the professional world.

What Do Schools Look for in a Personal Essay?

Graduate programs are looking for students that will be a good fit in their academic community. That is, they can easily look over your GPA and test scores, but that doesn't indicate much in terms of your dreams and desires. They want to see that students are driven and bring appropriate experience and knowledge to the table. They want to know that your participation will be unique and helpful. However, this means slightly different things to different programs.

To find an appropriate focus, look over the admissions web pages to find essay examples and any statements that describe what the admissions team seeks. Some might want to see a discussion of your extra-curricular activities, but others may want a strictly academic or professional focus. If you have a prepared essay, use that as source material from which you craft a unique personal essay to match each potential program.

Steps to Take When Writing Your Essay

Write a comprehensive draft of your personal essay. Make this version very personal. Express all of your deepest motivations and desires for graduate school. In this draft, allow yourself to be as emotional as you can. This process will help you not only sort out your feelings, but you might also discover deeper motivations for your pursuits and new goals may arise.Consider this an exercise in self-exploration that is best kept to yourself. After all, you will need to be professional, objective, and concise in your finished drafts. Once you've got all of that off your chest, you can focus on the final draft(s) that you'll send to your desired graduate program(s).If you intend to apply to multiple schools, having a thorough source document will be enormously helpful. You may be able to recycle certain bits on each essay, such as the introduction, but the other parts may need to be cut or revised to meet the needs of varying program directives and focus.

Get motivated. Make sure you are motivated for every program you're applying to. This goes double for your top two or three choices. You need to be enthusiastic and excited to attend the program. If you have that sort of excitement driving you, admissions counselors will pick up on it.To avoid any sort of burnout, try to space out your writing sessions. Even if you are trying to knock out all your essays in a single day, take breathers between each one. Take a walk around the block or run a few errands. When you return to your desk, your mind will be refreshed and ready to express your driving desire to attend that program.

Know your audience. This is a general rule of formal and business writing, but in this context, it means that you should know the specific requirements of each admissions department. Things like word count requirements mean a lot and should be heeded. You should also look for any tips on their website. Many programs provide examples that they found particularly effective. Study these and analyze what made those examples so successful.Though every program will rely on numbers such as your GPA and test scores, they may really want to hear about your extra-curricular activities as well. A lifelong dedication to photography, for instance, may reveal not only a strong and consistent work-ethic, but a perpetual dedication to improvements, on top of the requisite attention to detail.Other programs may be more interested in your academic experiences. Here, you might describe the first intro class you took and how that changed your major and the entire course of your life. These programs may also be interested in relevant work experience or special academic projects, such as scientific studies or internships.

Plan each essay. For you, this might entail a detailed outline. Others may jot a series of notes gleaned from what they learned on the admissions web page. Regardless of your specific method, make each planning document unique and specific to a particular program.If you need to craft a series of essays, write out your plan or outline for each one prior to crafting a full draft. This way you can have this planning step completed for each application and you won't be constructing each essay from whole cloth. Further, this will give your brain time to process these plans and you may discover new ideas between the planning and writing phases.

Make revisions and edits. One maxim professional writers live by is, "Writing is revising." You may jot out a full draft in a single sitting and think that it's perfect. However, if you return to it later, there's a significant chance that you will need to make at least a few changes.It will also be immensely helpful to share your essay with a friend or colleague who can provide an objective critique. Though it's not always comfortable to hear criticism, any outside suggestions may make the difference between an average essay and one that blows away the admissions counselors. You might even consider hiring a professional writer/editor to assist you.

How to Write a Successful Personal Statement

Know your material. In this case, you must know exactly why you want to attend graduate school and what you intend to gain from it. Further, you need to know what you bring to the table. These things may seem self-evident, but that's not always the case. The more you explore your inner motivations and long-term goals the better you will be at articulating them in a personal essay.

Avoid clichés and seek specifics. This is a personal essay, after all. Thus, when you discuss your motivation for a specific field, write it in such a way that it's unique to you. If you want to attend a graduate art program, don't say you have always loved to draw. Rather, recall a moment from your past that served as a definitive moment and made you the artist you are today.

Be clear and concise. Most personal essays have word count limits, so make each word count. This is where revision is key. Look for words that can be easily omitted. One good place to start cutting is adverbs. Try cutting as many adverbs and adverbial phrases as possible. In their place, make sure that you have strong verbs and adjectives to do the heavy lifting.You can also reduce extra verbiage by culling stock phrases.

Know that you are unique. While some of your fellow students may seem to have exceptional academics and dramatic personal stories that dwarf what you have to offer, know that you are also worthy. If you dig deep into your story, you are sure to discover that you have special strengths that any graduate program would love to have exemplified in their students.

Remember that grammar matters. These days, many undergraduate programs undervalue grammar. Don't let this dissuade you from its importance in effective writing. Consider that you are headed to graduate school in order to become a professional. Thus, your writing should reflect a well-educated professional who attends to their words and phrases with care. Make sure to have a grammar guide on hand when you begin writing. If you don’t have a copy of a grammar guide, you can search for the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL), which can answer any writing question you may have.

Style matters more than you might think. Try varying your sentence structure and question each comma usage. If you write one long, compound sentence, try to follow up with a shorter, simple sentence. On the other hand, a series of simple sentences can sound staccato and even a bit immature. If this is a new idea to you, try to use nothing but simple sentences in your first draft. On revision, see which sentences can be combined into compound sentences.Essentially you want your essay to flow and be as easy to read as possible. With that in mind, try to build effective transitions between paragraphs, and avoid repeating words as much as possible.

Always use the active voice. You want to come across as confident and professional, so avoid using ‘to be’ verbs or other passive constructions. When you use an active voice, the action (verb) is attributed to the subject. In this case, most of your sentences are about you and you want your reader to see you as proactive and effective. Passive voice will only sabotage this mission. You can use Grammarly’s free, online editor to catch as many of these passive phrases as possible.

Tell everything as a story. This doesn't imply that your essay needs to read like a short story, but it should carry the reader through a narrative. Flesh out you’re the essay with enough specific details as to make you a fully-realized individual. You should also include action that leads to some sort of change or conclusion for the reader. Part of this work can be done by choosing specific words and phrases that demonstrate who you are, your worldview, and how it evolved to its present form. As always, much of this will be achieved in the revision process.

Focus on a theme or thesis. If the program provides an essay prompt or question, make sure you stick to it. If it has multiple parts, be certain to address each with depth and detail. When you revise, ask yourself if each sentence directly relates to the theme or prompt question. If you happen to stray off on a tangent, that's okay. You may be able to revise that material and make it work for that essay. If not, it may be useful for another essay.

  The article write up Writing a Winning Personal Statement for Grad School See more on: University

The following article was first published to

UniversityHQ - UHQ

14350 N 87th St #110

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

(800) 793-5011

https://goo.gl/m7tm2n

[businessliveme]

Trump Is Driving Women Into Law School: Justin Fox

(Bloomberg Opinion) — A few short years ago, law schools were falling out of favor with young Americans looking for a route to affluence, influence, or both. Business schools, on the other hand, were attracting more students than ever.

This year, the number of applicants to U.S. law schools is up an estimated 3.2%, after rising 8.1% last year. Graduate business schools in the U.S. saw a 6.6% decline in applications last year, and indications are that applications are down again this year as well.

What changed? Donald Trump became president, silly!

OK, there are some other factors at work, especially at business schools, where the traditional MBA (master’s in business administration) is falling out of favor even as other programs gain. But President Trump’s policies and utterances really do seem to be driving more young Americans to go to law school while at the same driving foreign students away from U.S. business schools. Right now this shift matters mainly to people who work at law schools and business schools, but it will affect certain high-end parts of the U.S. labor market for decades to come.

Here are the statistics, starting with law schools, where enrollment began plummeting in 2011 and hit bottom in 2015 and 2016.

There was also a decline in the quality of law school applicants, at least as measured by scores on the Law School Admission Test, and that has turned around too. The percentage of applicants getting scores of less than 150 (out of 180) rose from 33.6% in 2012 to 38% in 2015; this year it’s back down to 33%.

The fact that the number of new law students stopped falling in 2016, before Trump was elected, is an indication that this can’t be all about him. The decline in first-year law students from 2011 to 2015 was so sharp that it brought enrollment back to early 1970s levels, which may have been overkill given that there are a lot more legal jobs now than there were in the 1970s, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects an 8% increase in the number of jobs for lawyers from 2016 through 2026.

Still, a law degree is rightly no longer seen as quite the path to a secure and remunerative career that it used to be, and a lot of today’s law school applicants seem less interested in their future earnings profiles than in using their legal skills to fight the power, or something like that. In one survey conducted by test-prep provider Kaplan, 87% of law-school admissions officers said “the current domestic political climate” was a significant factor in 2018’s applications increase. In another, 45% of students taking Kaplan LSAT prep courses this February said the political climate affected their decision to apply for law school, up from 32% a year earlier.

In legal circles this phenomenon has come to be called the “Trump bump,” which sounds about right. More precisely, with young people and college graduates both tending to give the president low approval ratings, it seems likely that most of these political-climate-inspired applicants are inspired by opposition to Trump and his policies. Also, all of this year’s and most of last year’s applicant gains were driven by women, who as a rule like the current president a lot less than men do. As recently as 2013, women were still a minority among applicants to U.S. law schools. This year they accounted for 55%. So U.S. law schools will for at least the next few years be churning out more smart, politically engaged, probably left-leaning lawyers, most of them women.

At U.S. business schools, the big Trump-related story is that foreign students are staying away. At the 400 U.S. business schools that reported international and domestic application volumes to the Graduate Management Admission Council, international applications fell 10.5% in 2018 and domestic applications just 1.8%.

Meanwhile, GMAC reports that graduate business schools in Asia, Europe, and Canada all experienced application gains in 2018. In another survey by Kaplan, 31% of business school admissions officers said international students concerned about the U.S. political climate were the number one cause of the 2018 application decline, and 74% said they expect these concerns to weigh on applications in the years to come.

Trump administration policies have also made student visas harder and more expensive to get, which is surely also depressing applications from overseas. (Because legal systems vary from country to country, U.S. law schools haven’t been nearly as big a magnet for foreign students as business schools are, and thus haven’t been affected as much by these changes.)

Still, Trump can’t be the only reason MBA applications are down, given that master’s programs in business had stopped growing well before his presidency seemed even conceivable.

The number of people getting undergraduate business degrees has risen this decade even as master’s programs have flat-lined. Within master’s programs there’s also been a significant shift, according to the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, with the MBA and other generalist degrees (such as “master of management” degrees) losing ground to specialized degrees in accounting, finance, data analytics, and the like.

What’s driving these changes? Worries about debt loads and employability seem to be pushing more students into undergraduate business majors (versus, say, the liberal arts), which may reduce subsequent demand for MBAs.

Increasing job-market demand for specific skills, enhanced by automated applicant-screening methods that sift for those skills on resumes and LinkedIn profiles, has shifted demand away from generalist programs.

The strong job market of the past few years may be reducing the willingness of would-be MBA students to take two years out of their careers. Then there’s the increasing availability of alternatives that don’t require a career break: Virginia Tech, Wake Forest University, the University of Iowa and the University of Illinois, among others, have ditched their full-time MBA programs, with the latter two opting to focus instead on online MBAs.

None of that can be blamed on Trump, and none of it is necessarily a bad thing. But at least part of the decline in foreign applications can be and might be. What long-run effect could this have?

Well, the chief executive officer of the most valuable publicly traded corporation in the U.S. (and the world), Microsoft Corp.’s Satya Nadella, is a foreign-born recipient of a U.S. MBA, as is Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, which makes all the money for fourth-most-valuable Alphabet Inc. And while Nadella and Pichai originally came to the U.S. to study engineering and got their MBAs later, Ajit Jain, head of the all-important insurance arm of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., came to the U.S. for the MBA.

These are just a few examples culled from the top of the market-cap rankings, but they indicate that reducing the number of foreign students coming to the U.S. for MBAs and other graduate degrees might noticeably cut into the future talent pool of U.S.-based business.

The post Trump Is Driving Women Into Law School: Justin Fox appeared first on Businessliveme.com.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2TFiCa7 via IFTTT

[bharatiyamedia-blog]

Fintech Tendencies 2020: Challenge Libra, Amazon Banking, Millennials

http://tinyurl.com/y6sh4lol Now that we have had a bit greater than per week to decompress from our time in Montauk for Brainstorm Finance, we have been reflecting on every part we discovered and culling the important thing tendencies that emerged from our discussions with high executives. That is why, in lieu of a visitor on this week’s “Balancing the Ledger,” the three of us—Robert, Jeff and I (Jen)—collectively hosted the present, rehashing the convention and the soundbites that echoed past the stage. Listed here are a couple of of probably the most salient predictions and themes expressed on the occasion: 1. Fb might battle to launch its Libra Cryptocurrency As Fb announced its Project Libra the day earlier than Brainstorm Finance kicked off, naturally it was the discuss of the convention. However one persistent theme tempered attendees’ optimism: Skepticism that the cryptocurrency might really get off the bottom. “Libra is a really thrilling second when it launches—definitely the query is that if and when it’ll launch,” Barry Silbert, the CEO of Digital Foreign money Group, instructed Fortune on the sidelines of the convention. Jeremy Allaire, the CEO of Circle, pointed to regulatory hurdles and different complexities concerned with making a stablecoin backed by not only one fiat foreign money, however a basket of assorted nations’ financial notes. “I believe that’s one thing that each people, companies and governments must in the end get comfy with, so it’ll be attention-grabbing to see if Libra is ready to launch and the way that’s perceived,” Allaire instructed Fortune in a separate interview. 2. Large banks aren’t actually all that screwed. Adam Dell, who bought his firm Readability Cash to Goldman Sachs’s client financial institution Marcus and now serves as its head of product, made some headlines together with his pithy feedback at Brainstorm Finance: “There are solely two sorts of banks— there are banks which are screwed, and banks that don’t know they’re screwed,” he mentioned. However his employer, Goldman Sachs, did not appear to fall into both class, nor did the opposite massive banks that had been represented by their CEOs on the convention, with their huge world scale and trillions of {dollars} in belongings. (Evaluate that to fintech startups and challenger banks, the place even the main corporations have but to amass various billion every.) Fortune govt editor Adam Lashinsky put Dell’s feedback on to Citi CEO Michael Corbat, who responded, “You’re screwed for those who’re in denial. and I might say as an establishment we’re completely not in denial.” Citi can be “lifeless” if it caught to the established order, he added, “However we’re a 200-year-old establishment that’s reimagined itself a number of occasions, and we’re very a lot in that course of at the moment.” Corbat additionally described himself as a “true believer” in blockchain expertise. Financial institution of America, whose CEO Brian Moynihan opened the convention, additionally provided a telling statistic as an instance why his firm would not be left behind: “We now have extra blockchain patents I believe than anyone else does now,” he mentioned. 3. Amazon might come for banks As my colleague Jeff Roberts put it on this week’s present, “Amazon has all of the elements to be a financial institution.” One most important ingredient: Its shut relationship with prospects. Added Robert Hackett, “In the event you take a look at among the client sentiment, folks like Amazon far more than they like their banks.” On the convention, although, Patrick Gauthier, vice chairman of Amazon Pay, threw cold water on the idea: “The truth that we will construct one thing doesn’t imply that we must always,” he mentioned. Nonetheless, he did not solely rule out a banking foray someday additional off sooner or later—nor did he scoff at the concept that Amazon might very effectively construct a financial institution if it needed to. The next day, Citi’s Corbat was requested whether or not he feared that Amazon or one other massive tech firm would construct a competing digital financial institution. “It is a query we get requested steadily,” Corbat acknowledged. “I do not know their ambition or intentions per se, however what I might say is, we do not take something as a right and we’re not dismissive. We’re not dismissive of Amazon, I am certain we’ll get to Fb—anyone who’s obtained a pair billion customers, I believe it’s worthwhile to take note of.” It is clear the massive banks aren’t writing off Amazon as a possible competitor in the future. 4. Millennials’ web worths are bulging For years, the favored narrative across the millennial technology has been that their heavy scholar debt burdens and the truth that lots of them graduated throughout or across the Nice Recession would condemn them to a dimmer monetary outlook than prior generations. At Financial institution of America’s final rely, in 2018, solely 16% of millennials had saved not less than $100,000. At Brainstorm Finance, although, executives painted a distinct image of millennials. “They are not all sitting of their basements smoking weed on a regular basis,” mentioned Andy Rachleff, the CEO of Wealthfront, a robo-advisor whose prospects are primarily millennials. And, he added, “They’re within the wealth accumulation part of their lives.” Walt Bettinger, the CEO of Charles Schwab, in the meantime, mentioned that tons of of hundreds of millennials are actually flocking to the brokerage yearly, and make up greater than half (53%) of Schwab’s new accounts. Their common web price? $350,000 in household assets, Bettinger added. “So the common millennial we’re successful has that stage of affluence at the moment already.” GOT TIPS? Ship suggestions and tricks to ledger@fortune.com, discover us on Twitter @FortuneLedger or e-mail/DM me straight on the contact data under. Please inform your mates to subscribe. THE LEDGER’S LATEST A Key Player on Citi’s IPO Team Has Left to Set Up His Own Shop by Lucinda Shen Here’s How You Can Soon Use Citi ‘Thank You’ Points at the Register by Rey Mashayekhi ‘It’s Just Lazy’: Current’s CEO Lashes Out at Facebook’s Calibra for Its Similar Logo by Kevin Kelleher and Robert Hackett Apple Card Still Dropping This Summer, Says Goldman Sachs’ Consumer Chief by Rey Mashayekhi Why Amazon Says It Won’t Be Taking on the Big Banks Anytime Soon by Kristen Bellstrom Citi CEO: In an Age of Fintech Disruption, Don’t Sleep on the Bank Branch by Shawn Tully DECENTRALIZED NEWS To the Moon… Goldman Sachs’ CEO says the bank is exploring blockchain payments and stablecoins. Fb’s Libra might discover the best adoption in India and Africa. Cryptocurrency will get The Onion’s satire treatment: a Rolos blockchain for “digital caramel belongings.” Former Fed nominee Stephen Moore is engaged on a “decentralized central bank” for cryptocurrency. Bitcoin’s rally reveals it is “probably here to stay.” A Bitcoin fund outperformed all others within the second quarter of the yr. You may be capable of time the Bitcoin market in any case. Central bankers are looking at cryptocurrency extra severely. “Coinbase impact” sends a newly listed cryptocurrency’s price hovering. …Rekt. There is a diarrhea-causing illness called Crypto that is spreading in swimming swimming pools. Bitcoin tumbles back down. Hedge funds are shorting Bitcoin once more. Cryptocurrency app demand  hasn’t bounced back together with the rise in crypto costs. Fb’s Project Libra partners are still weighing whether to take part in its governing affiliation. JPMorgan’s defunct digital banking app Finn was doomed by inner discord on the agency. Illicit Bitcoin spending is ready to hit a new record this yr. A rise in cryptocurrency mining is stressing Iran’s power grid. “Crypto mafias” could also be changing the PayPal mafia. Legal professionals anticipate Fb’s Challenge Libra will end in tax nightmares. BALANCING THE LEDGER Source link

[theliterateape]

The Sales Gene and Why I Don’t Have It

By Don Hall

“I’ll admit, most neck tattoos look like shit but that one is actually cool.” “Yeah, I got it in Mexico after I played a few gigs in the area. So, you got a contest or something?” “Yup. $10K in free windows and doors. Are you a homeowner?” “Yeah but my windows are good.” “How old is your home?” “I’m really not interested but thanks.” “Are your windows aluminum or vinyl?” “I’m not…” He shook his head and walked away.

My trainer sidled up to me.

“We don’t curse.” “Huh?” “You said ’shit.’” “I did? Uhm… sorry.” “And you need to get him talking about the three pain points*. You let him off the hook way too easy.”

When I was in college, I took one summer to come home to Kansas. I got a job as a telemarketing sales representative for a company selling Amoco Multi-cards to old people who didn’t need them. Cold calls based on cursory interest. Someone who signed up for information or took a survey and now were in the system would get a call and be strong-armed into getting the card (with all the padded-on fees and inflated interests rates with which these sorts of cards are loaded up). There was a script filled with pages of rebuttals — the built-in responses to any objection someone might have for denying the rep a sale.

”I appreciate that. However…”

Every objection was appreciated and we never said But. However was the go to vernacular. No matter what their objection might be, the goal was to steer them back to the pitch. Sales were rarely focused on the positives of the product. Rather, drilling down on the negatives of their lives the product could improve was the dance.

I was relentless. I never took No for an answer. I was really good at it. So good that a month into my summer, I was promoted to floor manager, running around, checking other reps’ phone calls and motivating them to close those sales. The people on the other end of the calls were simply numbers to tally on a white board in the front of the room. They were mostly lonely and wanted to talk to someone. They were easy pickings.

At first, it was thrilling. I was setting company records every day. I was bringing home some bank. I got bonuses and my natural over-achiever mentality was fed. One morning, I woke up and realized I was an awful human. I was pigshit in the disguise of a guy set to help these people by selling them something they didn’t need or want. I hated myself. I quit that afternoon and swore I would never do telemarketing again.

Thirty-three years later, after moving to Las Vegas and discovering that my varied and substantial resume in Chicago meant next to nothing in this new, money-driven town, my need for some work and some cash to pay the freight of living superseded that three decades-long lesson. At least it wasn’t phone sales, right?

The position was listed as Events Representative, which sure sounded like something to do with events. The cold splash of water in my face when coming from the midwest was that, in the desert, events means something almost completely different than the industry I had spent the past decade or so involved in. Here, events are simply designed to sell people things, involve a contortionist, or get them married. This position (Events Representative) was standing in front of a table in a the lobby of a gym or Ace Hardware or in the rows of vendors at a street fair and selling them window replacements. For ten dollars an hour plus commissions. Wearing a lime green or shocking pink nylon polo shirt.

Hell, I needed the dough and Dana is working part time in a bowling alley so I bit.

I noticed in the training an odd but predictable dichotomy. The training was designed to sell me on the idea that what I was doing was specifically not high pressure sales. In bold writing it told me that “CUSTOMERS are not cold statistics. They are human beings with feelings and emotions like our own. CUSTOMERS are people who bring us their wants. It is our job to fill those wants. CUSTOMERS require trust, are respected, cared for, and delighted.” I liked this. It felt right and ethical.

On the other side of the training was the script. The videos I had to watch were adamant that I follow the script verbatim. The dude in these videos was intense. The hard sell from his angle culminated in a semi-rant about people who thought they were smarter than his system and his assurance that, no, I was not smarter than the script. If I held true to the exact wording, I would succeed.

The trainer was adamant about this as well. There were the five commitments required from each customer. There were the six key principles to keep at the front of every interaction (my favorite being “Control direction, timing, and conditions of each conversation”).

The script with its pages of rebuttals and forced language (“NAME — from what you’ve told me, you do know that you will have to replace some or all of these windows in the next couple of years — whether you want to or not — right?”) was dripping with manipulation. It was no different than the multi-card script except to be done in person rather than on the phone. Instead of “I appreciate that, however…” the language toward direct statements of intent followed by the go-to closer “Does that sound helpful?”

My first few days of shadowing other sales reps… er… events reps… wasn’t difficult, but the cues from everyone who had been doing this for a while were in conflict with the training. “No one really uses the script,” I was told. “Tell them what they need to hear. Push the appointment. This is all about getting those numbers up.” A few were a bit more humane. “I go with a soft sell. Trying to convince someone who doesn’t want to even think about replacing their windows to do that is weird so I just make conversation and try to gently guide them that way.”

The bottom line was the number of appointments set in a given shift. No appointments set meant you blew it and would get hauled in and re-trained. Or canned.

In high school, the Wichita Aeros needed a mascot. You know, one of those dudes in a giant fluffy costume whose sole job is to rally the crowd and get them pumped up? Except that the guy before me had stolen the Captain Aero costume. They said they’d pay me 100 dollars a game but I had to supply my own outfit. I culled together some masks and big shoes and whatever I could and went out to do the gig. No one was interested.

I had beer bottles thrown at me. I was called every filthy name you can think of, and one woman, drunk on cheap beer and a horrifying life, tried to punch me out. I smiled a shit-eating grin throughout, doing lame cheers I remembered from basketball games and trying goofy shit to get the crowd less hostile.

It was a nightmare. After three games, I told them I couldn’t do it anymore. They never paid me a dime.

That’s exactly what sales feels like to me.

*Three Pain Points

These are defined as locating using specific questions the problems people may be having that your product or service can rectify. I’m told that these are the key to quality sales. Building up a sense of urgency in solving these pain points is the skill required and that sense of urgency is created through appealing to an emotional rather than pragmatic foundation.

I was told that I had exactly the right personality for this. I had been told that before. Outgoing, enthusiastic, dominating. Except for one thing: I hate being sold. I can’t stand aggressive sales tactics. I don’t want to be confronted on the street with a forced conversation that ultimately ends with a request for my time or money for almost anything. The inauthenticity of that faux interaction is designed solely to separate me from dollars. I empathize more with those hapless souls being accosted than I do with the cutthroat game of selling. Now, I’m being paid to be one of those bullshit artists. And wear a fucking day-glo polo shirt in public.

I get it. Most of capitalism is driven by sales. Most sales are made by people selling things and ideas. The time-share thing here in Vegas. The guy on the street-corner with the spinning arrow sign trying to get you to come into the third-tier mobile phone store. The kid with the box of candy to raise money for his basketball team. All some variation on the theme of non-stop, unwavering sales.

The window replacement company was actually a good one. The service was amazing, the warranty was amazing, the product is the best in the business. If I wanted new windows, this was the place without any question. And when I spoke to someone in the field who wanted new windows and wanted to talk about it, it didn’t feel like selling, it felt like helping (which was the first message of the training, right?). Unfortunately, replacing windows is not generally on the top of the to-do list for most families. So, 98 percent of the people walking by do not give a shit and are annoyed when their time is invaded by some fucker trying to get them to stop and have a conversation about window problems.

It was the day I spent in the lobby of a high-end gym that broke me.

People coming and going with one singular purpose: to workout. I stood there, smiling and announcing the $10K giveaway. No one — no one — was interested. It felt like a set up, placing me in a location where failure was the only option and bothering people with a sales pitch my only tool. I spoke to one guy about his workout but as soon as I diverted it to windows, he walked away. Not an “Excuse me, I gotta go” sort of thing but a stop talking and simply walk away sort of thing. There was enough time in between waves of people that I really had some space to float my perspective up and over myself and see what it was I was doing. I racked my brain to find a way to be good at this job without being that douche bothering people with a fake smile and faker concern.

I realized that I didn’t want to be good at this.

I admire a good salesperson. Geary Yonker, David Raphael, Chris Davila. All amazing verbal magicians with the built-in DNA designed to convince people of those three pain points, establish that sense of urgency and close the deal. David once told me that sales was like dating — tell them what they want to hear, be the person they can trust and rely upon, have sex, then move on to the next one. I once dated like that but it didn’t make me feel very good about myself. It felt empty. It felt sad to see people as merely a means to an end.

I’ve ruminated on my decision to take other work and leave this Willy Loman of the New Millennium Lifestyle by the wayside. Is it ego? Am I just too proud to stand out and try to sell shit on the street to strangers? Or is it merely that I don’t have the instinct for it? I have no problem handing out flyers for BUGHOUSE! and inviting strangers to come see our shows. A friend used to laugh at me as stood outside WNEP Theater before shows and would remark on “Don Hall, out peddling theater.” That feels different, though. Inviting someone to see something versus creating a forced dialogue to sell something is a horse of different color, I think.

Sales is a skill in manipulation. I do not have the gene. I could probably learn but the feeling I get when trying to steer a nice, normal conversation into a place where I control the direction, timing and conditions of that dialogue is a quagmire of self-loathing. Perhaps it’s the reason I’ll always be an artist before a businessman. Perhaps it’s why I’ll never have a fat bank account.

I’m okay with that.

Hopefully, I won’t forget this thirty years from now.

[anupsingh11-blog]

Best Gynecologist in Coimbatore | ElaWoman

Gynecology is the technology of reading, treating and dealing with girl reproductive health, features, imbalances, and illnesses. In common parlance, Gynecology is the technological know-how of women fitness. The phrase Gynecology is of Greek origin in etymological angle. It is derived out of two phrases gyne- women and logia- have a look at. The lady reproductive gadget has frequently consisted of vagina, uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervix and breasts, that is dealt by way of Gynecology as a have a look at and medical exercise.

Gynecological Treatments- Medicinal, Surgery & Consultations

Gynecological treatment are furnished much less than 3 interrelated heads- drug treatments, surgical procedure and consultation. Normally session is the first step in any of the treatment for gynecological diseases and abnormalities. On the basis of session, a Gynaecologist provides medical or surgical treatment to any girl relying on the severity of the difficulty.

For your cause, we have culled out the areas under which gynecologist session and treatment may be provided. However, as the world of gynecological medication may be very huge, it's miles difficult to offer medicinal statistics in this text.

A Gynaecologist may be consulted for the functions such as -

Consultation for pregnancy detection and all ranges of pregnancy care and childbirth.

Problems within the menstrual cycle and menstrual bleeding (abnormal/no menstruation, heavy/non menstrual bleeding, menstrual cramps, menopause and so on.

Treatment and care of numerous reproductive and hormonal diseases including Endometriosis, Uterine Fibroid, PCOS/PCOD (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome/Disease) and so on.

Infertility assessment through Postcoital testing, Endometrial biopsies, HSG (Hysterosalpingogram) trying out, semen analysis etc.

Treatment and care of various sexual dysfunctions and libido control, (erectile problem diagnosis and care, Female Sexual Arousal Disorder etc.).

Detection and treatment of female genitalia issues (pelvic vicinity diseases, infections, discharge, swelling, sexually transmitted diseases and so forth.)

Family Planning care.

Weight control and care.

IVF Specialists and Doctors

Dr. S Dhanabagyam

Dr. Anuradha

Dr. D Babu Rani

Dr. D Silambuchelvi

Dr. Jayanthi Veerappan

Our specialist panel consists of over one hundred incredibly skilled infertility professionals. Get professional medical advice and 2nd opinion now! All your online Appointments are FREE!

Dr. S Dhanabagiyam

Dr. S Dhanabagyam is an award prevailing gynecologist and infertility specialist that specialize in IVF, IUI and High-risk being pregnant care. She has received numerous awards and recognitions within the discipline of infertility and gynecology. Dr. S Dhanabagyam has completed MBBS from Stanley Medical College, Chennai and MD in Obstetrics and Gynecology from Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore and become provided the Best Infertility Practitioner Award inside the year 2017. She has received several different awards and recognitions for her knowledge within the discipline of obstetrics and gynecology she is one of the Best Gynecologist in Coimbatore.

Dr. S Dhanabagyam (Sudha Hospitals) in R S Puram has hooked up the health facility and has won a devoted clients during the last few years and is also often visited by numerous celebrities, aspiring models and other honourable clients and international patients as nicely. They additionally plan on expanding their commercial enterprise similarly and offering offerings to several more sufferers due to its success over the past few years.

Dr. Anuradha

Dr Anuradha is an IVF professional and maternal fetal treatment professional who finished MBBS and MD in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Anuradha later finished DNB in Obstetrics and Gynecology (Fellow in Fetal Medicine). She focuses on Infertility assessment, IVF, IUI and Reproductive Medicine specialities. Dr. Anuradha is presently practising at Womens Center, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore. For extra information, visit elawoman.Com and she is one of the Best Gynecologist in Coimbatore

Dr. Anuradha in Coimbatore has made a as a substitute fantastic name within the metropolis. According to many, the physician classifies as one of the 'go-to' trendy physicians inside the place. The stronghold this doctor has in the clinical field has not simplest drawn in patients from in and around the region however from throughout the town as properly. The clinic is positioned in Kavundampalayam and may be determined without problems as it's miles right Mettupalayam Road. Conveyance is effortlessly to be had and the region is nicely linked. The neighbourhood is packed with an enormous variety of industrial areas in addition to residential ones.

Dr. D Babu Rani

Dr. D Babu Rani is a Gynecologist,Obstetrician and Infertility Specialist in Peelamedu, Coimbatore and has an revel in of 34 years in these fields.  She finished MBBS from Coimbatore Medical College in 1984,DGO from Army Hospital,Delhi in 1990 and MRCOG(UK) from Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London in 1998. She is a important part of Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London (RCOG). Some of the services supplied by way of the physician are: IVF,Test Tube Baby,Adiana System and In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and many others. She has additionally completed MRCOG from Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, London in 1998. At present, Dr. D Babu Rani is training at Morpheus Sri Ganesh Fertility Center, Coimbatore. For greater information, go to elawoman.Com

Dr. D Silambuchelvi

Dr. D Silambuchelvi is a Tamil Nadu-primarily based Gynaecologist who practises at the three branches of Vamsam Fertility Centre that she has been instrumental in organising in the state. She is to be had often on the Vamsam Fertility Centre housed in Shree Sivaa Hospital in Coimbatore. She can also be contacted each Friday on the Vamsam Fertility Centre in Tirunelveli or each Saturday at the Trichy branch. The Coimbatore department of Vamsam Fertility Centre became established in 2007 and acquired BMQR ISO 9001:2008 certification in the 12 months 2010. In the identical yr the Tirunelveli centre changed into inaugurated, followed by means of the Trichy centre in 2013 she is one of the Best Gynecologist in Coimbatore.

Dr. D Silambuchelvi has acquired the MBBS, DGO and MD degrees as her qualifications. Her team of tremendously professional docs and embryologists, blended with contemporary era and scientific facilities, offers a variety of complete fertility treatment which include IUI, IVF, ICSI, egg and embryo donation, surrogacy motherhood, male infertility treatment , semen banking and embryo freezing in an moral and emotional way. Dr. Silambuchelvi believes that infertility treatment must be to be had to all patients, irrespective of their price range constraints, and endeavours to try in the direction of sufferers accomplishing excessive achievement charges with appreciate to conception. Vamsam Fertility Centre has been dedicated to maintain personalized carrier for infertile sufferers and pursuits to provide the highest wellknown of care whilst giving sufferers direct and honest records.

Dr. Jayanthi Veerappan

Dr. Jayanthi Veerappan is one of the maximum well-known names the various satisfactory Gynecologists and Obstetricians at Kovai Medical Center and Hospital in Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. A Graduate in MBBS from Coimbatore Medical College in 198, Dr. Jayanthi efficiently completed her DGO from Coimbatore Medical College in 1990 and MD from Madras Medical College in 1994. She is specialized in Infertility treatment, IVF, Maternal Fetal Medicine, Gynaecology Services, Obstetrics Care, Pregnancy Care and Delivery. She has been practicing in the scientific and clinical sphere for greater than two many years and has been treating the sufferers with Gynecology troubles and other reproductive problems. You can book an appointment with Dr. Jayanthi Veerappan at Elawoman. Dr. Jayanthi Veerappan in Puliyakulam has established the medical institution and has received a devoted clientele over the last few years and is also regularly visited by using several celebrities, aspiring fashions and other honourable clients and worldwide patients as nicely.

Dr. Jayanthi Veerappan in Coimbatore treats the numerous illnesses of the sufferers by means of helping them undergo notable treatments and methods.  the hospital givest treatments for Uterine Fibroids or Myomas, Ovarian Cysts, Endometriosis, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Urinary Problems, Vaginal Discharge, Subfertility, Menopause, Gynaecological Cancers, Abnormal Pap Smears - Pre-Invasive Cervical/Vaginal Disease and Vulva Conditions.

For more information, Call Us :  +91 – 7899912611

Visit Website  : Elawoman

Elawoman Contact

                              Ela Facebook   Ela Twitter    Ela Instagram   Ela Linkedin    Ela  Youtube