#what a performance from Blackburn

[pernillecfcw]

Do love a penalty shoot out when it’s not chelsea😂

[bullet-prooflove]

Logistics: Eric Blackburn x Reader

Tagging: @kmc1989 @4everademigod @totalstitchlover19 @doglover-24 @bravo4iscool

Prequel to:

Scars - Eric loves every single part of you.

Three Months (NSFW) - Eric returns home from Afganastan.

In the weeks that follow the building collapse, it becomes clear that you’re looking at a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation period. The military covers that thankfully but it’s the logistics you’re concerned over because you’re still struggling to perform a lot of the basic tasks that would have been no problem for you in the past. That’s what happens when you have a traumatic brain injury, things get knocked about, thrown off kilter.

“It’ll come back in time.” You’re told as you fumble with the stress ball in your hand and Eric can see the concern and frustration on your features.

You haven’t even begun to consider navigating your release from the hospital. Eric though he’s already five steps ahead, working out the logistics, planning ahead.

You live in an apartment building with an elevator that barely works at the best of times, it’s not feasible considering your current mobility. His place is the best option for your recovery. He lives in a bungalow in a quiet neighbourhood with a small garden, he keeps in decent shape because he’s always the one hosting cookouts.

It’s unlikely the military will let him take leave so abruptly without a good explanation and your relationship isn’t public knowledge because it fucks with the chain of command. There’s only one thing he can do and he does it without telling you because he knows you would do everything in your power to stop him.

The morning after he finds out you’re being released he turns up at General Auster’s office and informs him he’s in violation of the fraternization policy, that he’s been seeing another officer in his chain of command.

The expression on the other man’s features is one of disbelief because if there is anyone you can count on to do the right thing it’s Blackburn. There are questions, lots of them and Eric answers them accordingly, with his chin up and his head held high.

“Why now?” Auster asks him. “This has gone on for a year already without being detected, what drove you to come here and tell me this now?”

“She needs support when she leaves the hospital.” He informs his superior officer. “Someone to be around for the first couple of weeks and I knew you wouldn’t approve a leave request so this is the next best option.”

“Ah so it’s the suspension you want.” Auster says with understanding, his pen tapping lightly against the desk. “You’re taking a hell of a risk Eric, I think I can convince them on the thirty days, but you’re risking separation of your contract, confinement. Is she really worth all that?”

For a moment he’s taken back to the building collapse, to those thirty minutes Bravo team spent trying to dig you out, the ones where he didn’t know if you were alive or dead. Those were the worst eighteen hundred seconds of his life. Everything else that came afterwards he could handle but that section of time he was a wreck.

“I wouldn’t be here if she wasn’t.” He remarks dryly and Auster must see the sincerity in his features.

“Alright then.” Auster says finally. “I’ll get back to you by the end of the day regarding the decision.”

It’s as he’s on the way back to the hospital that evening that he gets the call. A two month suspension with a reduction of pay for three months after and a reprimand in his jacket. It’s the best he could have hoped for. Now he can focus on what’s important, helping you get back on your feet.

You lose your shit when he tells you and he expected no less because your biggest concern throughout the duration of this relationship is making sure that he’s protected, that he’s not compromised by you.

“What were you thinking?” You snap from your hospital bed as he begins to pack up your things for you. “Everything you’ve worked so hard for…”

He sighs as he comes to sit on the edge of your bed, his fingertips chasing away the hair that falls over your features.

“I was thinking about you.” He says softly as he looks into your eyes. “I was thinking about how you’re going through something very big and very scary and that I don’t want you to face it all alone.”

“Eric…” You begin but he cuts you off by placing your palm over his heart.

“All of that other shit it doesn’t matter.” He tells you, his thumb stroking over the back of your hand. “All that does is that I’m still yours and you’re still mine. It really is as simple as that.”

Love Eric? Don’t miss any of his stories by joining the taglist here.

Interested in supporting me? Join my Patreon for Bonus Content!

Like My Work? - Why Not Buy Me A Coffee

[dalekofchaos]

2024 is the year I have slowly lost my love and respect for Taylor Swift.

I love Taylor for her music and the person I thought she was and in a way I still love her, but in 2023-2024 it feels like the person who I thought I loved isn't the person who I thought she was. And I just began to lose my respect for her. Here are some examples of how I've lost my respect for Taylor as a person.

Not one word of support for Palestine. Not even wearing a Artists for Palestine pin. She went out of her way in speaking out against Trump and Blackburn, but she can't tweet or speak out ONE ounce of support for Palestine. Instead she entered her Football girlie for one of the most racist cultural appropriating football teams since the Washington Redskins during her Bread & Circus era.

And before anyone says "what about other artists" I direct you to this

Yes more artists should speak up, not just Taylor. Billie Eilish should speak up. Olivia Rodrigo should speak up, Miley Cyrus, Beyonce, Halsey, Lorde and more should speak up for Palestine. Taylor Swift is one of the biggest names in the industry, if not the biggest and one word from her and her thousands to millions and billions of fans will show their support for Palestine and demand a ceasefire. Like I don't know how else to explain how vital it is to use your voice as an artist and a huge platform as Taylor has.

She stopped speaking up for the LGBTQA+ community in 2021. She had all Pride month to speak up and could've used the Eras tour to speak up for us, especially in states that were heavily anti-trans and anti drag queen. But she didn't. Instead she propped up her precious racist Matty fucking Healy. She can have Trans performers in her music video and drag queens, but she can't speak up for them?

Taylor the climate criminal, need I say more?

Taylor the Billionaire. No one person should have this amount of money and it needs to be talked about more and honestly Taylor in 2024 is starting to feel like the female Elon Musk.

Questionable associations. David O'Russell. You can't tell me with a straight face that Taylor's team do not run background checks. Either they didn't do said checks or they did and Taylor did not care and would tarnish her image to work with a predator just for an Oscar. The Matty Healy fling. A brief fling and it was brief because everyone showed their complete disgust and contempt for it. Brittany and Jackson Mahomes friendship. Jackson is on video assaulting a woman. Taylor is a SA survivor. Brittany told the victim to "get over it" Taylor is shown high fiving Jackson, Taylor is shown for months with Brittany despite being a SA apologist and even having dinner with Brittany after the charges are dropped. Revolting. Taylor doesn't care about SA unless it's about her or how it can benefit her.

Continued silence on important issues when she said she would use her platform and voice. BLM? Nothing. Abortion/women's rights? Nothing. LGBTQA+ rights? Nothing. Palestine, absolutely nothing not even the bare minimum. The closest she'll get to using her platform is telling her fans to vote. Nothing but the bare minimum white feminist centrist rhetoric.

Ever since the countdown to Midnights and Midnights' release, the vibes I got from Taylor were not good. And something just felt off. 2023 and 2024 was just a mask off for Taylor and showing us who she really is and that she isn't who we thought she was.

And before anyone comes at me and says "Taylor is not an activist" yes, but she specifically made Miss Americana to tell her fans she would use her platform and voice to speak out more on important issues. She has done nothing. At this point I wish Miss Americana was never made, and I'm pretty sure Taylor wishes she never made it as many of her fans are disappointed in her silence throughout the years.

At best, Taylor is a coward. At worse, Taylor doesn't care beyond the glass house she has built her career on.

At this point all it feels like is she cares about the fame of her success and from her relationship with Travis and the profit of her brand and nothing else. Nothing about her is authentic, everything is performative. It's all about control and profit to Taylor Swift. It feels as though she's ostracized everyone in her audience who isn't white or heterosexual and made it clear we need to find a new guiding light and I think we should.

And in her own words she is telling us who she is

“i just think it’s so frilly and spineless of me to stand up here and say ‘happy pride month!!’ while people are coming for their necks.”

"My entire moral code is a need to be thought of as good"

" Spineless in my tomb of silence "

'I never had the courage of my convictions, as long as danger was near.'

"I've never heard silence quite this loud"" You should find another guiding light "

"You're on your own kid"

"Do something, babe, say something" (Say something)

"Lose something, babe, risk something" (You're losing me)

"Choose something, babe, I got nothing" (I got nothing)

Despite all this, I still love her and will continue reblogging gifsets, but I am done defending everything she does and intend to hold her accountable because when you love someone you just have to point out when they are wrong and just have to hold out hope they will be a better person, even if that hope is so very low.

[offender42085]

Post 1102

“You are suffering the consequences of the sentence that was imposed.” --Judge

Brandon M Fox, Florida inmate N51790, born 1999, incarceration intake April 2023 at age 23, scheduled for release December 2047

Possession of Photographs-Child Sex Performance

In August 2023, a former Daytona Beach Police officer tried to withdraw his plea to possession of child sexual assault material, saying that his defense attorney had told him he would be sentenced to no more than five years.

But instead of five years, Brandon Michael Fox was sentenced to 25 years in state prison. And that's what his sentence will remain after Circuit Judge Elizabeth Blackburn denied Fox's request to withdraw his plea.

The hearing included testimony from Fox's former attorney Aaron Delgado. It also included testimony that Fox and his sister had discussed hiring a private investigator to tail a prosecutor and a police detective.

Fox had been with the Daytona Beach Police Department for two years before his arrest in April 2022. Investigators found about 100 images and videos of child sexual abuse material on his phone and said Fox also participated in an online chat room on Kik in which group members shared more than 3,800 illegal images.

Fox entered no contest pleas to 38 counts of possession of sexual performance by a child, each punishable by up to 15 years in prison. It was an open plea, but prosecutors agreed to waive a minimum sentence of 63 years. That gave the judge a wide sentencing range: from no jail time all the way to 570 years in prison.

Blackburn sentenced Fox on March 15, 2023 to the 25 years in prison followed by 45 years of sex offender probation. Fox must also register as a sex offender.

At the hearing Fox testified that Delgado had told him he would face no more than five years in prison if he entered the plea agreement.

During cross examination, Assistant State Attorney Mark Interlicchio asked Fox whether in court on January 18, 2023 when he accepted the plea agreement if he said he had been promised no more five years.

"You never mentioned … this promise of five years, none of that,” Interlicchio said. “I was under the impression that my attorney had my best interest,” Fox said.

Judge Blackburn then told Fox to answer the question. Interlicchio repeated the question and Fox said, “No, sir.”

During questioning by his new attorney, Asad Ali, Fox said that after the sentence Delgado told him, “Oh, I didn’t expect that to happen. ”

Delgado took the stand and testified that prosecutors had at one point offered Fox 15 years in prison and that he would have to register as a sex offender. Later they reached an agreement on an open plea with the state waiving the minimum guideline sentence.

Delgado repeatedly denied guaranteeing Fox at any time that the prison sentence would be no greater than five years. Ali did not cross-examine Delgado.

The judge said she reviewed the plea form with Fox at the January plea hearing and she read portions which stated that Fox agreed no one had promised him a specific sentence and that he understood the judge was not required to follow any state recommendation.

Blackburn said that Fox, who is serving his time at Columbia Correctional Institution in Lake City, was “you are suffering the consequences of the sentence that was imposed.”

As the judge ruled, Fox lowered and shook his head.

3d

[tobyisave]

ask dump #3!

rch

Yes and no! Holetta Baby is a character song for a story I wrote in high school with some friends I've since fallen out of touch with --- because of that (esp. since some of the characters were based on ourselves), and because it's frankly bizarre, I don't know if I'll ever share too much about it.

All you really need to know is that it's from the perspective of a man whose wife flew away as he gradually realizes that she's never coming back. IIRC she was just fleeing for a while because their love was forbidden, hence "Loving you's so good I fear it's wrong." In reality, she got trapped on an island somewhere and he was too heartbroken to consider the possibility that she might need rescuing.

Thank you!!! I really can't overstate how happy I am that Townsend resonates with other people who have intrusive thoughts. It's something I still have trouble talking about but she's been a good outlet for that. Also quite happy that the angst is hitting right ehehe

art

Honestly no, I have so much trouble with that too OTL. Occasionally I use the warp tool on a sketch to help put an interesting line of action before I actually do lineart? I recently started experimenting with drawing in fisheye perspective too, and that definitely shakes things up.

Thank you so much!!

I almost always draw in Procreate (with an iPad + apple pen). I have 2 sets of favorite brushes on there - these are what I usually use:

6B Pencil (found in the "sketching" category). I use this for EVERYTHING from lines to rendering.

Studio Pen ("inking")

Medium Hard Airbrush aka the most generic brush on earth

Inka ("inking")

Spectra ("painting") - annoying because it can alter colors by pressure though

Then I have this set I call 'ink kit' which I use when I want to change things up without actually switching mediums lol

Blackburn ("drawing") - Really thick brush that makes me think a little harder about lines. I also have a duplicate modified to make it a little smoother and smaller & I switch between those two when doing lineart on these pieces

Gesinski Ink ("inking") - one of those pens that's flat so it's really thin or wide depending on the angle

Oil Paint ("painting")

Watercolor ("painting") -- just for coloring stuff in when it doesn't have to be precise

Also these niche uses:

Driven Snow ("elements") for freckles

Nikko Rull ("painting") for skin texture

adamandi

It was just a fairly thick curling iron (curled upwards all over my head) and then a lot of hairspray. If I remember correctly, the first night it was done by our costume designer Hahnji Jang (@/hahnjij on insta!) and then I did it myself the rest of the nights. It was definitely their idea at least - my hair is naturally pretty flat and up til then I assumed Vincent's would be too, lol.

No idea where the bag (or really any of it) is from, sorry. I really liked walking around in his swooshy jacket, and I ended up buying it afterwards. As far as normal people clothes I would actually wear, I really really liked his pants, which I was unfortunately not able to keep.

There actually exists in my mind a completely different "biblically accurate Vincent," which is the Vincent I had been picturing all the way up until the actual performances. I always pictured him with long black hair and freckles, and I considered drawing on freckles for the show because of that.

[bitbybitwrites]

SAG-AFTRA Applauds Announcement of the NO FAKES Act

October 12, 2023 

Proposed Bill Establishes Protections in Voice and Likeness Performance

Sen. Chris Coons, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Sen. Thom Tillis today announced the NO FAKES Act, a proposed bill creating new and urgently needed protections for voice and likeness in the age of generative artificial intelligence.

The proposal offers historic federal intellectual property protection against the misappropriation of voice and likeness performance in sound recordings and audiovisual works. It prohibits the unauthorized use of digital replicas without the informed consent of the individuals being replicated.

The world has seen what generative artificial intelligence can do, and witnessed the ease with which an individual can be replicated without consent. The damage to lives, and careers, is real and immediate. This proposal provides an invaluable tool for performers, allowing them to maintain control over their most valuable assets.

“A performer’s voice and their appearance are all part of their unique essence, and it’s not ok when those are used without their permission. Consent is key, and I’m grateful that Sens. Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar and Tillis are working to give performers recourse and providing tools to remove harmful material,” said SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher.

“The explosion in popularity and capability of generative artificial intelligence has flooded the internet with AI-created songs, videos, and voice recordings which exploit the voices and likenesses of our members without consent or compensation,” said SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland. “For our members, their voice and likeness is their livelihood. They spend a lifetime improving their talent and building their value. It is outrageous to think someone can undermine that value with a few prompts and clicks on a keyboard. Thank you to Sens. Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar and Tillis for spearheading this urgent and important effort.”

SAG-AFTRA looks forward to working with Congress to finalize and pass this historic legislation.

SAG AFTRA NEWS RELEASE HERE

*****

Senators Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar, Tillis announce draft of bill to protect voice and likeness of actors, singers, performers, and individuals from AI-generated replicas

OCTOBER 12, 2023

U.S. Senator and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) announced they have released a discussion draft of their Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act today to protect the voice and visual likenesses of individuals from unfair use through generative artificial intelligence (AI).

“Generative AI has opened doors to exciting new artistic possibilities, but it also presents unique challenges that make it easier than ever to use someone’s voice, image, or likeness without their consent,” said Senator Coons. “Creators around the nation are calling on Congress to lay out clear policies regulating the use and impact of generative AI, and Congress must strike the right balance to defend individual rights, abide by the First Amendment, and foster AI innovation and creativity. I am thankful for the bipartisan partnership of Senators Blackburn, Klobuchar, and Tillis as we work to protect all individuals from unauthorized replication and ensure that the United States sets clear rules governing the intersection of AI and intellectual property.”

“Songwriters, actors, and our incredibly talented creative community deserve the right to own their name, image, and likeness (NIL). This legislation is a good first step in protecting our creative community, preventing AI models from stealing someone’s NIL, and ensuring that those rights are given primary consideration under the law. I look forward to joining Senator Coons and my colleagues in the Senate and House to develop strong bipartisan legislation we can pass into law,” said Senator Blackburn.

“More and more, we’re seeing AI used to replicate someone’s likeness and voice in ads, images, and videos without consent or compensation. Our laws need to keep up with this quickly evolving technology,” said Senator Klobuchar. “We must put in place rules of the road to protect people from having their voice and likeness replicated through AI without their permission.”

“While AI presents extraordinary opportunities for technological advancement, it also poses some new problems, including the voice and likeness of artists being replicated to create unauthorized works,” said Senator Tillis. “We must protect against such misuse, and I’m proud to co-introduce this draft legislation to create safeguards from AI and protect the authentic work of these artists.”

The NO FAKES Act would prevent a person from producing or distributing an unauthorized AI-generated replica of an individual to perform in an audiovisual or sound recording without the consent of the individual being replicated. The person creating or sharing the unauthorized replication would be liable for the damages caused by the AI-generated fake. Exclusions are provided for the representation of an individual in works that are protected by the First Amendment, such as sports broadcasts, documentaries, biographical works, or for purposes of comment, criticism, or parody, among others.

With the rapid advance of generative AI, creators have already begun to see their voices and likenesses used without their consent in videos and songs. Notably, the song “Heart on my Sleeve,” which used AI-generated likenesses of the voices of pop stars Drake and The Weeknd, accumulated hundreds of thousands of listens on YouTube, Spotify, and other streaming sites within days and was poised to appear on streaming charts before it was removed by streaming services.

As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Senator Coons has long advocated for protecting U.S. intellectual property rights and making U.S. intellectual property law more reliable, effective, and predictable. Senator Coons has held a series of hearings focused on exploring the impact of AI, proposing regulation frameworks, and ensuring U.S. leadership on AI policies.

Clickm on a link below to see the draft of the act

[triviareads]

I see what you mean about bitchy heroes. I like them if they are mean but not too mean if that makes sense. And they can't be a*holes to the heroine. Do you have other recs like that?

It's a fine line! Bitchy heroes to me are like, a particular niche that I don't see very often in newer historical romances; you have the grumpy ones that are closed off initially, the repressed ones, the *revenge* focused ones, the ones who hate the heroine initially and argue with her a lot..... but that doesn't make them bitchy imo. Bitchiness is a mindset.

St. Vincent from Devil in Winter by Lisa Kleypas: The thing about St. Vincent is, he's never particularly dangerous (see: his flop kidnapping attempt), BUT he is definitely a bitch to Evie in the beginning of DiW, like the time he, ya know, calls her a bitch, and also the general bitchiness of lines like "I'd never be so bourgeois to sleep with my own wife".

Nikolas Angelovsky from Prince of Dreams by Lisa Kleypas: Definitely a bitch when he threatens Emma's suitor into leaving her, gets her drunk, sleeps with her, and announces that he thought about marrying her since she was 13 after he gifted her a tiger to spite her dad, whose wife he kidnapped.

Tony from Theory of Earls by Kathleen Ayers: The kind of man who's told he's hot so often, he doesn't think twice of asking a debutante to perform the piano for him in only her chemise, and umtimately compromising her when she asked his help to compromise someone else. BUT the wildest thing about Tony is something he says when he finds out the Maggie is pregnant which...... I was NOT expecting. Was the redemption fully realized? idk but he's hot so I forgive him.

Anthony Bridgerton from The Viscount Who Loved Me by Julia Quinn: He is. I won't elaborate.

Blackburn (aka FIGGY) from That Scandalous Evening by Christina Dodd: He's angry, confused, still turned on by Jane's *obsession* once his nude sculpture goes public, and the humiliation doesn't stop him from accosting her when she tries to apologize and press her hand to his dick and going "note the difference".

Kerrich from Rules of Engagement by Christina Dodd: Doesn't think twice about buying a child to gain respectability and hiring a governess who he IMMEDIATELY starts chasing after all while being very confused why he's into this "ugly" woman.

Asa Makepeace from Sweetest Scoundrel by Elizabeth Hoyt: Generally bitchy to Eve re her looks and buttoned-up vibe initially but he's super butthurt when she declines to paint him naked :(

Godric from Outrageous by Minerva Spencer: Again, not dangerous but he spent the entire prior book weirdly stalking the hero and heroine and generally being a little weirdo which understandably got the hero's sister Eva so concerned she kidnapped him.

[your-absent-father]

The daughter's of Lady midnight: oc introduction

I introduced a new wip yesterday. Here are first patch of the characters. These are the assasins of Lady midnight. Other character's will be on a separate one.

All pics are from pinterest. Send me an ask if you know the og creator.

Tw: lot of murder talk, mention of a racist attack

Lillian Blackburn aka "the ember"

Age: 27

The most well known killer in London since jack the ripper. Best known for the cross she leaves in her victim's bodies in a cross formation. Taught by a french soldier during her time as a nurse in the war how to use a gun.

Lillian Blackburn has been a cynic ever since her brother, the only living family member, died in a great war. There has always been only one person she trusts fully: herself. She has never even trusted Lady midnight, the enigmatic widow of a king of london crominal underground, who gave her a job as a assasin to Lady midnight's growing network, and a cabaret singer by day. Only time she has fully let herself trust someone, was the biggest mistake she has ever done. Victor Sharpe, her would-have-been husband.

Inez Morley aka "the crimson"

Age: 19

Inez Morley, even as full blown member of the assasin group, is the one not taken seriously, mostly due to her using seduction as a part of her killings. She is the most loud and brash of the group, getting into most trouble with the law, but get off most easiest with lady midnight. Lady midnight swears Inez to be the heir of her empire, a child of her and her late husband only known as Mr. Morley, but her darker skintone looks more like Mr. Morley's former assistant Gian Raval.

Inez loves her work though. She loves her weapons, the look on people's faces when they pass. She even loves her coworker's, especially Loretta, but totally non-sinful way.

Loretta Spencer aka "Scarlett"

Age: 20

Loretta Spencer is the sweetest of the daughter's. So sweet, you couldn't guess in your wildest dreams her profession as a killer. Loretta hates what she does, which she does only to stay with her mother, and repay Lady midnight for helping her with Loretta's abusive father. That's how her mother explained it at least.

Loretta has a plan to get out of killing, which includes Lady midnight's assistant Farhan Raval, and the happy ending she has imagined in her head. One without murder, bloodshed and poison.

Laila Spencer aka "nightshade"

Age: 38

Laila Spencer is a woman that has been trough hell and back. She got pregant at 18, lived on a street with a newborn, and finally, finally after a while, agreed to become the first female assasin under Lady midnight. Laila knows how the life has been to her, and the last thing she wants is for her daughter to repeat her mistakes. Still, even after all that has happened to her, she never stops being goodhearted abd softspoken.

Nellie Mitchell aka "Velvet"

Age: 24

The singer of the moonlight Cabaret where all the daughters perform in. When Nellie was a child, after her parents traveled from USA to UK for a better life, she was attacked by local kids which made her limp slightly while walking. It also gave her the most brutal of the murder weapons: a metallic cane Lady midnight gifted herself.

Nellie, like Laila, understands the shelter being under Lady Midnight was the most out of the group. Nellie has always dreamed of bigger, so much bigger than she felt was capable.

[stormoflina]

Rant over footy twt. It's long and boring, feel free to skip this lol

Why do we have to be so freaking reactionary? I held my tongue over this, for my own sanity. I try to not get too worked up over football, but just can't anymore lol.

In a spawn of like 3 months, we went from this, just over our midfield players:

- Dominik has a great start, runs the show with 10 men down multiple times, has two beautiful goals, literally runs the most and the fastest, takes on the workload of 2 players, covers for Trent, performs well in a new role, despite being a natural 10, despite being new in the PL-> he is the next Gerrard, the signing of the summer, the best midfielder in the PL, our own KDB regent -> his incredible form drops slightly a bit, but he still performs decent, and does his magic in Hungary -> why can't he show up in Liverpool the way he does in Hungary, he is actually shit, he is not creative, he doesn't have any G/A, didn't worth the money we paid for him, should be benched, all he does is looking into the cameras he is a narc and a flop, he can't even take a free-kick -> gets moved forward for like 10 minutes, does well in attacking role (wonder why) manages to score -> now people are saying he should play LW, bench Lucho and put Dominik there, he is a better finisher than Nunez (..) and saying Cody (!!!) should play his role in midfield instead, because he is just soooo good in the attack.

- Alexis has a bit challenged start in a completely new role, doesn't hit the ground running at first like Dominik does, but still provides very decent stats -> therefore he is a flop, absolutely shit, should be sold and get out of the club, he is not a natural 6, never will be, but Dom, Grav, Elliott and even Trent starts over him as an 8, he was an absolute waste of money just because he is a "wc winner" -> scores a beautiful goal, suddenly he is the best midfielder in our team, he is clear of Caicedo, he should start every game and look at his stats, despite not being a natural 6 he is actually a very good DM, we don't even need to buy one in January, Mac10 will carry us. -> finally plays in his position, but has a game where he comes down with an injury, plays +60 minutes despite that, performs well, but nothing too flashy. Literally gets bullied and attacked every second he plays, as if the other players are trying to take him out -> Endo is clear of him in DM, but he is not good enough in the 8 position, bench him, he's too short anyway.

- Gravenberch is an unnecessary signing, he must be bad, we don't need him, who cares -> has a couple of good performances in the EL -> he is so good, so silky on the ball, he never does backward passes unlike our other midfielders, he should start in the PL -> he starts in the PL, has a good first half, he is our best signing this year, he is so much better than Szoboszlai or Macallister, he starts over Curtis Jones,he only passes forward, that's what we like to see, he is going to be our best midfielder since Gerrard -> makes a mistake, has a less impressive second half in the SAME match, he is actually so shit, someone sub him off and bench him, CuJo is so clear of him, we should have never bought him, he is so lazy, he doesn't track back or tries to defend, sell him.

- Curtis Jones is going to be a Liverpool legend, his control on and off the ball is amazing, he is the missing piece to our midfield, he is finally getting the recognition he deserves -> gets a red card, misses 3 matches then picks up an injury, out for a couple of weeks -> has his first match back after missing out many games against City, doesn't drop a world class performance and dribbles past Rodri, he is so washed, he should be playing for Blackburn not Liverpool, English tax, Scouse tax, Gravenberch should start over him, Curtis is slow, ruins our attacks, at least Gravenberch tries to go forward, all Curtis does is just slow down the ball -> actually nevermind, Gravenberch had a shitty second half, Curtis is so clear of him, he actually puts in the work and tries, he never stops fighting, he lives and breaths liverpool fc, he has insane control on the ball and creates harmony in our midfield, he should start

Rant over. 🫣

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Rebecca Traister at NY Mag's Intelligencer:

Can you provide a definition for the word woman?” Tennessee senator Marsha Blackburn lobbed this query at Ketanji Brown Jackson during her 2022 Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Blackburn was doing her bit for her party’s effort to enforce transphobic gender conformity, positioning herself as a defender of womanhood as something fixed and narrow. When Jackson declined to provide Blackburn with a definition, noting that she was not a biologist, the senator took the opportunity to dial it up a notch. “The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about,” Blackburn said with lip-smacking satisfaction.

Two years later, Republicans remain cruelly closed to the realities of gender fluidity and trans existence. But how the party understands — and represents — womanhood more broadly? Well … that’s getting weird. As we cruise toward November with two ancient white men on the presidential ticket and the rights of millions of people who are not white men in the balance, the public performance of Republican womanhood has become fractured, frenzied, and far less coherent than ever.

“A true conservative woman,” Valentina Gomez, one of several Republican candidates vying to be Missouri’s next secretary of state, told me in an email this spring, “speaks the truth, works hard, loves and knows how to use guns of multiple calibers, cares for the wellbeing of children and her family, doesn’t sleep with multiple men and most important, does not murder babies.” The 25-year-old Gomez made a viral ad in February in which she took a flamethrower to a pile of sex-education and LGBTQ+ books from the public library. In May, she filmed herself running through St. Louis wearing a weighted vest and advising, “Don’t be weak and gay; stay fucking hard.” The day before, she had embraced her softer side, posting a photo of herself on X in a pale-pink pantsuit and pumps, with a winning smile and her eyes cast heavenward, under a caption restating Blackburn’s question: “What is a woman?” Gomez told me feminists “have made men the enemy,” adding, “they end up alone with three dogs at the age of 50 with no kids or husband” — a time-honored Republican sentiment that liberal women, unlike conservatives, are sexless, unmarriageable spinsters. But even that rusty rhetorical frame is wobbly: In April, 31-year-old far-right activist Laura Loomer, standing outside Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York, told the New York Times, “You think I have a dating life? You think I’m married? You think I have kids? Do you think I go out and do fun things? No. Because I’m always putting every extra bit of time that I have into supporting President Trump.” Loomer told the paper she would not be at the courthouse the next week because she had to return home to Florida to take care of her dogs.

Contradictions abound among conservative women in Washington. In response to Jackson’s testimony, Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene attempted to be authoritative on the matter. “I’m going to tell you right now what is a woman,” she said. “We came from Adam’s rib. God created us with his hands. We may be the weaker sex — we are the weaker sex — but we are our partner’s, our husband’s, wife.” But Greene, who has since divorced, regularly refers to men, including Speaker Mike Johnson and President Biden, as “weak” and is not shy about showing off her own brawn. In May, in the wake of a dustup with Democratic Texas representative Jasmine Crockett in which the two traded barbs about each other’s appearance, Greene posted a video of herself lifting heavy weights to a song by Sia: “I’m unstoppable / I’m a Porsche with no brakes / I’m invincible / Yeah, I win every single game.”

“Under the surface, subcutaneously, there is a tug-of-war,” said Nancy Mace, a 46-year-old second-term Republican congresswoman from South Carolina. Mace was reflecting on the tension between presenting as traditionally feminine and deploying emasculating language that can make her sound more like Andrew Tate and his overheated manosphere buddies than Republican foremothers such as Margaret Chase Smith or even Michele Bachmann. Mace regularly declares that her male enemies, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, with whom she has a bitter rivalry, and Hunter Biden, the president’s son, have “no balls.”

“There are the traditional roles of women in society, some biological. We’re meant to nurture; we’re meant to breastfeed our kids,” Mace told me over Zoom. “But my mom worked. I’ve worked my entire life since I was 15. It’s a balance between what’s your feminine side and your Main Character Energy.” Mace was explicit: “I do have Main Character Energy. I am an alpha dog, and so is my little six-pound dog, Libby.”

The Republican women seeking to steer their party into the future are finding themselves in a series of constrictive binds: between upholding a conservative white patriarchy that has outlawed abortion and asserting their value as women; between projecting traditional notions of compliant, cheerful femininity and channeling the testosterone-driven rage of the conservative infotainment complex; and, above all, between trying to build independent political identities and slavishly following Donald Trump. That devotion has come at the cost of alienating suburban white women, who have been crucial to Republicans for decades but, since 2016, have been peeling away in response to Trump’s pussy-grabbing malevolence and his party’s ruthless campaign against reproductive rights.

It’s surely a nasty tangle for them, but for those of us watching at home, Republican women’s efforts to bridge these impossible chasms have a stupefying quality: What to make of these women? As the Alabama political columnist Kyle Whitmire wrote after Katie Britt, his state’s U.S. senator, delivered the response to Joe Biden’s State of the Union address from her kitchen in a demonic whisper, “Katie Britt glitched out on national television and left millions of Americans asking what the heck they just watched.” Weeks later, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem’s strenuous efforts to show off her casually cruel streak to Trump derailed her own vice-presidential audition when it emerged that her book contained a story about how she once shot her puppy and left the body to rot in a gravel pit.

Then there are the duck-lipped, smoky-eyed stylings of Donald Trump Jr.’s fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, who danced to “Gloria” shortly before insurrectionists tore through the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and this spring announced a children’s book called The Princess & Her Pup. The former president’s daughter-in-law, RNC co-chair Lara Trump, recently promised “four years of scorched earth when Donald Trump retakes the White House” and posted a video of herself in sequined pants and stilettos as she played “Let It Be” on piano. The gun-toting congresswoman Lauren Boebert has railed against “teaching kids how to have and enjoy sex, even same-sex sex, how to pleasure themselves,” yet last fall was ejected from a theater for lewd behavior that included grabbing her date’s crotch during the performance. Mace made headlines in 2023 for joking about her sex life to a roomful of Christian conservatives at a prayer breakfast.

Some of this is surely just old-fashioned political hypocrisy, particularly unpleasant coming from a right that has for generations sought to police all sorts of things that it itself engages in: Do as I legislate, not as I do. But in a post-Dobbs political climate in which Republicans have grown only more aggressive on issues of gender identity, contraception, and sex education, the ways in which the party’s women have been comporting themselves loom large.

On the cusp of an election season that could further reshape this democracy and women’s place within it, the questions facing the women of the American right are tricky. Are they supposed to be cutthroat or cute? Cold enough to kill a dog or warm enough to bake an apple pie? To whom is their devotion chiefly addressed: country, husband, God, or Trump? And how might their womanhood complicate their responses to the closing of obstetrics wards or the fact that their party’s leader was convicted of falsifying business records to cover up an extramarital affair with an adult-film actress? The challenge of navigating these thorny questions has left many of them caroming from high-pitched rancor, to contorted eroticism, to the seemingly snug comforts of trad-wife chic. The spectacle can provoke amusement, fury, and a frisson of horror-movie unease. For if the women of today’s Republican Party are upending gender conventions in unprecedented fashion, they’re doing it in service of a party that has never been more openly hostile to women and their rights.

In both parties, women have never had it easy; this is a business that remains, 235 years in, overwhelmingly run by men. And for a time, it was Democratic women who encountered the gnarlier complexities. As members of the party that at least theoretically represented the gains of the women’s movement that were so disruptive to the old gendered order, they could not themselves present as too aggressive for fear of being seen as radical, nor could they be too vulnerable, feminine, or even conventionally beautiful lest they be dismissed as unserious. Jennifer Granholm, a former pageant contestant and the first woman to govern Michigan, has described cutting her hair short and trying to add gray streaks when she ran her first campaign in 1998. “You had to look completely asexual,” she once said. “The first thing they think about is how you are shaped, what you are wearing. You have to be as neutral as possible so that people will pay attention to the words coming out of your mouth.”

Meeting ridiculous gendered expectations could mean ridiculous micro-humiliations: When Hillary Clinton told reporters in 1992 that she had chosen to pursue a paid profession rather than stay home to bake cookies, she was pressured to participate in a “First-Lady Bake-Off” to prove her wifely chops. Fifteen years later, during her first presidential run, the presence of a body that was not male was such an anomaly on the campaign trail that the Washington Post published a fashion feature about how she was choosing to handle her cleavage. Clinton was perhaps the most acute example of an assertive Democratic woman whose efforts to satisfy a ravening press and public intolerant of female complexity left her so twisted and poll-tested that she became largely illegible as human, let alone female.

Meanwhile, Republican women faced limitations of their own but for a long time appeared at ease with them. Many came off as maternal and content, conservatively coiffed and shoulder-padded, a comfortable match for a party that wanted to offer reassurance to a nation jittery about women’s liberation. Think Elizabeth Dole, a Reagan Cabinet member, future senator, and presidential candidate whose chatty, Oprah-style stroll through the crowd on the night of her husband’s 1996 presidential nomination was the (sole) highlight of that convention. But they could also be tough and mean — Barbara Bush once called Geraldine Ferraro a bitch!

The Republican Party, through the 1990s and into the new millennium, included quite a few “moderate” women, such as Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, who believed in fiscal conservatism but also held positions on so-called social issues that were comparatively liberal. They were, like many in their party before its sharp anti-abortion turn, “pro-choice.” They worked with Democrats to reach compromises, and the women on both sides of the aisle appeared to be friendly with one another: Collins partnered with Kirsten Gillibrand on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and Gillibrand helped then-Senator Clinton throw Collins a bridal shower.

A turning point in the evolution of conservative womanhood came when John McCain selected a little-known governor of Alaska to be his running mate in his presidential race against Barack Obama in 2008. Sarah Palin was in her mid-40s, young enough not to be collared by the pearls and propriety that inhibited many of her forerunners in both parties. She was charismatic and uninterested in conforming to outdated gender stereotypes. Or rather, she conformed to a bunch of them simultaneously: She had a sexy-librarian beauty and no qualms about playing it up; a macho snow-machine-racing husband who had taken a leave from his job on the oil fields to be the primary parent to their five kids; and she used her youngest child, Trig, born with Down syndrome, as proof of her hard-core anti-abortion bona fides. She had white-nationalist instincts that led her to counter Obama with language about “real Americans,” and she pioneered a Mama Grizzly persona that was both sporty and menacing (fuck your dead puppy; this lady wanted wolves to be shot from helicopters). She was unafraid to stake her own claim to women’s equality, advocating for a “new, conservative feminism.”

[...] There is surely a perverse pride in emerging victorious near the top of a power structure built to exclude you. These are the dynamics that have long rewarded white women for acting as foot soldiers within a white patriarchy, willing to take one another out to get closer to power, their positions adjacent to the brutes at the top a signal of their uncommon tenacity. But there is a difference between the status granted those willing to do whatever unhinged thing it takes to get ahead in contemporary right-wing politics and the political autonomy these women might yearn for just as much as the classical feminists they wage war against. [...]

In the past, it was easier for Republican women to get away with inconsistency and self-contradiction. Phyllis Schlafly, the brilliant, diabolical political strategist, could inveigh against the masculinized ambitions of women working outside the home from pulpits well outside her own home because her professional efforts paid lip service to restoring certain comforting hierarchical expectations about men’s and women’s spheres. That paradigm has been subverted. What Schlafly and her generation feared most — that the expanded opportunities and protections for women would become their own kind of traditional expectation — has come to pass. This is why the overturn of Roe was not greeted as some welcome restoration of a bygone order but as a threatening attack on the protections that plenty of American women, especially white middle-class women of all political persuasions, had come to count on as an established norm during the 49 years Roe stood. Every one of these Republican women relies on the gains of women’s liberation, and well they should. This was, in fact, what the women’s movement was for: not just so those who agreed with it might enjoy more opportunities but so those who did not agree with it also could. As an early political ballbuster, former New York congresswoman Bella Abzug famously said, “We don’t want so much to see a female Einstein become an assistant professor. We want a woman schlemielto get promoted as quickly as a male schlemiel.” Welcome, ladies.

Remarkably, these dark years have seen women on the left conduct themselves with new ease and assuredness. Democratic women at both the center and the left edge of their party now communicate in a range of styles that appear more authentic and less stilted than those of previous generations of female politicians. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is fluent on social media; Elizabeth Warren lets her professorial freak flag fly; Ayanna Pressley is bald and beautiful. They tell stories of abortion, of assault, of pregnancy and childbirth, of their gay and trans offspring, of their disabilities and military service, weaving the facts of their lives into arguments for civil rights, health-care access, and housing.

Whitmer is perhaps the most prominent Democratic woman to experiment with mixing a traditional white femininity and historically masculine cadences. Though her politics could not be more different, she is perhaps the closest we have yet seen to a natural echo of Palin’s swashbuckling cheek. In May, Whitmer wore a fuchsia wrap dress to pick up an award for a campaign she undertook as “Governor Barbie.” Her five-word acceptance speech was “Wear pink; get shit done.” In the days after Noem’s disastrous book tour, Whitmer took a break from posting about the NFL draft to put up a photograph of her with her two dogs, Kevin and Doug, with the caption, “Post a picture with your dog that doesn’t involve shooting them and throwing them in a gravel pit.” It’s certainly all performed in its own way. But for the first time, it’s the Democratic women who can articulate the mix of football and Barbie and health care and labor without tripping over themselves, who seem more comfortable in their own bodies. The women on the right appear in perpetual confusion and find themselves, like some negative image of Clinton, twisting into something unrecognizable.

[...] But there is no way to understand these varied approaches to gender expression outside the context of their own political aims. These are politicians who regularly refer to gender-affirming health care as “castration” and “mutilation.” Boebert famously campaigned against drag story hours, while Noem wrote to South Dakota’s college board asking it to ban campus drag shows. Republican women longing to attach themselves to the feminist brand leverage transphobia to do it, a riff on the TERF movement currently flourishing in the U.K. Mace has argued that conservatives laboring to keep trans women out of athletic competitions are “the feminists of today,” and Haley has cast anti-trans policymaking as the “women’s issue of our time.” Yet these women express themselves via a dizzying mash-up of gendered conventions: They augment their smiles, bedazzle their pantsuits, and broadcast their bench presses. In their fevered performances of hyperfemininity and hypermasculinity, so many of the GOP’s most visible women are themselves engaging in a form of drag.

Of course, drag in its queer context offers the chance to slip from and send up the constricting bounds of gender norms, to encourage empathy and celebrate diverse forms of identity. The show these Republican politicians are putting on is its cold opposite: asphyxiated, distended, nasty. Theirs is surely drag’s gothic inverse. Still, it is possible to catch a glimpse of pathos beneath the performance because the show covers for something awful and real: The identities of those women are no more valued or recognized by the party for which they labor than gay or trans or feminist identities are. Women fundamentally cannot lead a party that wants to oppress women; they cannot, in fact, even be fully human within it.

This NY Mag piece on Trump-era Republican Womanhood and the tug-of-war between expressing traditional femininity and asserting their value in womanhood, such as opportunistically branding themselves as “feminists” when they stand opposed to trans rights.

Read the full story at NY Mag.

[mzannthropy]

🎄🎄🎄Merry Maudmas 🎄🎄🎄

The Christmas Surprise at Enderly Road

The story opens with two young men, at home from college for the Christmas holidays. The narrator is one of the young men, Phil, so this is another example of LMM writing from a man's POV in 1st person. They're taking a walk one fine December day in the area behind their village, Blackburn Hill. Phil describes the area as "barrens grown over with scrub maple and spruce". I looked up a Wikipedia article on barren vegetation and it says this type of landscape can be found along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, so it's possible this is where the story takes place. (I always take it for granted that everything LMM writes in set in PEI but we know that this is not always true.)

Phil and his friend Frank get lost as they're not 100% familiar with the "back lands" as these barrens are called. They know, however, they should be near Enderly Road. Which is not much of a consolation, as it's a poor, deprived place and there is no love lost between the inhabitants of Blackburn Hill and the inhabitants of Enderly Road. The Hillites look down their noses on Roaders and the Roaders think the Hillites put on airs. Soon the two friends indeed find themselves in Enderly Road. They just need to ask the first passer-by for direction to Blackburn Hill so they can safely get home. As it happens, the first person they encounter is a girl, walking home from school--and they can clearly see she's been crying.

Frank, who is good with kids (presumably bc he has younger siblings, not anything, you know, dodgy), asks her what the matter is. The girl, whose name is Maggie, tells them that they can't have the classroom decorated for examinations on Monday, bc the Dickeys are no longer willing to help, despite their earlier promise. The Dickeys are apparently three brothers, the only tall boys in school, who would be able to put the decorations up. But bc the teacher punished the biggest one of them (the gang leader, you could say) for misbehaving in class, they now no longer want anything to with any decorating.

Frank tells the girl not to cry anymore, bc it won't solve the problem and the two friends make their way home, after taking directions from Maggie. They decide they need to do something for the school, so after consulting with Frank's sisters, they hatch up a plan. On Saturday night, they set out for Enderly school, armed with tools. They get in through the window and decorate the room with wreaths and sprays of fir. Frank's sisters have supplied them with some nice paper roses. But they're not quite done with the Enderly school yet. On Monday, they turn up for the examinations; Miss Davis, the teacher, also had her pupils prepare little performances. They stay to watch and during the minister's speech, Frank slips out and when the minister finishes, the door opens and in comes Santa Claus himself, bearing gifts!

Maggie, of course, is able to figure out that it was these two who decorated the classroom and she tells them so. She's a smart one. And the Dickeys are mad, which is the icing on the (Christmas) cake.

This good Christmas deed buries the hatchet between the two villages and they're no longer enemies.

Another cute little story, which, truthfully, could have taken place at any other time of the year--the decorations could have been anything--but that doesn't matter. I love how it's based on such a trifle, a little girl crying over not having a decorated classroom. But that's exactly the point (as Sherlock Holmes says, there's nothing so important as trifles). From what we hear about Enderly Road, the kids there don't really have much, so decorating a classroom would be no doubt an excitement for them. And what are LMM stories if not celebrations of the joy of small things?

The teacher, Miss Davis, is described as pale and tired looking, and I like to think she married one of our two friends.

I'm not sure I entirely buy that the conflict between the two villages ended just like that, but eh, it's a story and ~Tis The Season~ so I'll take it.

[usafphantom2]

Britain’s top-scoring naval fighter of World War II was not what you think it was

Hush KitMarch 24, 2020

Fulmar-photo

As World War II loomed into sight, the Admiralty was desperate for anything approximating a modern fighter aircraft. This need was met by a modified light dive-bomber originally intended for a cancelled RAF requirement. The resulting Fulmar shared the engine and armament with the Spitfire and Hurricane, but there though the similarity ended. With a pathetic flat-out speed of 247mph and a feeble service ceiling of 16,000’ it was far inferior to its contemporaries. More worryingly, it was also 30mph slower than the Luftwaffe’s Heinkel He 111 bombers. Fair to say as a fighter it made an adequate cancelled dive-bomber. So how did it became the top Royal Navy fighter of World War II?

Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer, current Air Safety Officer and struggling Naval History MA student. He also has some great offers on his internal organs now Seafire PP972 is up for sale.

During World War II, no aircraft carrier force operated a greater number of types than the Royal Navy. Although partly due to the length of time Britain was involved in the conflict, the Admiralty’s haphazard approach to aviation doctrine and procurement bears a lot of the blame (although nothing can excuse the diabolical Blackburn Firebrand). It is still however something of an anomaly that the Fleet Air Arm’s highest scoring fighter of the war was the relatively slow and staid Fairey Fulmar — with 112 kills (more than double the total achieved by the far more potent Corsair). Despite this, the Fulmar has never really caught the popular imagination. Post-war historians have damned with faint praise by acknowledging that while it was at least capable of taking on torpedo-bombers, the Fulmar’s manoeuvrability was far inferior to Axis dive-bombers. To give some idea of the limited esteem in which it was held at the time, it is perhaps worth reading a verse from 809 Naval Air Squadron’s Fulmar Song (to the tune of ‘Any old iron‘:

‘Any old iron, any old iron,

Any, any, any old iron;

Talk about a treat

Chasing round the Fleet

Any ole Eyetie or Hun you meet!

Weighs six ton,

No rear gun

Damn all to rely on!

You know what you can do

With your Fulmar Two;

Old iron, old iron!’

Fighter Direction is everything

To understand this apparent contradiction, of how such a sluggish machine was the Navy’s best fighter, it is necessary to look at a technology that at the time made the aeroplane look positively middle-aged: radar. The Royal Navy had been at the forefront of developing naval radar, but even so, by 1939 its capabilities were extremely limited. Rather than the top down ‘God’s eye view’ of a modern display, operators would look at a single wiggling line with increases in amplitude indicating a contact. Despite entering the war without a full understanding of what radar could achieve – and after some teething troubles – the Navy soon found ways to make up for the deficiencies of its aircraft. This would allow Fairey’s converted dive-bomber to hold its own in aerial combat through the opening years of the war in a way that belied its poor headline performance. The actions in the Mediterranean to escort convoys to Malta showed time and again the value of Fighter Direction where controllers onboard ship would direct the aircraft to intercept incoming attacks. Often these aircraft would be Fulmars, which were in the front line throughout that period, before being relegated to the role of night fighter. Somewhat ironically, the addition of radar antenna for this role would finally render its performance unequivocally unacceptable. Fighter Direction would give the Fulmar the edge it needed to overcome its shortcomings while engaged in some of the heaviest aerial combat the Royal Navy would face during the Second World War.

The Royal Navy’s inter-war doctrine for the Fleet Air Arm, as described in an Admiralty Memorandum from December 1936, concentrated on the search for enemy shipping, air attack of that shipping, and subsequent observation of the fall of shot for the fleet’s big guns . It was considered that air superiority would be achieved by the immobilisation of the enemy’s carriers no apparent thought being given to air to air combat. The reverse was also true in that it was not considered possible for naval fighters to defend the fleet from air attack, especially when faced with land-based air forces able to deploy heavy bombers . To counter the air threat the Third Sea Lord, Rear Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, decided that the next class of carrier would feature extensive armour plating turning the hangar into a protective enclosure for the air group able to resist a direct hit from 500lb bombs and 4.7” gunfire . The Dido class cruisers optimised for air defence would then provide the defence against air attack , in addition to the Illustrious classes own extensive outfit of sixteen 4.5” guns. That the doctrine was so un-ambitious can in part be laid at the confused status of naval aviation between the wars, it was, until 1938, the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force not of the Royal Navy . In fairness to the Admiralty at the same time despite the Imperial Japanese Navy controlling its air arm its doctrine was also confused and poorly regarded by its air officers perhaps indicating the difficulties inherent in developing high level policy for a new form of warfare. The Royal Navy’s use of fighter aircraft would therefore have to develop as lessons were learnt. A memorandum from January 1940 while acknowledging the need to intercept enemy strikes and scouting aircraft as well as escorting the fleets own strikes still showed a degree of indecision over whether they would still require a second crewmember as the Fulmar did, a confusion that had not been resolved three months later . Ultimately this indecision would lead to both single and two seat fighters being produced for the Royal Navy. Where the Royal Navy had a serious disadvantage was in the actual procurement of aircraft where the Admiralty drew up the specifications for them while the Air Ministry then had responsibility for their design and production.41_803_sdn_fulmar_take_off.jpg

Due to the lack of air officers at the right level the Admiralty had scant expertise in the specification of aircraft which led to it entering the war with several poorly performing aircraft either in service or on the way. These included the Blackburn Roc, a turret equipped fighter which could barely stay airborne at full power; the Fairey Barracuda which provided panoramic views for the Observer but had a tendency not to pull out of dives , and the Blackburn Firebrand which took longer to develop than the war lasted. Consequently, at the outbreak of war the navy found itself back in control of its air arm, but with limited understanding of the capabilities air power brought, no real thought given to air defence of the fleet by aircraft, and a procurement plan that could best be described as flawed. It was from this background that the requirement for the Fulmar would emerge, to some extent explaining the compromises that were accepted.

Screenshot 2020-03-23 at 22.17.42.png Though confusion over the use of naval air power was hampering the acquisition of suitable aircraft, by the late 1930s there was at least an acknowledgment that a new fleet fighter would be required. It was a pressing need, as the Skua it would replace was predicted to be obsolete by as soon as 1940. Consequently, it was a requirement that the chosen aircraft be in production by September 1939 which effectively limited the options to something already in production. The Admiralty’s preference was for a two-seat aircraft, due to the difficulties of navigating over the sea and communicating at long range from the carrier. Outright speed was considered less important as there was an assumption that the carrier-borne fighter would only encounter aircraft of other navies which would be similarly restricted. It is perhaps ironic that at the same time the most likely naval opponent was being designed by Mitsubishi in Japan, the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, a type which faced neither of these restrictions. The design selected for the Royal Navy was a modification of a design submitted to the RAF as a light dive-bomber. This RAF original requirement had been dropped, but prototypes had already been constructed – which allowed a rapid assessment to be made of their suitability. The Fairey P.4/34 bomber (with minor changes) thus became the Fulmar naval fighter (with a secondary reconnaissance role). The first production aircraft was completed in December 1939, effectively running around three months behind the Admiralty’s timeline.. or ahead of schedule compared to most defence projects. The Fulmar shared an engine, the Merlin, and armament, eight 0.303” guns, with the Spitfire and Hurricane. There though the similarity ended. The early Spitfire’s top speed was 364mph at an altitude of 18,500’ , the Fulmar by comparison had a maximum speed of only 247mph at 9,000’ and a service ceiling of 16,000’ (half that of the Spitfire).

[twittercomfrnklin2001-blog]

Pretty Poison

When Anthony Perkins’ performances as deranged characters worked, it was because he drew on the same charm that had made him a teen idol in films like FRIENDLY PERSUASION (1956). As Dennis Pitt, the paroled mental patient in Noel Black’s PRETTY POISON (1968, Criterion Channel, YouTube), he’s cute and quirky. It’s easy to see why his landlady (Clarice Blakburn) does whatever he asks, and Sue Ann Stepanek (Tuesday Weld), the high-school girl on whom he’s fixated, believes whatever outrageous lies he tells her. He certainly pulls an original line on her, claiming to be a secret agent assigned to spy on the chemical plant in a New England small town. What he doesn’t anticipate is how eagerly Weld will take on the role of his assistant.

Lorenzo Semple, Jr.’s adaptation of Stephen Geller’s novel SHE LET HIM CONTINUE is a marvel of understated dark comedy. After a clumsy exposition scene between Perkins and his parole officer (John Randolph), the script takes off, with a witty contrast between the increasingly violent action that unfolds and Weld’s lines, which could have wandered in from a high-school romantic comedy. Perkins has some pretty wonderful material, too, particularly as he struggles to keep up his pose as a special operative. What emerges from this is a prescient satire on American life. Sue Ann, who carries the flag in her high-school color guard, is a morass of unbridled passion and resentment, eager to believe any outlandish conspiracy theory that could lend meaning to her mundane existence.

Black’s direction captures the environment of the small town (they filmed in Greater Barrington, MA) but also reflects Dennis’ thought processes with quick cuts between what he sees and what he envisions. The film is told almost entirely from his point of view. Weld only has one scene without him. And he easily carries the film. He charms the audience as much as he does Weld, and he knows just how much to register when the character becomes disturbed. Weld is also fine, with subtle choices that play up the character’s position as a nightmare Lolita. There’s also a strong supporting cast, though I couldn’t help wishing Beverly Garland as Weld’s poisonous mother and Blackburn had more to do.

[arcanescholxr]

Closed Starter for @sanguine-salvation

For most people, finding out that you've come from a royal bloodline was cause for celebration. It was a fantasy that most people had, a means of escape from their dreary lives; dreams about dropping a life of hard work in exchange for luxury and power. It would sound enticing to almost anyone. Almost anyone.

Dwight was living that fantasy, a peasant plucked from the street and turned into a noble Prince. An ugly duckling turned into a beautiful swan. The young man was thrown into the life of being a Blackburn, that meant servants tending to your every whim, rich meals made in seven courses, and access to every grimoire that a witch could ask for, yet only accessible for those with a leg up in Freymoor. From an outside perspective, Dwight had won the lottery of life. But a glided cage was still a cage.

Dwight had been caught trying to escape several times now. He tried escaping by hiding in a wagon of supplies, he tried escaping by dressing like a servant, he even tried tying his bed sheets together to make a rope to climb out of his bedchambers. That stunt earned him more guards at his doors, a heavy lock on his chamber doors, a magical veil that encased around his balcony to prevent him from escaping, and a week without dinner. Elias slid him dinner rolls when no one was looking, a silent gesture in solidarity.

The heavy guards at his door didn't last long, as Everett didn't feel like exercising the royal guards to keep an eye on the Prince when he couldn't. Still, Everett made arrangements for Dwight to have a personal Valet, someone whose job would be to personally attend to the Prince at every hour of the day and the night. In other words, a babysitter. After going through several candidates, Everett made his choice and ordered a carriage for them to arrive at the Castle.

When Viktor arrived, the guards had led them to Throne Room where Everett was waiting. The mage didn't waste a second to welcome Viktor, choosing to look down at them instead. "You will meet Prince Dwight now, get yourself acquainted with him and such. You will reside in the Prince's chambers." Everett's gaze hardened at this. "Make no mistake, if you fail to perform, I'll have you thrown out here." and with that, Everett waved them off, letting the guards escort Viktor to Dwight.

They arrived at the Castle's gardens, filled with lush greens and flowers. The garden grounds had various tables and space for any events to take place in the garden space. A variant of flowers bloomed, a majority of them glowed vibrantly with magical properties beckoning anyone to pick them. There was the hedge-maze with tall hedges, easy for others to get lost. Most notable was the colorful shimmer of magic above them, a veil shrouding over the Garden. Another measure to keep the runaway Prince in place. Then, nestled in the middle was large water fountain with the Prince Dwight sitting on the edge of it. Ducks were paddling on the water, quacking softly as Dwight tossed them seeds to eat.

When Dwight noticed the guards approaching with Viktor, he got up and lightly brushed his hand on his fancy suit to get the duck feed off it. Dwight averted his gaze slightly, nervous, but he still attempted a somewhat smile to greet Viktor. The Prince looked sickly if anything, as if another minute in the castle would send him off the edge. The Prince awkwardly stretched out his hand for Viktor to shake, much to the silent dismay of the guards.

"Hello..I'm Dwight." The young Prince greeted softly. "I'm sorry if this is a nuisance, maybe if I'd just behave, you wouldn't have to bother working here. What's your name?"

[weaversweek]

"Je t'aime… moi non plus" - Serge Gainsbourg & Jane Birkin

1969 Written by Serge Gainsbourg

"I love you." "I love you." "I can't help it either." "Let's do it." "The fifty best songs from 1954-76?" "No. The other thing."

Originally written for Serge to perform with Brigitte Bardot, the song attracted massive attention from the press, who were tittilated by the prospect of Bardot singing a steamy song with her saucepot lover. Word reached Bardot's husband, Gunther Sachs, and he demanded the song be buried; Bardot's relationship with Gainsbourg followed shortly after.

Gainsbourg became protective of the tune, and fumed at the press. "The music is very pure. For the first time in my life I write a love song and it's taken badly.". He would change his mind, or his condom.

"Je t'aime" became famous - nay, infamous! - in a duet with Jane Birkin. They'd met on the set of Slogan in 1968, and hit it off almost instantly. They took their passion into the recording studio, making a song notorious for being hot and steamy and sultry. Contrary to rumours at the time, the couple weren't in bed when they recorded it - no, they were in individual cabins at a studio in central London.

After he'd finished the record, Gainsbourg tried it out on unsuspecting diners at a classy restaurant. What are the ingredients of the perfect night? All we need is lovely food and muzak, muzak, what the fuck? "Everybody's knives and forks were in the air, suspended. Nobody went on eating," said Birkin later.

Almost inevitably, the Vatican was unhappy with the record. Fancy making a record about fornication! The Pope fulminated and fumed, made sure that Vatican Radio never played the tune. Gainsbourg called him "our greatest PR man".

The prudes at the BBC also thought it was far too racy. FAR too racy. You think Formula One is racy, but it's nothing compared with "Je t'aime". It wasn't allowed on air at all, they only let Tony Blackburn play an instrumental version.

In the years since its release, "Je t'aime" has become shorthand for French soft porn, for the unashamed horniness of the late 60s, and how the older generation tried to brush free love under the carpet. There have been covers from acts as varied as the Pet Shop Boys and the cast of 'Allo 'Allo.

Bonus feature!

Here's how some trainees at Bush House interpreted the song, some time in the 1970s.

[krispyweiss]

Song Review(s): Neil Young - “Human Highway” (Live, Nov. 5, 1973, w/ the Santa Monica Flyers) and “Little Wing” (Live, 1977, w/ the Ducks)

Two new Neil Young singles - one with the Santa Monica Flyers; the other with the Ducks - focus on Young’s acoustic and electric sides and the lo- and hi-fidelity ends of Young’s Original Bootleg Series.

The Flyers’ Somewhere Under the Rainbow and the Ducks’ High Flyin’ arrive April 14.

While the Nov. 5, 1973, recording of “Human Highway” - and presumably the entire LP from which its culled - is seriously hampered by what sounds to be an amateur audience recording, “Little Wing,” from ’77, belies the Series’ Bootleg banner.

If only one of these LPs can sound good, at least it’s the Ducks’, a short-lived band that played stealth gigs in small venues and never made a proper record.

“Little Wing” suggests that might have been a tactical error. And the cut seeks to rectify that situation.

With Young’s lead and Jeff Blackburn’s rhythm occupying opposite channels and the band fully cognizant of Jimi Hendrix’s legacy, it’s a track that works in both performance and production.

Solo-acoustic, muffled and barely listenable “Human Highway” is so poorly recorded, it’s impossible to discern much about the quality of the performance itself. More concerning is what this means for the full-band selections, which seem guaranteed to be slathered in thick mud.

Grade card: Neil Young - “Human Highway” (Live - 11/5/73, w/ the Santa Monica Flyers) and “Little Wing” (Live, 1977, w/ the Ducks) - D/A-

3/6/23