#whether or not that entire situation is true I cannot confirm nor deny

[fruitless-vain]

So I should perhaps be concerned about this oddly coincidental fact that someone just successfully managed to hack in to my windows accounts

Thankfully I was still awake at this ungodly hour and got the suspicious activity email, confirmed it wasn’t a scammy fake email, and logged everything out n reset the passwords

But this must definitely be just a really stark coincidence right?

[chibimyumi]

Hi

I hope you're doing well

I have questions if you don't mind

Who do like Axel von Fersen in Marie Antoinette or Axel von Fersen in 1789 les amants de la bastille and also do you like Marie Antoinette in Marie Antoinette or in 1789 les amants de la bastille

Thank you for answering my questions

Dear Anon,

I am doing well, thank you very much! I hope you too.

Hmmm, as a quick answer I would say I prefer both Marie and Fersen from ‘Toho MA’, but the full answer is slightly more complicated.

Firstly, it is almost unfair to compare them to each other because in MA they are the main characters, whereas in 1789 they are main-support or secondary-mains at best.

Secondly, MA has a far bigger focus on the characters because that is what drives the plot, while the opposite is true for 1789, which mainly sells a spectacle. I myself am more fan of subtle and deep story-telling rather than spectacular shows, so the MA versions of Marie and Fersen are more to my liking.

Thirdly, the quality of the characters also depends greatly on the cast. My first view of MA is the A-cast, and therefore my impression of the characters is that they are incredibly well written. After comparison with other casts however, I started to wonder whether it was just the A-cast being too good, and the musical itself being ‘fine’. (In short; I’m not fully sure how much I’d ‘clearly’ have preferred MA Marie and Fersen were it not for A-cast. Click here for a comparison between the two casts written by my friend @wildandwhirlingwords)

But, I shall go into more detail for both characters why MA’s version appeals more to me - someone who enjoys character writing most.

🌹Marie Antoinette🌹

M.A. 2018

In my opinion Marie Antoinette is better in MA because you see her journey and her motivations. We all know that the historical Queen screwed up majorly, but in MA we see why, and in what ways she indeed had very little other choice from her own perspective. She was a flawed foreign woman in a time and place where flawed foreign women were hated most.

In the beginning of the musical the King comes tell Marie that she’d have to live more economically. Marie is clearly not very enthusiastic to hear that, but she also never protests. She just asks ‘why’ and then accepts the answer - albeit broodingly. More importantly however: we need to keep in mind that despite being called Madam Deficit, the historical Marie Antoinette was actually quite economical at first because the Austrian court where she comes from was way less extravagant than the French. It was after her marriage into French royalty that she became more extravagant, because she was criticised for “not being a proper royal” by the French. According to the court, the 14 year old Marie was “a peasant unworthy of becoming Queen.” When you’re that young and criticised by your entire new life, you do everything in your power to make sure you can actually have a life; you adapt. So when Marie was then suddenly told to stop ‘adapting and be a proper Queen worthy of the French”, we can see why more is at stake than “Karen needs to deal with only 10 dresses a week.”

Something else that adds depth to her character as opposed to her 1789 counterpart is that as the story progresses, Marie actually grows. She becomes more mature and more serious, and you see in her how all the events have a clear toll on her. From her own perspective, she really was trying very hard, but anything she tried was inadequate to improve the situation. What she didn’t know is that no matter how hard she tried, the situation was already un-salvageable before she was even born. The populace AND the court had already decided to hate her for being an unintelligent foreign woman from an enemy state, after all. This is an insight most historians nowadays agree on.

In a later scene where Margrid confronts Marie, she asks the Queen: “what makes you think you are better than us?” Marie confirms nor denies, but replies: “I am merely Queen as I was appointed by God.” When she adds: “All I know is duties, you are free,” there is also a clear sense she genuinely doesn’t know why she was appointed by God, but as she is now, all she can do is her best. She is still ignorant, which was a genuine problem about her. She does not know the hardships of not being from the top rank, allowing her say something as insensitive as: “at least you’re free.” But again, despite her ignorance, her feelings are sincere. From all the unfair expectations she was made to live up to from age 14, you really do see why ‘a life without duties’ seemed so much more appealing to her.

1789 - The Lovers of the Bastille

Marie in 1789 is more of a side-character, and the musical itself just is not very character/story driven as MA is. 1789 has the tendency to take the tropiest of tropes and stay on surface level with the characters. Ouki Kaname is an incredibly good actress and she tries her best; but she cannot do more than the script gives her to work with.

In this musical Marie is not portrayed in a very relatable or sympathetic light. She is extravagant because she has escapist fantasies, but we don’t really see what she’s escaping from. The sympathy from the audience is supposed to be drawn from the tragedy that she’s married to the King but is in love with Fersen. Oh, and she has a son but he’s mortally ill. Meanwhile however, you don’t see how her life is so bad she needs to escape... and you also don’t see Marie really being worried about her son than an occasional: “Oh Ill again? Sucks I guess. Gotta cry my eyes out on my lover’s lap, AHHH FERSEN 💗” It was not until her son had already died that Marie woke up, but the lack of portrayal of Marie’s perspective and the pacing really makes one legitimately wonder whether the child did not just die of Marie’s neglect. And about the forbidden love ...we’ve seen enough love triangles with star-crossed-lovers... I don’t know about you guys, but I am numbbbbb to this “problem”.

When Marie receives message from Olympe that she finally gets to meet her lover after a long separation at the Palais Royal, one of the first things she says is: “is that not the place where revolutionaries and prostitutes are gathered?” This immediately sets up an empathy-barrier between her and the common people. This Marie clearly views herself too good for people who do anything to get by; why would you care about her then? Because Marie’s story is not fleshed out you don’t see parts that can make you go: “oh, the revolutionaries really hate her for reasons beyond her control, she is in danger.” Or “she was raised by a puritan society, making her hate on sex-workers; that’s part of her character flaw.” Instead it’s just this Diva being quite judgemental.

Ouki was trying very hard to make the focus about her own safety, but with the script being what it is... she’s still a mostly unsympathetic character who is a martyr of forbidden love.

There is one scene where we see her take on a much more mature and responsible role. That was the first time I personally felt like Marie from 1789 is an actual human being with feelings and personal difficulties. But in great part this is Ouki’s acting... (the other cast didn’t do much for me). What is also important is that Marie was ‘humbled’ because her son died. Marie did not have much of a personal growth, and then she changes to a more sympathetic person because of an external factor just... feels less earned.

In the finale Marie appears again in her execution clothes, and the way Ouki appeared really felt like a punch in the gut. She sings “as a recompense for our griefs, people have learnt forgiveness.” However, the story skimped over the characters so much I was left to wonder: “who learned to forgive whom?” Do you think the people forgave you? Or was there somebody you hated but now learned to forgive? What was your grudge? Do you understand the angry mob’s grudge?

The finale of the musical treats like after the heroic sacrifice of the protagonist (Ronan) the oppressive monarchy was replaced by a good democracy, and a Reign of Terror will DEFINITELY not happen under Robespierre or something. But if you’ve had a BIT of European history you just know it’s a blatant lie. So the finale just feels too simplistic, and this simplistic feeling was in part presented by Marie’s very empty, lip-service-y line.

⚔️Hans Axel von Fersen⚔️

M.A. 2018

Fersen is a bit harder to compare which version is better, because honestly, depending on who plays Fersen in MA, Fersen is either the most generic Hollywood sweeping-lover-hero, or a diamond mine to excavate. In the same post linked above by my friend, she explains in detail the differences between TashiroFersen and FurukawaFersen. K-musical fans, don’t @ me, but from what I can tell, the Korean Fersens are also very... typical.

In this post I have discussed Furukawa’s Fersen in great detail, so I shall skip over these for this post. But to summarise, when portrayed by Furukawa at least, Fersen in MA is very nuanced and restrained. Even if we do not fully credit Furukawa however, then at the very least the script allows enough space and material for an actor to flesh him out so phenomenally well (I think Tashiro and some other actors just.... really missed out on the potential).

Fersen in MA incredibly memorable because the main atmosphere of the imminent doom awaiting everyone is carried by him in a way nobody else does. The moment Fersen enters you feel the tension that the musical wishes to tell. Fersen has seen revolutions, he’s seen the power of anger; he knows shit is going to hit the fan because he’s familiar with this trajectory. 

Fersen has excellent self control because he knows how a lack thereof would hurt Marie’s reputation and escalate the growing chaos. You can see very clearly how Fersen does want the intimacy, but to him duty and the grander picture has priority. In all the small actions from Fersen you see how he is a savvy intellectual through and through. (More about reservation later).

In contrast to 1789, we also get to see so much more of Fersen in MA because he is the narrator and a main character. Throughout the musical he’s been trying to de-escalate the chaos and even though his plans were actually well thought-out, the problems were just simply too big for any one person to solve. When Fersen mourns Marie there is a clear sense that he is not really surprised, just really upset that things had to come so far. Instead of singing something accusatory to the angry and hungry people, he sings: “fate, why did you give her everything, only to show her hell in the end?” Fersen truly understands why the people were duly angry, but that not taking away his sorrow of losing Marie who he knows is a better person than people make her out to be.

Also in great contrast to 1789, the finale of MA is rather grim. It does not suggest hope or that all problems will eventually disappear. The story for these people have ended, but the problems and the world will continue to our days, and days far beyond ours. It gives a feeling that the world of MA is so extensive that we - the audience - are part of it. In the finale when we see Fersen again, he also stays in tune with this feeling. “How can the problems of the world be solved, what is true justice? We remain clueless” he sings, and the way he looks into the unknown distance is almost a reminder to us that nobody has reason to stop worrying and fight for justice.

1789 - the Lovers of the Bastille

Now if we were to compare MA’s Furu Fersen to 1789′s Fersen, we see a stark contrast between the two. Where Furusen was incredibly reserved and hyper aware of everything, 1789′s Fersen is just the over-romantic lover who had been pining for his love. For a moment Marie realises she probably should not be cheating on her husband and backs away. Fersen however, is the one to make further advances, actively pulling her back to his side.

When he embraces Marie you see how he is just dreaming and indulging, something Furusen would never do. Furusen might hug Marie, but not without sh*tting 50 colours. 1789′s Fersen is the sweeping Romeo that most of history makes him to be, and little more. But again, Fersen plays but a very small role in 1789, so it is also unfair to compare him to MA’s Fersen.

Regardless of whatever nuance might or might not be there however, it is also just quite hard to like this Fersen because he is ‘just another privileged aristocrat who is just needy’. When making out with Marie in Palais Royale they find out that Ronan fell asleep there drunk. Ronan simply complained that Marie was too loud and woke him, and Fersen immediately shuts him up, and then draws his sword at him for ‘speaking rudely’.

First of all Fersen and Marie, if you’re gonna do a clandestine meeting, you CHECK your surroundings. Second of all, FERSEN Ò.Ó, this peasant is untrained and weaponless; you can’t just unleash your high-ranking martial arts at him with a shiny sword. This is EXACTLY the reason the revolution happened; the people were sick of the suppression of the powerless by the powerful. UGHUM. It truly is mind-blowing to consider how 1789 Fersen and MA Fersen are both...Fersens.

This Fersen is not very involved with the revolution from either side. He just proposes to help Marie and the King escape once, but got dismissed immediately. The following time we see him it is in the finale.

There he stands, a knight in shiny armour singing a really hopeful phrase to a relatively upbeat and hopeful music: “do not rely on force, but seek for hope and courage.” Here again unlike with MA’s Fersen, you don’t really feel like this Fersen has experienced anything. It was like he was an employed special guard, told by his boss there’s nothing he needed to do, his boss is dead, and oh wellll, moving on!

Conclusion

Because Marie and Fersen in MA are main characters whose stories are fleshed out, it really is very unfair to compare them to their 1789′s counterparts in a race of ‘who is better’. In the end of the day, 1789′s aim is to sell a spectacle, and it realllly is a phenomenal piece if you’re there for the spectacle. The choreography, songs, stage, everything is masterpiece-level. So if you’re there for the spectacle you get exactly what you went there for. The story and characters however... not so much. If one is more drawn to a direct, glittery spectacle with hands-down-amazing-songs however, they’d probably find Marie and Fersen from 1789 more enjoyable. If you’re into first and impressive impressions, the MA counterparts might demand a BIT too much attention and patience to get into.

Related posts:

Introduction and character analysis Fersen ‘MA’ 2018

Comparative commentary on MA Cast M and Cast A

[lavendersage]

Your blog is a great source of comfort for me. While I know that the workings behind it is just a kindhearted person selecting tender content in their free time, there's something almost fae about the calm it gives me.

I hope it's not the wrong choice, but for a while I've wanted to try something. I come to this blog everyday for some peace -- sometimes I don't even check the rest of my feed, I just come straight here. This year has been dreadfully taxing on everyone, and I'm one of those everybodies.

I hope it's okay, but for a while I've had this idea of writing my heartbreak down and dropping it here, almost like letting it go on a scrap of paper in a stream. I havent been to the woods in a while; I'm a teen in a city that's been beyond ravaged by covid.

But still, I found time for a little #longing. Let's call her Jay. She's smarter than a whip. Math prodigy, piano prodigy, in line to be valedictorian. I, one might say, am nöne of those things. Someday she'll have a PHD, and all I'll have is my ADHD. I'm the class clown, a freelance dunce, but due to some stroke of luck, the same perfectionism that drives Jay's brilliance doesnt allow her to relax easily. I can make her laugh. She values that in me. I found a currency for which I could pay for her time.

I've loved her for years, Lav. And what hurts more is that I know she loves me too. The kisses I've stolen light a fire in my stomach at the thought of them. The memory of closing the distance between us in the big guest room bed when I used to go to her house to sleep over is what's keeping me from going mad during this third round of total lockdown. When we are alone, she is mine, and I am whole. But like I said, if Jay is anything, she's a perfectionist. We were once scolded for being too "flirtatious" at a dance -- the only instance of discipline she's recieved all high school (meanwhile, I have a desk in the detention hall that literally has my name on it). She's desperately closeted, and terrified of losing her image. That's the thing about people who study until they sweat blood so that they never fail: the only thing they never learn is that failure isnt the end of the world the way us flunkies do.

I keep asking her to be mine, publically. Or, perhaps not fully publically, but at least socially. Our peers have more than caught on to what's going on between us and are overwhelmingly positive. And while we'd still have to hide from the adults, that would be accomplished whether we did it totally and miserably, or with room for partial sunshine. My heart and my honor cannot stand the sneaking, the slinking. I am not a secret to be kept. But Jay isnt ready, so I suppose I can learn to behave as if ashamed of my love for her sake.

I fold this message up, and drop it in your stream, Goddess of The Pure Calm. Grant me peace.

first, i just want to say that i can neither confirm nor deny that i am fae 🧚‍♀️ i am so glad that you visit my blog so often and that it grants you peace throughout the day. it always boggles my mind to hear things like that from you guys 🤧

and please, as always, take my words with a grain of salt--i’m not an advice blog (i’m not even sure if advice is what you’re looking for), but i will do the best i can 💚

my heart breaks for you, friend. my teenage years may be behind me but i still remember how hard it was to exist in that stage of life. it’s hard in a way that adulthood isn’t.

i was a lot like you. i was always “the funny one” and never really stuck out academically. i was friends with a lot of people whose intellect and ambition intimidated me to no end. to be in love with someone like that must feel like something else entirely.

that being said, i can feel how much you care for jay just in the way you talk about her. “i can make her laugh. she values that in me. i found a currency for which i could pay for her time.” this made me tear up a little, i won’t lie. and darling, i’m sure she values you for far more than your ability to make her laugh. but i get it--people like us use humor for a lot of things, maybe to make up for something we think we lack, or as a way to get other people to see us as worth keeping around. i assure you, love, you’re worth keeping around if you’re the funniest person alive and you’re worth keeping around if you never utter another joke again. your presence in your friends’ lives is valuable. your presence to miss jay is valuable. your presence on earth is valuable.

it must be incredibly hard to be in love with someone who reciprocates your feelings, but be unable to move forward with your relationship. you don’t want to be a secret, you don’t want to sneak around. of course you don’t, love. i’m so sorry that you have to wrestle with those feelings.

however...i’ve also been in jay’s place. back then, i wasn’t necessarily concerned about my image, or my reputation, but before i was out, i was terrified of what my family and friends would think of me if they knew the truth about who i was. i lost my chance to be with someone i really cared about because i was too afraid to go public, and they weren’t willing to wait. i simply wasn’t ready.

i of course don’t know her personally, but it sounds to me like jay isn’t ready, either. it’s great that your peers are positive about your potential relationship, but there are probably some of outside factors that are scaring her out of wanting to go public. it doesn’t mean she’s ashamed of her feelings. it doesn’t mean she’s ashamed of you. she simply isn’t ready. and for plenty of folks, it takes time to reach that point.

i can only speak from my own experience and what i’ve witness in my friends’ lives, but darling, once you’re out of high school and move into adulthood, so much changes. you get the freedom to more deeply explore who you are. i cannot even begin to stress how much change you will go through in your late teens and twenties. i don’t even recognize the person i was back then, and chances are both you and jay will have plenty of time to grow into the people you’re meant to be.

i don’t want to turn this into an “oh, it gets better when you’re older” type of response, because that’s redundant and it isn’t even always true, but there is a lot of value in the freedom that comes with leaving high school and getting out into the world. you will experience it. so will she. give it some time.

jay may decide that her feelings are more powerful than her fears, and she may need more time to reach a point where she’s comfortable sharing that part of herself with the world. i truly hope that she comes to that decision in her own time, at her own pace.

i also wish you well, friend. i will keep you in my thoughts as you wrestle with these feelings of longing and frustration, and i will keep jay in my thoughts as well. if your situation changes, feel free to let me know. my inbox is always open.

lots of love to you both, and stay safe 💚💚💚

[xtruss]

The Top Reason I Hate Masks Is They Force Me To Live By Lies

Being forced to wear a mask is being forced to communicate that I support treating COVID-19 as if it should take priority over everything else in life. That's not only false, but evil.

— By Joy Pullmann | September 8, 2021 | Source: The Federalist

Throughout the last year, I’ve read a lot of masking arguments but none that broached my top objection: mask mandates force me to communicate what I believe are very dangerous lies.

Even if masks ultimately do provide some small reduction in coronavirus spread without imposing additional harms, a contentious claim, to me that is almost beside the point. The point is the security theater, which assumes that drastic government micromanagement of our lives and indefinite curtailment of our liberties are not only ever acceptable but in fact the moral thing to do.

I’m not talking about high-risk situations like nursing homes or hospitals or the homes of cancer patients, where I am willing to mask and sanitize and so forth for the chance it may indeed protect highly vulnerable people. I’m talking about in normal life, in public settings. Despite what people have been shanghaied into assuming, these are low-risk environments and should be treated as such.

Far above and beyond any health considerations, masking is a symbol. It is a talisman, a ritual, a communication of premises that I utterly reject. Being forced to wear a mask to me is the equivalent of being forced to wear a T-shirt that supports legalized abortion, which I believe is mass murder.

Wearing a mask communicates that I accept the premise that everyone should wear a mask, even if vaccinated, even if possessing natural antibodies, even if a child to whom the flu is more dangerous, even if an adult who believes living with risk is part of human life and that attempting to eliminate risk is more dangerous than accepting it. It communicates that the entire world should look like a hospital, a fearful and sad place where people are desperately sick, even if they don’t know it.

It communicates that I believe harassing the living hell out of Americans is a justified response to a disease with a 99.5 percent survival rate or better for those younger than 65. It communicates that it is reasonable to worship health as an idol, and to control citizens with fear. Well, I simply don’t believe any of that, and I’m not going to be forced to communicate that I do.

Yes, I could be wrong both about abortion, masking, and every other thing I believe. But it used to be considered an American thing for others to “defend to the death” my right to express what I believe, even by those who vehemently disagree with the content of my beliefs and speech.

Now I’m told by people who identify even as libertarians that I do not have the right to my own opinion about the post-totalitarian COVID regime, or that if I may hold my opinion privately I certainly cannot live in accord with my beliefs. Clearly, America has fundamentally changed. I oppose that fundamental transformation, too.

I’ve recently been reading and rereading communist dissident Vaclav Havel’s famous essay, “The Power of the Powerless,” in an attempt to make more sense out of how to live in our time. I find myself applying his insights to multiple current issues, including this one.

Havel famously uses the example of a greengrocer putting the Marxist slogan “Workers of the world unite!” in his shop window to analyze the power dynamics in what he calls a “post-totalitarian” society. It was a little startling to me how closely his observations of living in a Communist Bloc country paralleled my daily experiences under the COVID regime.

Havel makes it clear that whether the grocer believes the slogan is immaterial. Probably, he says, the man does not. But he conforms to the demands made of him, even when they contradict reality and good sense, because if he doesn’t he will be punished.

In posting signs of affirmation of their regime, “The greengrocer and the office worker have both adapted to the conditions in which they live, but in doing so, they help to create those conditions,” Havel writes. “…Quite simply, each helps the other to be obedient. Both are objects in a system of control, but at the same time they are its subjects as well. They are both victims of the system and its instruments.”

As with the masks, whether “Workers of the world unite!” is true is beside the point. The point is signaling compliance out of fear, not an honest discussion of the evidence, or persuasion, or any mechanism respecting the informed and open consent of the governed.

“The greengrocer had to put the slogan in his window, therefore, not in the hope that someone might read it or be persuaded by it, but to contribute, along with thousands of other slogans, to the panorama that everyone is very much aware of,” notes Havel. “This panorama, of course, has a subliminal meaning as well: it reminds people where they are living and what is expected of them. It tells them what everyone else is doing, and indicates to them what they must do as well, if they don’t want to be excluded, to fall into isolation, alienate themselves from society, break the rules of the game, and risk the loss of their peace and tranquility and security.”

This is what mask mandates achieve — a false signal that dissenters don’t exist, that everyone buys into the indefinite suspension of our rights “because COVID,” no matter how much it harms people, nor how weak its alleged rationales. This was confirmed for me when my governor finally let his mask mandate lapse. Suddenly, after I had been for months nearly the only person I ever saw without a mask, now almost nobody wore them.

And it wasn’t because everyone was vaccinated, as government statistics show the majority are not. So it was clear that the vast majority of my fellow citizens were obeying the mandate simply because it was a mandate, not because they fully supported it. Yet their compliance communicated the falsehood that the COVID regime had mass support. And that is exactly the point.

Citizens’ assistance to a lying and oppressive regime, Havel says, changes those who corrupt themselves in this way: “they may learn to be comfortable with their involvement, to identify with it as though it were something natural and inevitable and, ultimately, so they may — with no external urging — come to treat any non-involvement as an abnormality, as arrogance, as an attack on themselves, as a form of dropping out of society.”

In other words, falsifying reality brings about more of that falsified reality. It’s the same dynamic as gang initiations requiring initiates to commit crimes. Once people have compromised themselves, they are more likely to identify with their compromise, because it’s embarrassing to admit you were wrong. So instead, people double down. They heap onto their initial cowardice the additional cowardice of refusing to admit they could have been wrong.

This also helps account for the viciousness with which people often treat dissenters. Dissenters are living proof that everyone does not have to comply, that it is possible to live in the truth. This shames those who have chosen temporary comfort over noble sacrifice.

The greengrocer who does not display the sign, Havel says, is soundly punished by his peers precisely because “He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can coexist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.”

The crumbling of the Soviet Union began when people “came to realize that not standing up for the freedom of others, regardless of how remote their means of creativity or their attitude to life, meant surrendering one’s own freedom,” Havel writes. There came a point when more people realized that the price of staying silent, of accepting lies, was too much.

Do we need an Afghanistan-level catastrophe for more Americans to realize their acceptance of lockdowns, which mask-wearing signals, is just as deadly? Statists are more than happy to oblige. But the longer we take to wake up, the worse the suffering must be.

— Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebook is a design-your-own summer camp kit, and her bestselling ebook is "Classic Books for Young Children." Sign up here to get early access to her next full-length book, "How To Control The Internet So It Doesn’t Control You." A Hillsdale College honors graduate, @JoyPullmann is also the author of "The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids," from Encounter Books.

[its8simplejulesblog]

As I Write This

My laptop is on my lap and my feet are crossed on my brilliantly teal blue yoga mat. I often think about what in my right mind made me interested in ever starting yoga but I’ve found in life that there are some things that don’t need to be explained. I had an interest in pursuing it and I did, it’s as simple as that. I didn’t, however, ever think it would turn into what it has turned into today. 

When I tell you that I practice yoga what do you immediately think of? I know initially for me I thought essentially of vsco girl contortionists which, unfortunately for me, did not match my vibe. I am neither flexible nor necessarily affluent and aesthetically pleasing. In fact, I still can’t touch my toes (September 6th update: I can touch my toes now! Vsco girl here I come). I thought of entitled white women that rattled on about manifestation and things that truthfully sound like a load of garbage. However, I went in with an open mind and that’s all you must do. Your practice is entirely selfish in the best way. It is about you and only you and your metaphysical connection with yourself. 

So what does that look like? Well I’ll be the first to tell you that I don’t look like a pretzel all of the time..if ever. In fact, the important part about yoga is that it is equally a connection between mind and body. It is you talking with yourself and quieting your mind and if that takes you touching your feet to your head then fine, but that’s not the case for me. Quite simply, yoga and meditation take the form of acknowledging your consciousness. There is often the misconception that you have to meditate only in utter silence sitting cross-legged with your eyes closed. That’s not true. I know people that are most appreciative out in nature, and they meditate while walking. Some mediate while playing sports or playing the guitar and laying down on a carpet. The importance is that you take the time to recognize and prioritize the thing that makes you most content. 

In the heart of my minds eye (Julia wtf..why are you speaking like this) I see yoga and meditation as voluntary gratitude. This is something that I really came to define as my personal practice. This is why I enjoy and look forward to yoga and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether I can touch my toes or not. As my own personal definition, I recognize yoga as experiencing and accepting the world exactly as it is and this often begins with the metaphysical, rather than the physical. 

In everything that we do, we can direct our thoughts. Whether you currently think so or not, your body will never feel good if you don’t mentally feel good. I know a lot of people that use the excuse/ example of saying, “well when you get sick your body deteriorates and because your body deteriorates you have to stay inside and because you have to stay inside you can get sad and depressed.” To which I would argue that never in a thousand years would I say that being sick in and of itself causes me to be more sad than I already might have been. If anything, it just highlights whatever negativity was already there. 

Our bodies are representations of the internal, not the other way around. I believe this is why I find psychology and sociology so intriguing, and are frustrated when it is refuted and defined as a “fake science.” In my eyes, empirical science is only half of the story. I know that while data is important (I DO always gush about statistics after all) inquisitive research means even more. In our minds we are all different. We experience the exact same situation differently, we react to them differently, this is something that could never be empirically explained and to that I revere the scientists that are denied credibility solely because they cannot produce equations on paper. 

If you’re a close friend of mine you’d know that I’ve been struggling with my self worth recently. This manifests itself in my constant requests for confirmation that my friends are not bored of me and that I’m still interesting and worthwhile. This feeling is like a groundhog because as quickly and passionately as it pops up it will go away and I continue with my life, but that’s the thing about the subconscious, it doesn’t “go away”. When Punxsutawney Phil announces the coming of the next season he doesn’t just pop underground and cease to exist. Every single thing that we worry about is housed in ego and as our egos like to title themselves our “identity” you can’t shut that up and suddenly become a shell of a (wo)man. 

For that very reason, I’ve come to adore the job that I do as a social policy research assistant. At it’s very core is the act of interviewing those that you would never even THINK you had anything in common with. The project I’m currently working with is with the elderly and disabled, two things I’d pretty confidently claim I am not. And yet, constantly their words set of alarms in my mind. Not a warning bell, not a “get the hell out of there it’s going to suck to be old” bell either, but moreso, a glimpse into all that life has to offer in the most inspirational way. 

Yesterday I was speaking to the kindest woman I have ever spoken to. She was orphaned at 17 and her mother had died of cancer and she had been suffering from a disability to the point where she is currently homebound at the age of 57. Was this disheartening Yes, but what did we talk about? We talked about the fact that she had multicolored crystal prisms all over her house. We talked about the fact that whenever she was depressed she reminded herself that everything she was feeling was temporary and she would see color again soon. We talked about how because of all the things she had been through she developed a passion for service through the mother of her ex-boyfriend who took her in and forced her to carry on. We talked about how she was proud of me and thought I was perfect for this inquisitive role (remember I have never met this woman) and should continue on being curious and kind as I have so much life ahead of me. This is what meditation is all about. You don’t have to sit in silence, but rather reflect on what the world around you means. 

She told me she wanted to give me a prism :) 

I mediate through reading. My entire LIFE books have been healing for me. I have found that I look forward to being in my own head and learning constantly learning about anything and everything because every book, in its own way, is applicable to life. And its for that reason, when my dad and I walked into 2nd and Charles the other day, that I had this urge to look for “Eat, Pray, Love,” by Elizabeth Gilbert. To be truthfully honest, I had seen a tik tok about it about a week before, that was kind of like a parody for the movie trailer and for some reason it stuck with me to the point where an entire week later I was roaming the aisles for this book. 

If you didn’t know, 2nd and Charles is a second-hand book store so there is never any guarantee that something you’re looking for is there. In fact, I had been roaming for about as long as my impatient temperament could take when I turned around by accident and there it was on the tippy top of the shelf behind me. I couldn’t tell you what drove me to grab this book at this exact time in my life, but I have never been more thankful for a book in my entire life. 

Elizabeth Gilbert simultaneously writes like God and your older sister. Her language is divine and it rocks you from the very essence of your soul but she’ll also talk about how much sex she’s had and how bloated she was after eating more pasta than anyone should ever eat and how she didn’t give a fuck. And, I don’t do this often, but I found myself repeatedly stopping to type quotes in a note on my phone. If you haven’t yet heard of it (I’d be surprised) but “Eat, Pray, Love” is about a woman in her mid thirties who lived the ideal life in New York but ended up going through a nasty divorce with her husband and went through a complicated affair after the fact. 

I think that a lot of people misjudge this book as being equivalent to a rom-com like cringey love affair of superfluous nonsense and un relatable emotional sentiments. That couldn’t be further from the truth. This book was raw. She is often sobbing on her bathroom floor or crushed with suicidal depression. She is infinitely lonely and feels so small and it is nothing short of a mirror into all of our lives at some point. She goes to the countries to work herself out of this nightmare after a notably horrible episode on her bathroom floor where she finally admits to herself that she refuses to live her current life anymore. In Italy, India, and Indonesia she details her experiences in the pursuit of pleasure, devotion, and balance of a means of essentially finding her purpose. 

When I say pleasure, you’ll probably think of Rome and romance and sex and pretty people. Those things definitely weren’t absent in her description (Except the sex because she decided to remain celibate for the year), but her pleasure presented itself in the most genuine form. Through her appreciation and slow consumption of good food, her slow meander through Italian architecture, her sunset discussions with new friends. These are things all the more important to being content. 

I personally enjoyed her description of India the most as it brought me back to my experience with yoga and the individualized nature of the practice. Liz studied at an Ashram (a religious temple) under a guru for multiple months. It is at first torturous for her to find the the faith and courage to let herself go to some divinity that is not tangibly seen but she so acutely describes how important it is to quiet your mind to the chaos of the world. Once you do so, you really realize the lack of weight it ACTUALLY has on your life. This means that the way you perceive your situation will dramatically change the way you act and feel and treat others, something I have constantly been repeating in my other posts. Similarly, one of my favorite aspects of this section is her description of religion not as a border of political and historical idol complexes of rules and punishments, but a thin golden thread woven together with hundreds of other thought processes to form a spiritual connection between self and the divine. 

In Indonesia she balances the two through helping others. I won’t go too much into detail but everything is so perfectly combined. So much so that I have tenfold more a desire to go to these three places than anywhere I might have mentioned before in my discussions of travel now. 

In reading her words, she mad me cry and compose myself only to cry even more. That’s the beauty of a book that is so well renown, yet applies to every reader’s individual experience. I felt like she was addressing me directly. I really felt like someone or something was speaking through her directly to Julia Larock and I have read plenty of books and have never once felt like that. Specifically, here are a few quotes that really punched me in the face: 

“There are only two questions that human beings have fought over, all through history: How much do you love me? and Who is in charge?” 

“Vipassana meditation teaches that grief and nuisance are inevitable in this life, but if you can plant yourself in stillness long enough, you will, in time, experience the truth that everything (both uncomfortable and lovely) will pass”

“How do the survivors of terminated relationships ever endure the pain of unfinished business? From that place of meditation, I found the answer- you can finish it yourself, from within yourself. It’s not only possible, it’s essential”

And so as I finished inhaling her words after hours and hours of reading today I decided to try a new kind of yoga. Not that I had been doing it incorrectly before, but I wanted to focus my meditation more on gratitude. So I rolled out my mat and put on my meditation music playlist on spotify (don’t make fun of me it’s a real thing and it will change your life) and just sat. I originally tried to close my eyes, but that actually distracted me more so I kept them open (that’s the thing about meditation, you just do whatever works for you) And this time I actually let my mind wander, but only to a positive place. A place of thankfulness and peace. A place where every negative aspect of my life still existed, and I let it enter my mind, but it never once turned into the chaotic anger that it once was, the shame was there but I controlled it, the hurt arrived but it was nothing compared to what else I saw. 

I saw Ryan giving me the longest hug of my life while I sobbed in the West Chester parking lot, I saw my mom stroking my hair while I sat on her lap and told her about my day, I saw my brother and I playing rock band and taking it way too seriously, I saw my Disney roommates and I celebrating Christmas together, I saw Steven and I discussing how similar we are, I saw myself walking hand and hand with some of the young children I met on the dirt roads after church in the Dominican Republic, I saw Lauren and Steph and I screaming when we saw each other in the Longwood parking lot, I saw walking on the boardwalk with Lauren and Amanda scaring me from behind, I saw myself playing golf with Graham and Cameron, I saw myself having photoshoots with Jaelyn, I saw myself handing out drinks to Brewed customers that wanted nothing more than to tell me their entire life stories, I saw all my robotics friends supporting each other at competitions, I saw all of my fellow TFA interns drunk at our staff social (oops ;) hehe ) I saw my dad telling me he was proud of me, I saw Zach taking care of me even though we just met, I saw the hoards and hoards of kids in China writing me love letters and calling me a Disney princess, I saw the zoo in Australia where we took little Ethan for the first time, I saw Eloise telling me she was pregnant and I could be an aunt to her daughter, I saw my cousin Genevieve telling me that she wanted me to come to Cape Charles with her family because “whenever you’re with us the vibes are good.” 

And I literally just sat there and cried. 

Maybe it would have been a little bit eerie if anyone walked into my room, but it was a silent cry. I wasn’t sobbing or dramatic or weepy, there were just tears, because there was so many thoughts flashing in my mind and I probably only sat there for 15 minutes. And towards the end, over top of it all, I kept hearing the words “I’m speaking to you.” It was kind of like a mantra because I heard it in my own voice, but it wasn’t necessarily coming from just me. It was like in my own voice I hear, “I’m speaking to you, I believe you, this love that you see in these memories, hold onto that because this is all I want for you.” 

And that’s all I want for me too, and for everyone really. Because at the end of the day when we better ourselves we better everyone. 

When I finally dragged myself off the mat I picked up my phone for the first time in a few hours today. There was a text there from Casey, who is the youth group pastor with the group I used to be apart of at UD. He told me that he was thinking of facilitating a mental health support group this fall and he wanted me to advocate for it and be a part of spreading the word about it because I’ve been blessed with so many connections. What a situationally ironic time for a text like that, after just sitting in gratitude for those in my life. I told him that I’d absolutely love to be a part of that and now here I am, writing this. 

I’m not going to try to be disgusting and poetic and say that my life is changed and nothing will ever be the same. I’m positive I’ll still get upset and angry about the same things in my life. The difference though is that I don’t see that as an impenetrable barrier, but more like a hurdle where all you need to do is put some pressure on yourself to get yourself in the air. 

And once I’m in the air I’ll bring out the prism that was just given to me and it’ll create color. 

[theconservativebrief]

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has found himself in the middle of a political firestorm, and it’s possible he’ll be entirely consumed by it.

On Friday, the New York Times reported that Rosenstein had suggested last year that he and others secretly record President Donald Trump in an effort to remove him from office via the 25th Amendment. Rosenstein denies that he did that, and one source told the Times that Rosenstein made the suggestion in jest.

But Trump, who has long criticized Rosenstein, could very well use the news as pretext to fire the Justice Department’s second in command. If that happens, it could spell the beginning of the end for special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

That’s because Rosenstein is the man responsible for overseeing Mueller’s investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions — Rosenstein’s boss — recused himself from the probe last year after it became clear he’d provided false and misleading testimony to Congress about his own contacts with Russia.

That’s left Rosenstein to walk a tightrope. On one hand, he’s remained committed to protecting the investigation from conservatives inside and outside Congress who believe it’s biased against the president and have been urging Trump to fire the special counsel.

But at the same time, Rosenstein can’t go so far in defending the probe that Trump — who has repeatedly called the investigation a “witch hunt” — fires him, as that would pave the way for Trump to potentially replace him with someone more willing to fire Mueller or otherwise thwart the investigation.

This is important, because Mueller has to run major investigative decisions past the deputy attorney general. A Rosenstein replacement could simply refuse to approve any of Mueller’s requests, effectively slowing the whole investigation to a crawl, or even fire Mueller outright if he felt there was a reason to do so. Rosenstein, however, has made it clear that at this point, he sees no reason to fire Mueller.

This has irked Trump for months. He continues to tell some of his advisers that he thinks Rosenstein is “a Democrat” (even though he is actually a lifelong Republican) — possibly suggesting that he is thinking about firing the deputy attorney general.

All of which leads to one startling conclusion about Rosenstein: The future of the Mueller probe — and possibly even Trump’s presidency — is intricately linked with how well the nation’s second-highest law enforcement official performs this delicate balancing act.

The Times’s Friday story, however, may have just destroyed that.

Rosenstein’s performance during a congressional hearing last year revealed how he’s trying to navigate this tricky situation.

Here’s what happened: On the night of December 12 — mere hours before Rosenstein would testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing — the Justice Department showed reporters some anti-Trump texts. The messages were from two FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who had corresponded throughout the 2016 presidential election.

Strzok — a former top FBI counterintelligence official who was on Mueller’s investigative team — texted Page that Trump was an “idiot.” He also wanted Clinton to defeat Trump in the election — in another message, he wrote: “God Hillary should win 100,000,000 — 0.”

There was also a text that seemingly implied Strzok and Page were working on an “insurance policy” in case Trump won the election. But the Wall Street Journal reported on December 18 that Strzok’s text was really about the need to investigate possible Trump-Russia ties.

Mueller removed Strzok from his staff in July, and the Strzok-Page exchanges are subject to an internal investigation by the Justice Department. Still, some conservatives in and out of government think these texts show that the Mueller probe is biased against the president.

It’s unclear if Rosenstein authorized the release of the texts, but some legal analysts thought the DOJ made the messages public the night before Rosenstein’s big hearing to curry favor with the anti-Mueller crowd on the House Judiciary Committee.

”It’s appalling behavior by the department,” Matthew Miller, a former spokesperson for the Justice Department in the Obama administration, told Business Insider about the release of the texts at the time. “This is an ongoing investigation in which these employees have due-process rights, and the political leadership at DOJ has thrown them to the wolves so Rosenstein can get credit from House Republicans at his hearing.”

Rosenstein defended the release of the texts during the hearing, saying: “We consulted with the inspector general to determine that he had no objection to releasing the material,” in response to a question about the texts by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “If he had, we would not have released it,” Rosenstein said.

But he also defended Mueller in that same session. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the committee’s ranking member, asked Rosenstein the most highly anticipated question of the session: “If you were ordered today to fire Mr. Mueller, what would you do?”

“If there were good cause, I would act. If there were no good cause, I would not,” Rosenstein replied. He then went on to defend Mueller personally, saying, “It would’ve been difficult to find anyone more qualified for this job.”

These exchanges show that Rosenstein was trying to stand up for the probe while still appeasing Trump and his allies. Benjamin Wittes, an expert on national security law at the Brookings Institution, wrote on the Lawfare blog that Rosenstein may pay a price for doing both.

“Rosenstein here has, at a minimum, contributed to [the political] circus — at the expense of his own employees,” he wrote after the hearing. “The DOJ and FBI workforces will not forget that. Nor should they.”

Those 24 hours last December encapsulated Rosenstein’s political two-step. One minute he’s defending the release of texts that serve as ammunition for Mueller critics and Trump allies to lambaste the investigation; the next, he’s defending Mueller from criticism by those same anti-Mueller conservatives and Trump allies — and putting his own job at risk.

Keeping both sides happy, however, allows Rosenstein to say he’s supporting his staff while also backing Trump. Those who have worked with him before have expressed confidence that he can pull off the balancing act.

“What you have in Rod is somebody that is battle-tested,” Julie Myers Wood, a prosecutor and former colleague of Rosenstein’s, previously told me. “I can’t think of anyone that is more prepared to handle this situation than him.”

Despite these recent controversies, Rosenstein has long been considered an apolitical straight shooter by those who’ve worked with him. “He has a directness about him — there’s no bullshit,” Philip Heymann, Rosenstein’s former professor at Harvard Law School and later his colleague, told me last December. “He says what he thinks, but he’s always fair.”

President George W. Bush appointed Rosenstein as the US attorney for Maryland in 2005. President Barack Obama later kept him on, making Rosenstein only one of three US attorneys — out of a total of 93 — retained by the new administration. Rosenstein officially joined the Trump administration in April as deputy attorney general after receiving broad bipartisan support in his confirmation vote.

But Rosenstein found himself in the middle of a major political controversy just two weeks into his new job. On May 9, 2017, he co-authored a letter with Sessions making the case that Trump should fire then-FBI Director James Comey because of how he had handled the results of the agency’s Clinton investigation.

“Over the past year,” Rosenstein wrote, “the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.”

He added: “I cannot defend the director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.”

Trump fired Comey later that day, citing the Sessions-Rosenstein letter as his reason. Pro-Trump Republicans and conservative media applauded the decision to remove Comey, but Democrats were furious. And some of that fury extended to Rosenstein himself.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told NPR shortly after the Comey firing that he had “lost any confidence I might have had” in Rosenstein, whose “first official action was putting his name on that letter, basically making what appeared to be bogus reasons [for] firing the FBI director.”

Those who know Rosenstein say he recommended firing Comey not because he wanted to please Trump, but rather because he believed Comey hurt the FBI’s reputation. “He’s guided by justice, not by politics,” Steve Levin, a former colleague of Rosenstein’s in Maryland, said in an interview last December.

A week later, Rosenstein named Mueller as the special counsel, authorizing him to look into possible Trump-Russia ties as well as “any matters that arose or may arise from the investigation.”

It now seemed that Rosenstein wasn’t in Trump’s pocket. Trump himself was confused about where Rosenstein’s true loyalties lay, tweeting on June 16, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt.”

Rosenstein somehow managed to navigate the Comey firing drama deftly, pleasing Trump just enough to keep his job without abandoning his principles. Whether he’ll be able to do that again this time around remains to be seen.

And a lot more is riding on his ability to pull it off this time. That’s because Rosenstein is now Mueller’s boss. He can approve or deny Mueller’s requests to investigate or indict someone.

So far, it doesn’t appear that Rosenstein has stopped Mueller from pursuing the investigation the way he sees fit, and he’s made every indication that he intends to continue to let Muller proceed with his investigation.

Trump could change all of that if he decided to put pressure on Rosenstein to fire Mueller. Rosenstein could carry out Trump’s request, but those who know him believe he wouldn’t. “I have no doubt that if the president ordered Rod to fire Mueller, absent good cause, Rod would refuse that order,” Levin told me.

But if Rosenstein did fire Mueller, the investigation might not be completely undermined, as charges against four Trump associates have already been filed and prosecutors are likely to continue to follow leads from the beginning of the investigation in June 2016.

Trump, however, has another option: He could instead fire Rosenstein and replace him with someone friendlier to the Trump administration and more willing to constrain Mueller — which is now a distinct possibility based on Rosenstein’s reported comments.

That could be even more detrimental to the Mueller probe. Asha Rangappa, a legal expert at Yale’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, wrote in a post for the Just Security blog that a new deputy attorney general could effectively cripple the Mueller investigation by rejecting Mueller’s requests to investigate more people, obtain new evidence, or pursue charges against additional people, for instance.

Trump privately distrusts Rosenstein, reportedly telling his advisers that Rosenstein is “a Democrat” and a threat to his presidency. This has led to growing speculation that he may look for any excuse to fire the deputy attorney general.

Trump may have just found one.

Original Source -> Rosenstein is the only person between Trump and Mueller. He may soon be gone.

via The Conservative Brief

[n0-i0nger-s1ient-blog]

Before you ask or say anything, please listen to this in its entirety.

This is one of my stories. Though I have shared it in parts, I don't believe I've ever shared the whole. So here it is. My voice in this audio clip is heavily distorted to mask my true identity. If I were able to be linked to this, then I believe there would be immediate and disastrous punishments. Subtitles have been provided for anyone who can't understand me. If this is a story that is just a little too similar to one you may have heard before, if you think you may know who I am, please. Do not try to guess. Do not ask me who I am, and do not ask me if I know you. My only response will be: "I cannot confirm or deny this. My identity is anonymous for a reason. Please respect my privacy." I am sorry to be so blunt and unfriendly, but this is no light matter, and I must be very careful about how I share this information. But I simply can't keep quiet any longer. If you truly want to help after listening to this, then please share it any way you can. This is abuse. Abuse of power, abuse of a system, abuse of children. Many of whom know no better than to follow like sheep. And I can no longer sit and watch and bide my time, hoping to come out unscathed. Because I haven't. Enough beating around the bush.

I am part of the LGBTQ community. I am not ashamed of this fact, nor will any rule or any punishment make me. But I am unsafe. I know my situation is better than many people, but I will speak of where I am regardless. My parents are Christian, and are very openly against people like me. They think gay marraige should not be legal, and believe loving the same gender to be a "sin." My parents believe I will be corrupted if I go to a public school, so they send me to a private Christian school. This school threatens to expel students who are, or even support, LGBTQ people like me. They are very direct about how "vile" it is, and how it is a "terrible sin." I often hear from my classmates how much they "hate faggots." And I don't blame them. From day one, they've been told that this is something that should be shamed and criticized and mocked. It's not their fault they never got a chance. They are just as stuck as I am. They just haven't been able to see it yet. Because of this, I have to live in fear every day of my life. I cannot trust anyone. My school is small, so any word spreads like wildfire. And my sexuality would be perfect tinder. One leak, and suddenly I would be staring suspention or expulsion in its face. Because of my lack of trust, I can't form friendships, because getting too close to anyone could be the worst mistake I make. Let's just say it's a very lonely state of being. There are people who support me in my life, both in real life and online, and I am very grateful for their presence. I would never have made it this far without them. But being forced to go to a place where I have a constant paranoia hanging over me and no friends to speak of is... extremely mentally degrading. I want to change my school. I want to change the rules, but I can't speak up without a huge risk.

Not yet, anyway. When I turn 18, I will be able to file a complaint with the OCR. Hopefully they will be able to help, though it's not a guarantee. Remember, my school is a private school. Only schools with public funding are under the OCR's jurisdiction. And that means I may not be able to do anything. Schools should have a set of rules set in place, regardless of whether or not they are publically funded. This abuse would be illegal anywhere else I went. But schools that don't accept government money don't have to be held accountable. Private businesses still have regulations. There are still laws for them, and there are protections set up for the work place. But here, at school, they are exempt. Here, they get away with it scot-free. And that's what I want to change. I want people like me to be protected, whether or not the school receives funding. If a black person were not permitted to go to my school, no one would care where the school got their money. They'd be outraged, and I would be too.

I know the first things my school, and anyone who agrees with them, would say. "Religious freedom!" or "Freedom of speech!" Yes, you still have that right. You can say whatever you want, and I can't stop you. But what this school is doing goes entirely beyond freedom of speech. They are taking away my right to freedom of speech. They are censoring me and keeping me afraid. I also know what the next argument would be: "Nothing's really stopping you from declaring you're gay, you'll just get expelled." With that logic, I could also say "Nothing's really stopping you from murdering someone, you'll just be jailed for a decade at the least." Someone could also say "No one's forcing you to attend that school." Yes, someone is. My parents. I don't get to choose to go to a public school, because my parents will not let me.

To summarize, my freedom has been taken from me in an unjust and unfair way. Even speaking up in this manner, where I am completely anonymous, is a risk. But I am no longer silent. I will speak up, for everyone like me out there. I will speak up for the oppressed and afraid and abused.

And one last message to my school, and all schools like it, if you're even listening: You will get what's coming to you. Even if this doesn't reach anyone, even if I make no effect whatsoever... There will be people like me that do. I just hope you come to sense before you're punished. If I'm being honest... I don't want to see you fall. I don't want you to be punished. I want you to thrive, but what you're doing is wrong, no matter which way you put it. I know there's good people in my school, genuine and honest people who don't deserve to be harmed because someone higher up than them made a rule a long time ago.

Thank you for listening to this to the end. If you agree with me, please get this message to as many people as you can. I can only do so much on my own. And if you don't agree with me... Well, I can't change that. I hope you do well, whoever you may be.