#you want the moral turpitude to be genuine

[midnightmadwoman]

Following in the "James Woods as Hades in Disney's Hercules" school of casting legitimate garbage people to play villains

Been posting these on twitter, might as well share here too.

“SPN AU where everything is the same except Lucifer’s lines are taken from Mark Pellegrino’s twitter feed”

[loquaciousquark]

10, 11, 12, 27 for Tavish Gale 😁

10. What would your Tav consider to be their greatest skill? Is this accurate?

Answered here, so I'll do #9 instead!

9. What was your Tav doing when they were taken by the mind flayers?

She was being taken in by the Fists for petty theft. It's not her first time in jail - she knows some of the guards quite well at this point - but she'd been caught pickpocketing a patriar's son and he was coming along yelling about her moral turpitude. It was all extremely mortifying, and she was honestly glad of the escape. That said, she did feel a twinge of guilt discovering they were all parasited and dead after the crash.

11. What would your Tav consider to be their greatest flaw? Is this accurate?

She would say her greed. Others would probably also say her greed, but not in the same way; she sees it as a flaw because her profound desire to have things causes her to make poor decisions that endanger the party and get her thrown in jail. The companions would say it's her greed because she doesn't understand she'll never have enough Stuff to make that desire go away. I think Astarion in particular recognizes that insatiable hunger and sees where it might lead if she doesn't get control of it, and he (somewhat circuitously and very resentfully) helps her learn to let some of that go.

12. What opinion does your Tav have about the Gods?

Oh, you. <3 For Tavish the gods are like a leather wrapping full of thieves' tools; from your array of prepared materials you pick the right tool for the job. Whether that's sneaking, swinging a sword, or just swearing really satisfactorily, she always keeps a god or two on hand for a quick prayer. She's tacitly religious in the way that anyone living in a world with manifest deities is, but she doesn't ever think she's important enough to gain their real attention. She does feel closest to Tymora (luck, skill, adventuring) and Lliira (joy, freedom), though she drops a coin or two in Waukeen's temples whenever she passes.

27. How does your Tav feel about giving and receiving orders?

Oh my gosh, she's bad at both. Especially at the start of the game, when she hardly has an opinion of her own on anything not directly about to kill her, much less the willingness to enforce that opinion on others; and at the same time, she's awful at obedience and kicks back mulishly for the sake of it, even if the other person's right.

She gets a lot better at that throughout the game, in part because Astarion is so similarly recalcitrant. (See: disapproving of freeing the pixie on principle, then immediately exclaiming with excitement over getting to see a real one in the flesh.) It's exhausting and genuinely frustrating to deal with, and again, she so admires Wyll and Karlach and wants to impress them, so she takes a hard look at why she's being so difficult and makes a real effort to come around. Giving orders does come easier in battle, in part because of practice, though she's never really comfortable helping her friends make major life decisions (Shadowheart's parents, Astarion's ascension, Wyll's pact).

That said, she happily bullies Gale into casting Fog Cloud for her thievery every single time.

[hiriajuu-suffering]

Reasons I believe in Polyamory

I’ll preface this by saying I’m not attractive enough to be able to have more than a single partner at once, but there is a reason for that, and really, the thesis of this wall of text below: heteronormative relationship standards in every culture have always been, and will continue to always be, more about possession than love in a post-imperialistic world.

Personally, I’m a huge proponent of engendered sexuality variance to the tone of males have a constant slow drip of libido and a female’s sex drive hits them like a freight train once a month (in mammalian bioepigenetics, this makes sense). I’m inclined to infer, because I’m not idyllically normatively attractive, only a fraction of a percentage of women will be attracted to me 24-27 days of any given month. As a cisgendered man who is regrettably straight, having the least attractive genoethnic identity intersection (South Asian Muslim) in Western culture, I’m never actually presented with the choices to act on a poly mindset (in fact, I would be ridiculed for it because people think it aligns with some other gross tribal stereotype when it couldn’t be further from the truth). In retrospect, I have everything to gain from interpreting the main benefit of an intimate relationship as ownership like heteronormative culture generally does yet I still think disavowing poly as a legitimate personal choice is immoral.

I know saying monogamous relationships are more about possession than love will offend lots of people, so before you throw hate at me for your emotionally defensive skepticism, hear me out. An unflinching, unyielding love is seen as the highest parameter in any type of romance. So why is it cheating is so much of a bigger problem than a dry spell specifically? Is it because it’s legitimately a breach of trust, or is it more about “if I can’t have you, no one can”? More importantly, does it go a step further and say “if I don’t want you, no one should”? To me, any sort of dry spell (whether physically, emotionally, mentally) signifies a much larger breach of trust than simply having been shared because it shows said commitment in the relationship was not unflinching, not unyielding. The monogamous lens looks at others like: I want to have the best partner, not just so that I’m happy, but no one else can receive the specific happiness I get. Doesn’t that whole mindset come off as brutish? Just me? Well, maybe your pitchforks will start coming down when you realize monogamy is a function of toxic patriarchy on both feminine and masculine ends.

There are bioevolutionary reasons for toxic femininity to value the possession aspect of a relationship over its substantive “quality of life” components, the birth-giving gender in any animalistic specie always had to be beheld to a provider they reproduce with. Does it not then represent a sense of feminine fragility when a single mother immediately demands a long-term relationship and nothing else? If I’m to believe said woman is capable of genuine lust in her system, having a child shouldn’t evaporate all carnal desires completely and, therefore, should leave room for compromise. Said stance also indicates she made some sort of error in judgment of her chosen reproductive mate and feels entitled another man ought remedy her strife even though, evolutionarily speaking, he has nothing to gain from helping to rear offspring not of his kin. Harsh, to be sure, but it does show in the obnoxiousness of the connotation of becoming a stepdad being a positive one and becoming a stepmom assumes the motivation of some gain in status (wealth, fame, power, etc.) which I would argue is negative. Where does toxic masculinity come into play? Desire for possession on the part of a male promotes the viability and exclusivity of his own children with his most desirable partner. While that’s damn near nowhere as compelling, it has to be stated because there are always two benefactors to patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a zero sum game, patriarchy seeks to concentrate all familial social benefits in the monogamously-driven, heteronormative genus, away from those who deviate from the ideal picture of stereotypical gender roles. The ill effects of patriarchal standards exist in every human civilization, but the ontological root to the specific brand of patriarchy that oppresses all genders today was spread by a culture that uniquely preached monogamy.

Polygamy, in a historical sense, was a testament to the more status a person of the provider gender could achieve, the more their genetics would proliferate. Many cultures globally practiced this, the issue is, the ones that didn’t were the ones who, often violently, “conquered” the ones that did. Christian fundamentalism is in every fiber of international morality, whether the nation in question believes in Christianity or not is often irrelevant. Monogamy is enforced, anything outside of that is deemed as necessarily being deviant (whether choosing to be alone or choosing more connections than a monocule). Fetishization of the step relation is eluding to this deviance in a not-so-subtle way because it’s something where its allure is derived from its forbiddenness moreso than its convenience, every one of these scenarios has a subtext of implicit gain, not loss, in engagement. Meaning, the idea is planted because a hot person is there not because a person in general is there and can satiate an urge. Tl;dr - we believe polyamory is a morally negative act because the Holy Roman Empire did and every nation that spawned from it spread, imparted, and coerced that ideal on every culture it came into contact with. Before the Holy Roman Empire, no historical documents made distinctions to behest multiple lovers as desanctifying of life itself, not even the coalescing of nations that made up the Holy Roman Empire before its inception.

We are now in an era when women have access to full reproductive control, yet we still see men lust more than women, e.g. archetypal lesbian tendencies versus archetypal gay male tendencies. Do we not question why this is the case? All lifeforms are hardwired with a desire to survive and reproduce, so why does that drive not reach equity when risk does? There are two answers, and it could even be both: women are only socially conditioned to have sex via patriarchal pressures and don’t have as much inherent desire to reproduce OR sex is a means-to-an-end to exclusively possess a desired provider, whatever said person provides. If said person has a trait valuable enough to want to possess, is it not self-contrived to keep that quality to oneself, not share it with the world where it can provide more utility? Heteronormative relationships, in a sense, are anti-altruistic at their very core. As facetious as this sounds, either of these trains of thought are validated by men being more willing to engage in polyamory than women, not because men are somehow any less loyal than women. On its own, I feel this line of reasoning is enough to justify a vehement disgust of polyamory as immoral, but I want to conclude on the most pivotal facet to this conversation and not just heavily imply monogamy encroachment on moral turpitude is problematic at best.

As I mentioned a few times, I am likely to be a spoke on a polycule, not a member with multiple connections. Exclusive possession is something I probably stand more to gain from than any woman, logically and realistically, given the current social climate and general global beauty standards. My advocacy of polyamory stems from me accepting I may not be enough to be the full extent of happiness my romantic interest desires. That doesn’t even come from a place of insecurity, it comes from a place knowing I could never be perfect even if its pursuit is a righteous cause. I see real insecurity as a fear of loss when the rules of engagement you put into place were exclusivity: you don’t want your partner looking at anyone else because it’s disadvantageous to you, meaning you’re not fixated on their best interest and looking at relationships in said manner is deliberately selfish. To me, the best frame of reference to morality in interpersonal social connections is altruism. Yeah, self-love is important and knowing your own boundaries is beneficial but everyone else’s boundaries don’t have to match yours. I’m not anti-monogamist, really. I’m more anti-polyamorist discontent.

Not having thought this deeply isn’t an excuse, either.

[lightofthemoonglow]

chapter one - so let us stop talkin' falsely now

Summary: How they actually get to talking to each other

The first proper of my first long Milton fic, a slow burn that spans over a decade. Yeah, i have no idea how to summarize this succinctly.

written in the third person because that’s how it wound up happening

series masterlist

note: whooo i had terrible goddamn writer’s block. hope this chapter is good. the next one should wrap up this arc. hopefully. i make no promises.

prologue | chapter one | chapter two

“Why did you write me this note?”

Milton has barely closed the door to Grace’s room when he confronts her, practically hissing the words at the young woman as she drops the book she is reading. Maybe moving towards a wide-eyed girl’s bed as she scrambles backwards, pressing her back against the wall, was not the best move, but he needs answers. Five minutes ago, he had walked into his room, ready to turn in for the night. And then he had seen a note on the floor, as if pushed under the door.

In all capital letters, written in green ink, was BE CAREFUL. WATCH YOUR BACK.

In his mind, there is only one person that could have done this.

It has been two weeks since Milton’s arrival in Sweetside. He has suffered through mass every day, assisted in teaching several pre-school classes, answered countless phone calls, typed up half a dozen letters, ran errands and he had even stepped in to conduct a funeral when Father Thomas suddenly could not do so. There was also what felt like random, mindless busywork that was tossed at him often. During his free time, Milton has been trying to find information, evidence, anything that would prove that the church was corrupt. But that would require getting into the offices of the higher-ranking staff members. Which is currently not happening. Milton needs to earn his way into the inner circle, he knows it.

But that doesn’t mean he can’t get impatient.

So for now, Milton is studying the others. Analyzing their behavior, trying to figure out their roles in all of this, if they should be people he’s concerned about. Some of them seem to genuinely want to help. But most of the staff have the same qualities he’s seen in countless others: narcissism, superficial charm, an aversion for outsiders, the inability to be told they’re wrong, hints that they see others as objects and a restrained delight in the suffering of those they dislike.

The groundskeeper hasn’t shown any of those qualities yet, but he has to be hiding something. Milton isn’t sure what a Communist plant would be doing at a small rural church, but he’s sure that Boris, if that was even his real name, has something planned. Maybe the church is in league with the communists. But until he finds proof that the man is a part of the church’s corruption, Boris is a secondary concern.

The odd waif who wanders around the grounds, spending her time in the garden or doing whatever task they decide to hand her shouldn’t even be a tertiary concern. And yet, Milton finds himself watching Grace. When he can find her, that is. She vanishes for hours and no one seems to be concerned, despite everyone believing that she’s feeble-minded. A symptom of the church’s moral turpitude. Though it was easy to justify his observation of her. Something he noticed early on was that while the other staff members have nice clothes, some of them even wear jewelry that does not look cheap, the church’s own ward wears clothes that look to be plucked out of a garbage bin. Holes in her sweaters, ragged hems on her skirts. It’s interesting and while it isn’t really evidence in and of itself, it’s given him hope that he’ll be able to find more tangible evidence of their financial crimes.

Both times he has tried to speak to her, she just stared at him from behind her curtain, life in her eyes, before skittering away. It is avoidance masked as nerves. He knows that she knows he knows. The question is who is going to make the first move and reveal themselves. It’s a game of cat and mouse.

That afternoon, Milton had been in Father Thomas’s office, getting something that the pastor needed for the upcoming sermon. So, he had figured that he might as well look through the man’s desk. He couldn’t take anything with him, but maybe he would find something that he would come and get later.

And then just as he had opened the top drawer, there was that feeling. That feeling of eyes on him and when Milton looked up, there was that familiar sight of the hem of a skirt swishing around a corner and there was even a muddy boot print on the floor when he had gone out into the hallway.

Which meant that it hadn’t taken a lot of work to figure out who had written the note.

Grace just stares at Milton, her head lowered and eyes looking upwards through the ever-present curtain of hair. One of her hands begins to creep under her pillow, as if reaching for something. Milton quickly realizes what she’s likely reaching for and holds up both of his hands, showing her that he’s unarmed. “I’m not here to hurt you. All I want is to talk.”

There is no more movement from her, and Milton reaches into his pocket and withdraws the note. “Did you write this?” Grace nods in response and he continues. “Why? Do you know something?”

The hand going towards her pillow retracts, her posture stiffens for a moment and then relaxes. And then…

“I know a lot of things. Like you’re not a real priest.”

Grace’s voice is soft, raspy. It could be from whatever caused the scar along her throat or from lack of use, but it’s more than likely a combination of both.  Milton freezes in place, unsure of what to do. A part of him had known she knew he was a fraud but being confronted with it was a whole other matter.

“You can speak.” Milton isn’t surprised. It would have been more unexpected if she had actually been mute. Grace nods, shrinking into herself.

“Why are you here? And is Michael even your real name?” Her voice is nearly inaudible, and her gaze turns towards her pillow, as if rethinking not grabbing the object that is surely under it.

“I’m looking into the church. And no, my name is not Michael.”

“What is it?”

There is a long pause before he speaks again, deciding that since she had revealed her ability to speak, taken off her mask, then he could let his slip a bit. “My name is Milton.”

“Are you like a cop or something?”

“Or something. I’m here to look into the church’s activities.”

“It’s about time.” Grace ducks her head again, nearly pressing it against her knees. The sound of footsteps down the hall reminds both of them that they are not alone. They are surrounded by people who play the sort of the pious soul for the public, but who are just as twisted and corrupted by as the average person, maybe even more so. Milton knows that he should get out of here right now, before someone hears them. Even he realizes how bad it would look for him to be caught in Grace’s bedroom.

They exchange a look just before he leaves. And it says it all.

Later.

--

The next time she vanishes, Milton decides to go into the woods. It’s the most logical place she would be going. It would explain the burs and other foliage that he sees stuck to her clothing whenever Grace comes back from wherever she goes. It’s about making sure that she isn’t dangerous or in danger, Milton tells himself as he walks down a slightly worn path. It’s a straight shot from the garden’s back gate, so it feels like the logical way to go.

The woods are said to be deep, some parts of it untouched by man. There used to be mines out there, along with the old church, according to one of the priests. But the mines have long since been tapped out and the first incarnation of St. Jude’s burned down decades ago. The woods are empty because they have no use for anyone around.

The perfect place to hide. Or get up to no good.

Stray stones start to litter the ground, left over from when people had frequented these woods. The half-path leads Milton to a rusted gate with no fence and overgrown grass surrounding stone markers. An abandoned cemetery, he realizes before he reaches the gate. In the distance, he can see the remains of the old church peeking out from the grass.

It’s eerily quiet as Milton walks through the decaying, long-forgotten graves. He is starting to wonder if she’s even here when the sound of crunching leaves gets his attention and he turns to see Grace standing several feet away, lurking by a large tombstone that had an angel draped over it, as if weeping in despair. He wonders how long she was watching him before she chose to reveal herself.

As she stares at him, the young woman’s mind is racing. Maybe she had revealed herself too soon. But Grace had gone with her gut when it came to trusting Milton and all she can do now is hope that it doesn’t come back and bite her. Hopefully she’s right. Though she’s at least sure that he’s not lying about his name. No one would pretend to be named Milton.

All she knows of the wider world is what she’s gleaned from TV, books, movies, things like that. It feels possible that he was sent by some sort of law enforcement agency. Maybe the FBI. That feels right. At this point, she’ll take whatever help she can get from whoever will offer it. The scar on her throat almost feels like it’s burning for a moment as she thinks about that night. The night that had caused her to lose the last shreds of faith she’d had.

“You should be more careful, Milton.” Grace’s voice is still raspy, making it more obvious than before that she doesn’t use it often. But despite the nearly scratchy nature of her voice, there is something pleasant about the way she says his name. Maybe that’s because it has been far too long since anyone has referred to him by his first name, as opposed to ‘Dammers’ or by whatever alias he was using. “Stop being so obvious. They’ll notice. I did.”

“What did they do to you?” Milton asks, side-stepping her criticism of his investigation methods.

“Technically they didn’t do anything. But they made sure that the people who did got away with it.” Grae pauses, her hand going to her throat, rubbing it. Speaking too much was starting to hurt. “Prom night. Three and a half years ago. I upset the children of some valued parishoners. And this was the least of it.”

Grace stands up straight and pushes back the hair from her face. For the first time, Milton sees her entire face. It’s clean, he almost expected it to be smudged with dirt. There are dark circles under eyes that are far too sad. In a way, she’s vaguely pretty. Milton’s thoughts are soon off her face as his eyes follow the finger running under the scar on her throat.

“Can’t show you the rest. Not until you buy me dinner.” There’s an awkward pause. “It’s a joke, Milton,” she adds. The corners of her mouth twitch up for a moment before her expression becomes solemn once more. “Seriously, be careful. They raised me since I was eight. Do you think they’ll care about what happens to some new guy that they didn’t even want around?”

Milton knows that she’s right. “Then why are you telling me all of this?”

“Because it’s the right thing to do. And considering all they’ve done; I want them to pay for it.”

The corners of her mouth twitch again and Milton knows that he was right to trust Grace.

[anhed-nia]

BLOGTOBER 10/27/2020: THE CURSE OF CATTOBER pt 3 - THE CORPSE GRINDERS

Ted V. Mikel's notorious sickie THE CORPSE GRINDERS is one of a few movies that has become symbolic of my whole journey with psychotronic cinema. Today, I would understand exactly what kind of movie this is, even if I had not seen this exact item: An exploitation movie in the truest sense, just as infamous for its grossout premise as it is for its extraordinary cheapness, delivering all of the moral turpitude and almost none of the over the top effects promised by its attention-grabbing key art--or its dumbfounding title. But when I was a kid, I seriously wondered about these films; worried about them, even.

I wasn't allowed to watch anything that smacked of bad taste, but I still managed to build up a vivid awareness that there were movies out there about forms of perversion and evil that I could never imagine, made by freaks of the highest order. I would hunch nervously over the horror rack at our local mom & pop video mart, earning me the nickname Igor from the amused heshers behind the register, while my parents went through the motions of renting me LABYRINTH for a eight zillionth time. I was allowed to buy exactly one copy of Fangoria (the December 1990 issue featuring LEATHERFACE) before my mother reneged on this gesture of tolerance, but I was allowed to read most anything I wanted--my intellectual hippie folks wouldn't dream of censuring the written word--and I spent many hours, nay years, poring over the Re/Search book of Incredibly Strange Films. This helped create a kind of cinema of the mind for me, in which I tried my best to realize what the movies discussed in the book could possibly be like in real life. The book's detailed descriptions of pictures like SPIDER BABY, THE WIZARD OF GORE, SHE-FREAK, THE UNDERTAKER AND HIS PALS, etc  were stimulating in some ways, and only added to my confusion in others. Without seeing them up close, it was hard to make sense of their combination of laughable cheapness, unfunny comedy, and genuinely sickening crimes against human dignity. What these movies are like, is something you can only find out for yourself.

Having said all that, I'm still going to try to tell you what THE CORPSE GRINDERS is like. We open on the rainswept grounds of the Farewell Acres cemetery, where a jerky-addicted ogre called Caleb (Warren Ball) is extracting freshly interred bodies from the earth, as a gaggle of geese honk savagely from being a wire fence. Caleb's dotty wife Cleo (Ann Noble) argues with Caleb for not-the-last time about how his jerky habit is going to ruin his appetite for the dinner she slops out for her filthy baby doll instead, while Caleb bitches about not being paid by a Mr. Landau for his latest job. What's the job, you ask? Selling corpses to the Lotus Cat Food company, where Landau (Sanford Mitchell) has discovered that human flesh is the secret to his success, having kinda-accidentally fed a difficult shareholder into his cat food grinder. It's hard to say exactly how this has led to such a windfall for Landau, especially since he has to produce the illicit pet food one corpse at a time with his neurotic assistant Maltby (J. Byron Foster, my favorite guy in the movie). I guess I've just never dealt with a cat whose specific addiction is so obvious, so oppressive, even, that it forces me to buy the most expensive cat food on the market. This is what is happening to customers whose cats have fallen under the spell of Lotus, and they pay for it with their very lives because Lotus has given their pets a taste for long pig. Landau struggles to find more sources for his secret ingredient, including a mob hitman, giggly morticians who load the bodies up with "pork-flavored fluid (instead of) formaldehyde", and his own employees--"The world is full of ingredients!" he declares, hopefully. Meanwhile, Doctors Howard Glass (Sean Kenney) and Angie Robinson (Monika Kelly) decide to investigate the recent rash of cat attacks; it's hard to imagine how they're going to get to the bottom of anything, amid many makeout breaks and random changes of clothes, but somebody has to stop all these house cats from devouring the rest of Los Angeles, and it might as well be them.

So that's the plot, but THE CORPSE GRINDERS is still a lot weirder than what I've described. You could be forgiven for wondering whether the movie is supposed to take place in Andy Milligan's version of 19th century London, with Cleo's bizarre insistence on a cockney accent, and Caleb's grumbling about finances involving "pounds" (actually pounds of flesh) in their ramshackle dwelling on the edge of a cardboard-and-styrofoam cemetery. A further Dickensian touch is provided by Landau's one-legged deaf-mute assistant Tessie (Drucilla Hoy), who limps around glumly in a sailor dress and Little Orphan Annie fright wig. If she could talk, she would probably sound like the widow Babcock (Zena Foster), whose husband was the first to go into the grinder, and who speaks in a twittering falsetto that would sound more natural coming out of a sock puppet. All of these community theater touches contrast jarringly with the movie's exploitation nature, which revels in scenes of hardboiled scumbags shaking each other down, of women taking their clothes off for literally no reason at all, and in the suggestion that the gloopy pink paste extruding out of the cat food grinder was once a beautiful girl or a rotting cadaver. The grinder itself is a sight to behold, reminding me at once of something from SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS, and the Wish Squisher invention from the MST3K episode of SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS. The metallic gizmos whirring along its façade glint in the fabulous gelled lights over the production line, optimistically evoking the rich purples and greens of a Mario Bava picture; in a movie that's explicitly about money woes, in a subgenre that's specifically known for its cheapness, it's nice that director Mikels shelled out to add a little extra style to the grinding scenes.

And on that note, I would like to propose, without having much to say about it yet, that some exploitation films are allegories for exploitation filmmaking itself. I don't include all genre movies about money in this category: it's easy to identify many thrillers as being about more general economic conditions that affect us all, including a lot of noir entries. But then there are movies like THE CORPSE GRINDERS, or LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, or COLOR ME BLOOD RED (or its predecessor A BUCKET OF BLOOD), in which the main character tries to solve his financial woes by committing an utterly dehumanizing crime. In these three examples, there is the revelation that honest work doesn't pay, and that money is only gained through the individual's willingness to exploit sensational imagery and/or decadent sensations to tease, titillate, and even addict the customer. It's hard not to see Landau, Seymour, and Adam Sorg as avatars for Ted Mikels, Roger Corman, and Herschell Gordon Lewis, in their similar quests to prey on the craven appetites of the public, at a minimum cost for a maximum payout. If you have other movies you'd like to add to my list, please feel free to reach out.

 All told, it's hard not to like THE CORPSE GRINDERS for its sheer audacity--first, in selling something so meager as a "real movie", and second, for making the movie be about THIS. Also, all of this is significantly enriched when you know a little something about Mikels, a polyamorous eccentric who lived in a castle, whose grounds--and guard geese!--were used for the scenes in Farewell Acres. I'm not even going to try to discuss his prolific exploitation career and personal exploits, because that would be better handled by a longform piece on him specifically. It seems like a few documentaries have attempted the subject, but I don't know whether they're any good. It would be nice if Frank Hennenlotter would give it a try, or someone similarly capable, if there even is such a person. In the meantime, I will contribute the sole piece of information that my own scant research has turned up in preparing for this Blogtober entry: That THE CORPSE GRINDERS was co-written by Arch Hall Sr, and Joe Cranston--father of the now-iconic Breaking Bad star Bryan Cranston. I don't know if I'd call that a reason to see the movie, but luckily there are plenty of other reasons to check out THE CORPSE GRINDERS this Halloween. If you don't, then you can never really know what the hell I'm talking about.

[ruwithmeguys]

Do u think Olicity will be ok this season? I only worry cause often times when Felicity is angry with Oliver she can almost be cruel (I don't want to be a woman you love) or walks away without talking through their issues. I know that was pre-marriage but I just hate seeing Oliver hurt after he's been through so much. But so has Felicity just in different ways. Honestly Felicity has every right to be upset. I dunno I just feel conflicted and worried cause I don't want to see them break up.

Ok.

This will be the only post I respond to in regards to the obscene and ludicrous possibility of Olicity separating/divorcing.

Honey, this fandom (namely @jbuffyangel @callistawolf @dmichellewrites and @hopedreamlovepray @dust2dust34 ) should have taught you better (in terms of Olicity) than to worry about a separation occurring now.

See, the majority TV couples who are ‘fated’, ‘star crossed’, ‘meant to be’, ‘written in the stars’, ‘soul mates and true loves’ etc, go through at LEAST 1 trial of separation. 9 out of 10, have 2 or 3 and sometimes 4. The separation often comes with new love interests and story lines that aren’t exclusive to each other. It’s an old and very used TV trope and Olicity have been there, done that, worn the T-shirt.

I find it so odd that the majority fandom think that, once a couple get it right, they cease to go through mishaps or hurts or relationship issues. If a couple hit a stumbling block, for some reason it means, break-up. Even the couples who are so clearly head over heels for each other that the world could burn and they wouldn’t notice, can have things happen between them that causes hurt, tension or unpleasant reprisals. In fact, the deeper their love, the more devastating the hurt can be.

And Olicity’s is a whopper.

But you know what’s the BEST? Seeing that hurt, heal. You know what’s satisfying? When a showrunner decides to actually spend time and focus on the main couple’s lives so that it doesn’t get magically and superficially fixed in one episode and that doesn’t happen with a couple that’s destined to repeat their break ups.

All good things to those who wait.

So either, a) you’re a hater and trying to spread a little discord or b) you genuinely worry over every bump in the road, which has to be exhausting for you.

If it’s a, you aren’t my first.

If it’s b, then I must ask why every little hint of angst or emotional upset, the integration of moral turpitude, the possibility of danger, even an argument, makes you worry like this? Olicity aren’t a weak couple, unlike many other TV couples. Tiffs, disputes, grief, heartache and heartbreak do not threaten the strong couples the way you are worried it will.

Olicity. Are. Unbreakable.

But they can be hurt the most by each other.

You also seem to favour one half of the couple over the other so - Oliver over Felicity - so, if your aren’t a hater, bad. They’ve both suffered, but Oliver’s suffering was by his own making. There have been multiple interviews on it: Oliver didn’t involve Felicity in his decision because he knew she’d change his mind and he didn’t see a way around the problem.

Now, he’ll never know if she could have, if she did.

If you are a hater, you’re going to loathe the truth in what I’m about to tell you.

This current story line in Arrow, is very literally about two people who miss each other, who need each other, who are working together whilst apart and who love each other so much that everything they’re doing in the show, revolves around the other.

Felicity is now gunning for Diaz and not just because he attacked her in her own home: it’s for Oliver. It’s to honour his sacrifice, like she said. And it’s to ensure that Oliver will be able to come home one day SOON, which she also said. It’s to give him some peace of mind whilst helpless in jail. It’s to give her some peace of mind because… Oliver’s sacrifice included her. She needs to combat that.

I don’t include William in the sacrifice: Oliver ensured William would have Felicity. Felicity wasn’t given the luxury of a loved one. 

Or good friends.

She’s alone: like Oliver.

It was a beyond hard/difficult situation.

Oliver’s gunning for Diaz because Diaz hurt Felicity.

He was keeping his head down, defending himself and staying out of the picture. The moment his wife walks in, injured but alive - the moment she tells him her plans and that, after his decision, he really can’t decide how to keep her safe especially since his decisions have failed in that regard - he starts to fight back too: he starts his own investigation into finding Diaz.

This is not a couple apart. It’s a couple together.

A couple who both have trauma/PTSD, who have been hurt, who are lonely and alone, who have no friends to count on, who are aching to be home and home is each other.

They’re a couple that realised something: one half of the couple knows that his decision was fucking BAD. The other half is reeling from the decision. Now they’re both acting towards the same goal.

Felicity knows that Oliver sacrificed her to keep her safe. However, a) it didn’t work (BIG TIME) and b) how can any wife/husband be okay with spending the rest of their days without their other half and c) especially when, their other made that choice without you.

This is what’s going to happen.

Currently, Olicity are paralleling each other and I think it will continue for a while. I already see… three themes, I think, circling around them (don’t quote me on this).

Redemption. Revenge. Reunion.

Felicity, right now, is as focused on revenge as she is determined to free her husband. She has a lot stored up on this front, so who knows when she’ll stop.

Oliver’s focus is on the man threatening his family.

But once Oliver gets out - I’m currently going with a Shawshank redemption style escape - it’s going to change.

I see Oliver becoming obsessed with revenge and if not revenge, redemption. Or redemption and revenge.

This includes Olicity. You see, when he gets back- sure, we’ll get some heavy emotional scenes, kisses, sex and so on and so forth and while sex can heal, these two will have to face the truth of the matter.

Felicity once said, ‘I’m glue, baby’. She meant it.

While Oliver has, over and over again, told Felicity that she is his all end and be all, his always and forever, he hasn’t convinced her that he’s glue too.

So, they’re married. They’re a team. But at any moment, Felicity will now be waiting for Oliver to make a decision that ends in her being alone again… until the next time. And the time after.

Remember when they broke up in 4.16? And the theme between them in S5? And their wedding vows in 6.08? Felicity decided that being with him and making the ultimate commitment, was worth the possibility of loosing Oliver after the fact.

So, she’s not going to leave him over this. She’s going to be angry at him; he’s hurt her. And he sees/knows that. And she’s missed him and he’s been injured and they’re both traumatised. It’ll be a mix of emotions and many of them won’t be happy and fluffy. It’ll be angsty and passionate as heck and that’s GOOD. It speaks of the depth of their love.

Oliver now needs to prove to Felicity that he’s glue too.

I said revenge might be a theme between them: when Oliver returns to her, what if she doesn’t stop her quest? What if he joins her on it? What if she stops and he starts? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? How do they help each other?

I said reunion will be a theme between them: there are all sorts of reunions. Physical, emotional, moral. Hearts and minds and body’s. They’ll have more than one. It’s coming.

I said redemption because Oliver was once a man who crossed off names in a book after killing their faces. My hope is that this season ends with Star City’s acceptance and love of him, the hero of the city.

And he’ll never be able to do that without Felicity, as it has been since season 2.

They are interwoven and Season 7 is taking it a step further. The flash forwards and present story line are centred around Olicity, which is what happens with THE couple of a show that has not only earned their place but IS part of its foundation.

I predict that you will need chocolate… copious amounts of alcohol. Fandom friends. Why; because this will hurt in all the best ways and some upsetting ones. This is not angst for the sake of angst. This is angst generated because this couple is worthy of it.

Because they’ll be even stronger for it afterwards, SOMEHOW.

But it’s going to take time. I won’t be surprised if it takes the majority of the season for them to fully figure it out… there might even be two or three love scenes to symbolise that, who knows?

The are never again ‘breaking up’. This isn’t high school. This isn’t a relationship where one cheats on the other and two seasons later, they return to each other. This isn’t a lacklustre romance. This is a MARRIAGE.

A marriage between two heroes. Their issues will be bigger than a normal couples.

We get to watch them solve these issues the right way.

Or you can completely ignore this. I might be wrong… but I don’t think I am this time.

[books-and-cookies]

THINGS I HAVE LEARNED FROM DARKER (PART 2/?)

Part 1

Fifty Shades of Grey, Fifty Shades Darker, Fifty Shades Freed, Grey masterpost

1. Every time I start reading these books again, I think of all the trees that had to die for them to see the light of day and I get irrationally angry and start plotting ways to destroy the world 2. Yes, the entire world because why the fuck not – it’s a dumpster fire anyway 3. In all seriousness, I should be paid for doing this, because I am losing precious brain cells I didn’t really have to spare to begin with 4. “Incidentally—you will beg, trust me. And I look forward to it.” – I, on the other hand, really really do not look forward to that. Honestly, I would be more excited about watching paint dry than reading whatever is coming my way.

5. “My run will take me on my usual route to check on her building. But this time, I won’t linger. I’m a stalker no more.” – oh so reassuring. Is Christian expecting a medal/praise/a baby tiger for this incredible achievement? Cause he ain’t getting shit lol 6. This book is so boring jesus h christ.

7. It’s either Christian thinking of Ana, him doing boring business stuff, him reminiscing childhood shit, his inner monologue which – I swear to all the gods in the world – makes me miss Ana’s stupid inner goddess 8. GUYS IT SO BORING PLS END MY MISERY 9. “I’m the boyfriend,” I state, so there’s no confusion, and hold out my hand to Hyde. See. I can play nice. “I’m the boss,” he responds as we shake. His grip is tight, so I tighten mine. Keep your hands off my girl.” – this is the most heterosexual male dominance shit I’ve ever read and all I want to do is laugh 10.   I expect them to pull out their dicks and pee all over the place to mark it as “MINE MINE MINE MINEEEEEEEE” 11.   My dick is bigger. NO, MY DICK IS BIGGER. MINE MINE MINEEEEE

12. “Her smile widens into a salacious grin that speaks directly to my cock” – um………….. what 13. Smile: um, yes hi hello I’m looking for tiny dick       Dick: Excuse you?!?!?       Smile: oh shit, sorry, I mean, I’m looking for MR. tiny dick 14. That was terrible, I apologise. I told you I don’t have any spare brain cells. 15. “He makes one move, you tell me. It’s called gross moral turpitude—or sexual harassment.” – pot calling kettle what now?

16. Christian’s reactions at Ana getting mad (trust me, it doesn’t even matter why she’s mad): I want to admonish her for her foul mouth and for overreacting; I glare back at her, wanting nothing more than to drag her across my knee 17. I just… I have no more words to say or fucks to give.

18. “What are you hungry for, Miss Steele?” I lower my face so that our lips are almost touching. “I think you know, Mr. Grey.” – SHE WANTS THE D, CHRISTIAN JESUS FUCKING CHRIST STOP MAKING ME SHOUT THINGS I DON’T LIKE TO SHOUT 19. I wish e.l.james stopped with this faux anticipation, the only thing it’s accomplishing is making me dread my entire existence and genuinely wish Jurassic Park were real, so the dinosaurs can all escape and make us extinct 20. “How can she be with a fucked-up asshole who can’t bear to be touched? And how can I be with someone who forgets to take their damned pill? I hate condoms” – yes, Christian, because those two are completely similar situations. Like… what the fuck even

21. And he follows that Nobel prize worthy thought with this: “Christ. Maybe we are incompatible.” – I … what… how… ??????? How did you come to that stellar conclusion??? So, let me get this straight – Ana’s willingness to be with someone with issues is incompatible with that individual’s despise of condoms. 22. WHAT THE EVERLOVING ACTUAL FUCK WOWOWOWOWOWOW 23. I’ve never looked at vodka with more love in my eyes than now

24. “I find the only two remaining packs of condoms. Thank heavens. Two packs of two. Four fucks if I’m lucky.” – Christian, stahp, you’re making me melt with desire, stahp being so attractive my panties are on fire 25. Fuckkkkkkkkkkkkk ooooooofffffffff 26. “Fuck, I want to be buried in her” – I’m pretty sure this is against several laws, but you do you, boo 27. I’ve survived 60 pages without any sex and it’s starting now and I just want it to end pls stop pls stop 28. “Ah! My cock has some room.” – I can’t even oh my god. Also does this room come fully furnished? Like... it’s important.

29. This has been going for over 6 pages at this point 30. My will to live has effectively disappeared without a trace. If you find it, keep it. 31. He’s smearing ice cream on her and now this book has forever ruined ice cream for me. 32. I can’t even anymore. Ice cream is one of my basic food groups, along with chocolate, pizza and vodka and IT IS RUINED. 33. WHY IS THE WORLD CRUEL 34. Mood:

Instagram | Goodreads | Wordpress

If you like what I do, consider supporting me by buying a virtual coffee 😊 (coffees also help with my sanity, so they are very very welcome)

[bestnewsmag-blog]

New Post has been published on Bestnewsmag

New Post has been published on https://bestnewsmag.com/concord-police-officer-risks-life-to-save/

Concord Police Officer Risks Life to Save

UK Police Cautions/Warnings and US Immigration Law

  The way wherein US immigration regulation treats criminal matters for functions of figuring out a non-US citizen’s admissibility to the use is complex. Notably, travelers from the UK are frequently surprised that a United kingdom police warning or formal warning, wherein there has been no court or decide involvement and no submitting of formal crook expenses, should render them “inadmissible” to the united states for any motive.

Their astonishment arises not handiest from the complex intersection of crook and US immigration law, but additionally, from the truth that the USA Department of Kingdom has not been consistent within the manner, it treats United kingdom cautions/warnings, adopting a brand new approach as recently as 2014. The current 2014 policy, described under, may want to imply that non-US residents with Uk cautions who have been formerly journeying to America without issue may additionally now be barred from us until eligible for an exemption or waiver of inadmissibility.

beneath is a brief precis of the current Country of United kingdom police cautions/warnings and US immigration law. The article demonstrates that the prudent technique would be to deal with all formal United kingdom police cautions and warnings as “admissions” for functions of determining criminal inadmissibility until there is proof displaying that the admission turned into not acquired in compliance with controlling US prison precedent.

I. Review of criminal Inadmissibility beneath INA § 212(a)(2)

An alien is inadmissible to the united states for committing a “crime regarding moral turpitude” (CIMT) or a crime concerning a controlled substance, consisting of a try or conspiracy to dedicate them, if (1) the person turned into convicted of such crime; or (2) the individual admitted to having dedicated such against the law, or admitted to its critical elements.

In addition, (three) if the united states immigration professional has a mere cause to consider the alien turned into or is involved in the trafficking of a managed substance (e.G., cause to promote), the alien can be rendered inadmissible underneath INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i), despite the fact that the alien turned into now not convicted (e.G., acquitted) of the crime and has no longer admitted to its commission or critical real factors.

A finding of criminal inadmissibility is not the quiet of the street. Once an individual is considered to be inadmissible, she or he need to then pursue, thru legal suggest, any relevant exemption or waiver of inadmissibility for America visa type being sought.

II. United kingdom Cautions/Warnings Described Police Officer Officer

Beneath are 3 United kingdom out-of-court dispositions especially applicable to US immigration regulation:

i) Easy Police warning. An Easy caution is a proper observe from a police officer that a person has devoted an offense. under the contemporary policy, the person will commonly be fingerprinted and photographed. The police will in all likelihood provide a warning if it’s far a minor offense and commonly if there is no other crook history. The police can most effective issue a Simple caution if the individual admits to the offense and concurs to be advised. If the individual refuses the warning (e.G., denies the offense), then formal crook costs can be added towards the person.

Ii) Conditional Police warning. A conditional police caution is similar to a Simple warning in all respects, which include an admission to the offense, except the person is the concern to certain situations. Failure to conform with the conditions will bring about formal criminal fees being added in opposition to the character.

Iii) Hashish Warnings. A Cannabis warning isn’t a caution, however a verbal caution with the aid of a police officer to a first-time culprit possessing a small amount of Cannabis for non-public use. The police cannot deliver the formal verbal warning except the individual admits possession of the Hashish. The police officer will file that the man or woman has admitted to owning the Hashish and could be asked to sign this report. Warnings will display up on an ACRO document and will need to be addressed for purposes folks immigration.

The steady element in all of this United kingdom out-of-court docket dispositions is that the person should “admit” to the offense. As discussed under, whether the admission beneath United kingdom regulation qualifies as an admission under US immigration law requires a case with the aid of case analysis.

III. Uk Cautions/Warnings Aren’t “Convictions”

A “conviction” for purposes folks immigration requires (i) a formal judgment of guilt entered with the aid of a courtroom; (ii) or if adjudication is withheld: a locating of guilt by a choose or jury, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the alien, or admission of information from the alien sufficient for a finding of responsible; or (iii) the imposition of some form of punishment with the aid of a judge.

Based totally on this definition, United kingdom police cautions or warnings do not qualify as convictions for purposes of our immigration. On April nine, 2014, us Branch of State’s Visa Workplace agreed. The reasoning being that there may be no reputable court docket or judicial movement. However, as defined underneath, the absence of a “conviction” does no longer prevent a finding of criminal inadmissibility for purposes of our immigration.

IV. United kingdom Police Cautions/Warnings may be “Admissions”

If there may be no conviction at the applicant’s record, the immigration authentic can though renders the applicant inadmissible to America if the applicant “admitted” to the crime or its essential authentic elements. Such admission may be elicited before a police officer, federal law enforcement, choose the scientific doctor, or US immigration official.

I) An “admission” for purposes of us Immigration law

The criminal standards for an “admission” for functions of INA § 212(a)(2) is Described within the Depend of Okay: the alien ought to (1) prior to the admission take delivery of a good enough definition of the crime, which includes all crucial factors; (2) admit to conduct that constitutes the critical factors of the crime; and (three) offer an admission this is specific, unqualified, voluntary and unequivocal. there’s no requirement that the alien admits the felony conclusion or non-genuine elements of the crime.

Formal criminal charges Are not required for there to be a legitimate admission. For example, in 2013, in an extraordinarily-publicized Uk fraud trial against the former assistants of United kingdom movie star chef Nigella Lawson, Ms. Lawson admitted underneath oath to having used cocaine seven times and “smok[ing] the unusual joint.” She denied ever being a habitual drug user or addict.

despite the fact that Scotland Yard by no means added criminal expenses in opposition to Ms. Lawson for her admitted drug use, and does no longer intend to do so; on March 30, 2014, British Airlines refused to allow Ms. Lawson to board a plane for her excursion to America.

American government did now not explicitly release the precise reason for its refusal; However, an inexpensive analysis people immigration law’s approach to managed substance violations suggests that her especially-publicized admission in courtroom to having violated a managed substance law is regular with a finding of inadmissibility, supplied that the other factors of Matter of Okay have been met in eliciting her admission.

Consequently, despite the fact that Ms. Lawson’s potential admission happened in a crook trial in opposition to her former assistants for fraud, such admissions have the ability to render a person inadmissible, even though there had been no crook prices pending towards that person.

Moreover, an admission does not want to be made under oath. For example, an admission to an immigration legit throughout a visa interview or at the border would qualify. Considerably, US federal regulation enforcement officials are educated inside the Be counted of Okay standards to properly acquire a valid “admission” from aliens searching for entry to America for the motive of except for them.

Similarly, an admission by using an alien to a scientific health practitioner all through a required scientific exam for a US inexperienced card that the applicant had smoked marijuana for a number of years will be a basis for rendering an alien inadmissible to the united states on the basis of getting admitted to violating a controlled substance law, furnished the medical doctor acquired the admission according to with Depend of Okay.

Interestingly, if an admission is made subsequent to (i) a valid acquittal/dismissal of criminal expenses or (ii) a legitimate pardon of a conviction, the following admission via itself will now not commonly render the individual thereby inadmissible. But, if the criminal expenses have been related to the trafficking of a managed substance (e.G., motive to promote), an admission following an acquittal/dismissal of the expenses could nonetheless provide the united states immigration legit with “motive to consider” that the offence passed off and render the applicant inadmissible, however the courtroom’s disposition.

How a Medical Review Officer Can Help You

  A clinical review Officer has the ability to help you in a spread of methods. Their services will-will let your hand off as little or as a whole lot of the drug testing software as your preference. This could make it less difficult in an effort to awareness on different components of jogging your commercial enterprise.

Behavior Drug checking out

A clinically evaluate officer may be capable of Behavior all the drug take a look at the review on your behalf. The principle advantage to this is that you’ll have a 3rd-birthday celebration dealing with the whole lot. It ensures that you aren’t tampering with any of the consequences for you to make yourself (or your employees) appearance higher than they may be.

You furthermore may have other things to do with your time. You don’t have the time Behavior drug trying out on all your personnel, specifically if you have a big payroll. By operating with an MRO, they will Conduct the entirety on your behalf. they will virtually offer you with the consequences so you can take the vital motion.

Inspect consequences

In a few instances, an employee will take a look at advantageous for capsules and actually, be drug-unfastened. this is while you want a clinical assessment officer to analyze the outcomes. This might involve interviewing the employee to find out what has been taking place with them. It can be that they were prescribed remedy from the health practitioner and one of the lively ingredients became strong enough to trigger a superb end result.

The importance of investigating is that you want, to be honest to all personnel. Specifically whilst someone says that they’re now not on pills, you want to provide them the gain of the doubt. You furthermore might don’t need to lose properly personnel virtually because you failed to the trouble to analyze the effects of a superb drug test. Because you want to be an impartial birthday party, having a third-birthday celebration will let you stay compliant.

Control this system

A scientific evaluation officer can without a doubt Control the complete program for you. This consists of running the checks, figuring out the randomization, in addition to submitting all the essential reports with the DOT. The benefit to this is that you are compliant always. Some other benefit is that it’ll be much less in an effort to worry approximately. You can now not be an expert on this region and consequently, it’s great to allow an expert to do it. You can then consciousness on other regions of your enterprise.

Often, you need an expert “gatekeeper” to preserve track of what is occurring almost about drug testing. A medical overview officer is a certified doctor and could be able to evaluate laboratory outcomes, Behavior the essential investigations, and preserve confidentiality with all the drug testing statistics this is submitted to them.

A Miracle Formula To Lead A Healthy Life During Old Age

  As Oprah Winfrey says, “there may be one irrefutable law of the universe: We’re every chargeable for our personal life.” If you are young and when you have great health, you can not anticipate that this may continue for ever. Keep in mind that age can take a toll on your health. No quantity of sugar-coating can hide the harsh reality that aged humans with bad heat might also need to lead a hellish life. If you need to keep away from any such situation in your existence, you need to first take a look at the lives of those antique human beings who have been main fulfilled and wholesome lifestyles. this will help you recognize that those successful and vintage human beings own incredible life abilities. This means that even whilst you are younger, you have to make all feasible efforts for obtaining existence capabilities so that you can also lead a fulfilled and healthful lifestyle for the duration of your vintage age.

However, what is these lifestyles capabilities? Although various specialists have come out with their very own variations, talents like willpower, emotional stability, manipulate, conscientiousness and optimism cover maximum of them. Individuals who practice and accumulate these abilities are nearly probably to revel in the fitness advantages as well as all the suitable social consequences at some stage in their golden years.

Thanks to these capabilities, they will have economic stability, there can be no discomfort by using continual ailments or by using intellectual melancholy and most significantly, they want no longer fear social isolation. Because they will have average general fitness, they’ll lead a clean life. Andrew Steptoe, a Professor working for the College College London, who performed a study on some of the elderly and wholesome humans, also corroborates with this reality. He says, “No single characteristic became extra important than others. Instead, the outcomes trusted the accumulation of lifestyles skills.”

The findings of the take a look at that has been posted in the PNAS magazine, truly reveal that Those who possess these lifestyles abilities have favorable biomarkers in their blood. Their levels of cholesterol are best and the C-reactive protein in their system amazingly stands on the proper stage. It is a known truth that the level of C-reactive protein is a near-perfect marker indicating inflammation that can motive numerous sicknesses.

Similarly, those with those existence talents have smaller waistlines in comparison to the ones who’ve fewer existence competencies. Accumulation of fats around the waist is some other clear indicator of cardiovascular in addition to metabolic illnesses. The have a look at also reveals that those with better lifestyles capabilities stroll quicker and more in a timely fashion than others. Researchers worried in the take a look at factor out that the on foot velocity is surely a goal factor that allows in predicting the destiny mortality of elderly human beings.

In line with Steptoe, “We have been amazed by way of the variety of approaches — economic, social, mental, organic, and health and disability related — that seem to be related to those life skills. Our research indicates that fostering and maintaining these skills in adult existence can be relevant to fitness and properly-being at older a long time.”

[theanonymousscrooge]

Revelations of a Forgotten Era (Part 2)

         Of course, that’s not to say that “insider trading” does not backfire: in fact, this has all too often led to many disastrous risks being taken by those who were misinformed. I would even further posit that this is probably why many of us are too scared to take risks, and would rather stay in the comforts of our routine yet contentious lives. Furthermore, the fact that there needs to be “insider trading” (which obviously involves clandestine methods) is already indicative of the absence of “genuineness”, for after all, such emboldening words have the potentially to be ground-shattering in terms of their effects on the incumbent paradigm at the time.

           The question to be asked, then, is this: when would be an appropriate time to confront the elephant in the room? In all honesty, this is a hard question to answer. As I’ve said earlier, many of us would rather stick with the semblance of security rather than get our hands dirty with the nitty-gritty of our complex emotions. We deal with this in many ways, but the primary method seems to be rationalization. We assign noble intentions to ourselves, even if the ultimately, our fundamental desire was to explain away a usually stupid and painful decision.

             Let us follow this train of thought, for it provides interesting insight into the folly of human action. What I will later point out will make you believe that irony is intrinsic within human interaction and nature; throughout our lives, we have been committing ourselves to decisions which ultimately become our own undoing. The irony is that, in the process of maintaining the faux security of our established assumptions, we end up mitigating possibilities for “genuineness” to disrupt our accustomed environments, bringing about much needed change and perspective.

NOTE: At this point, my points become much more contentious. You are free to disagree all you like, but I ask that you read the entire thing first before making assumption. I have taken great care in order to emphasize important ideas while at the same time avoid belittling certain conventions held by people (as much as possible). You can consider me as an iconoclast of sorts.

              Take the example of a man who believes that somehow, he is doing a favor for his friend by edging him towards a certain woman, believing that the established “notion” (that the two of them have already evinced interest in each other in the past) is an unbreakable facet of the status quo. Needless to say, this man is also in love with the woman. He also believes that he is doing the right thing, considering that he values the “friendships” above all else.

              There are many inherently problematic issues with this situation. We will discuss them one by one:

As obvious as the elephant in the room, the surface-level problem with this situation is that the man is lying to himself. In the process of rationalizing his actions, he deludes himself into thinking that his action was the “noble” and the “right” course of action. Such rationalizing only creates more conflict within his person, since he will only be burdened by the “moral turpitude” he will inevitably feel once such rationalizations clash with his emotions. Instead of being honest to himself, he sticks himself into a rut, while at the same time maintaining a dishonest facade of acceptance when in fact there is merely tolerance (or even resentment, to an extent).

Such a course of action is bound to be emotionally charged; therefore, in an objective sense, you may in fact not be doing your friend a favor. It is highly possible that in some convoluted way, you think that your suffering will only be justified by the success of your friend and the woman you love, irregardless of the actual circumstances on the ground. If you refuse to seek the advice of those who are somehow objective in their evaluation of the situation, you will end up causing more harm to yourself and to others.

Last, but perhaps the most important: you further reduce your chances at achieving what you want. It doesn’t matter if you believed that there wasn’t much of a chance to begin with: you owe it to yourself to at least fight for what you feel. No one can truly fault you for that (and those who do are chained to societal assumptions which propagate the faux nature of human interaction these days).

             My explanations, especially from hereon out, may seem to validate the actions of the “bitches” who “steal” the hearts of other men on T.V. series, or of those who are perceived by society to be “man-stealers”. However, as readers of this blog, I believe that you will not be as shallow-minded as those who are quick to raise comments about things they have read but do not understand. I trust that you will digest these explanations with much consideration, and, if you feel like responding, you will send a dignified response by way of the “Ask the Anonymous Scrooge” feature.

(TBC)        

[wirkman]

Natural rights is a militant concept, not primarily a theoretical one; it has always been the watchword of the dispossessed, the underdog, in the effort to gain some element of good with held from him. And to deprive him of it is to put all the weight of legitimacy on the side of those in possession. There are two main elements in the notion of a right as an effective political concept. In the first place, it involves a claim on other people of some fairly definite sort, an obligation on their part toward us. But a mere claim amounts by itself to nothing more than a pious wish; unless there is some power to back the claim, it will receive no serious political consideration, whether it de serves it or not. This is the obvious reason for the practical superiority of legal rights over natural or moral ones. They are felt to be more real and tangible because the backing is more easily to be discovered. A legal right is a claim upon other men enforced by the power of the State, with its machinery of police, courts of justice, armies, and the like. A mere natural or moral right, on the contrary, has no such clearly visible means of enforcement; and hence the disposition to refuse to call it a right at all except in a Utopian and negligible sense. But such a conclusion it is impossible in practice to accept. To say that there are no rights, in any intelligible sense, apart from legal rights, is to go contrary to natural and unavoidable judgments. We are constantly making a distinction between legal rights and moral rights. A thing may be legal of which we strongly disapprove; it is, but it ought not to be. Apart from the bare fact of force, or physical power, law itself gets its rational claim upon our continued acquiescence not because it is a law merely, but because it is a just law; moral right is always the more ultimate concept. And clearly there must be force behind it of some sort, else why should rulers take it into account? The most powerful ruler cannot make any law he pleases. There is a point, near or remote, where his subjects will rebel; and if they are capable of giving articulate reasons, these are sure to be in terms of justice, or moral right. Such a thing may be the law of the State, they will say, but it is a law which no one has a right to make; and at the point where such a feeling becomes strong enough, the power even of arbitrary rulers stops. “It is not difficult to see where the sanction back of this claim of moral right is located, though it may not be as obvious as the power vested in a policeman… . It is, accordingly, the rational hold of certain notions of justice upon the human mind, a power vague indeed, and decidedly uncertain in its operation, but nevertheless a real factor in human affairs, which constitutes the backing of that claim upon the conduct of others which makes it possible for us to talk intelligently of a moral right even in the political field; since we are aware that men will under appropriate circumstances act upon such ideas, which represent in consequence a great, though indefinite, reservoir of latent force. The mere power of the ruler is not competent to evoke this sense of ‘right,’ any more than morality in general can retain its hold on the conscience when it is genuinely conceived as based on nothing but the arbitrary will of an all-powerful God. Power is a necessary condition for rights that are to have any chance in practice. But mere power does not create even legal rights, apart from the nature of the ideas which are aimed at in the exercise of the power, and whose appeal to the human mind is the ultimate source of political force itself, since men cannot normally be got to pool their physical efforts except in accordance with such ideas. The notion of rights in this ultimate sense arises in the mind to begin with when we claim rights for ourselves, rather than when we concede them to others. The process is, first, I have as good a right as you, and only secondarily, You have as good a right as I. This importance for the individual which the concept has is the sufficient reason why an attempt to discard the word from our political vocabulary will surely fail. The fatal draw back to the effort to show that there is no validity to any ‘rights of man’ is the fact that no one in his senses takes the denial seriously. Because the direction of human nature is inevitably toward ends, and because this sense of oneself takes the form of a strong claim for satisfaction, the emotional outcome of this claim—the feeling a man has for his right to satisfaction—is bound to be taken into account. At the outset the sense of rights is no more than this inarticulate feeling that the presence in us of any strong desire forms a guarantee that somehow it ought to be met — a feeling which leaves us with a sense of protest and personal aggrievement in case the fulfillment does not take place. The knowledge that I am being disregarded in another man’s plans, the feeling of impotence when interests vital to me are held back from fruition because my fellow beings refuse to take me into account in their reckonings, will inevitably arouse in me an active resentment, which is the passionate starting point of all my sense of rights. Such a feeling is of course far from accounting wholly for the distinction between justice and injustice in the enlightened man. But the emotional sense of aggrievement and protest called forth by any suspicion of injustice, however it may have been adjudged, does not in the beginning seem distinguishable from this purely egoistic claim to the right to satisfaction on the part of desire as such… . It is of some practical importance to keep in mind this impulsive and non-rational background. Where it is not actively in evidence, the question of rights never rises to the dignity of a live issue. If people do not want anything very badly, if they are not inclined to resentment, if they take it as a matter of course that they should do as they are told by their superiors, they do not yet possess rights in any effective political sense, and the attempt to bestow rights upon them gratuitously will probably fail. For that matter, it will seldom be attempted. It is very infrequently that a powerful class voluntarily recognizes rights in its inferiors. It may feel that it has moral duties toward them, and try to perform these conscientiously; but it will resent it if the performance is claimed as a right on the other side. The attitude of masters to slaves, of employers to workmen, of women to their domes tic servants, illustrates typically this natural disposition. A woman may try to deal benevolently with her domestics; but for an inferior to claim any treatment other than the mistress sees fit to accord is at once set down as insolence. So an employer will often cheerfully grant a benefit to his employees, who would take umbrage immediately if a union presented this as a demand. The reason usually lies, not in any particular moral turpitude, but simply in the fact that the driving force of the notion of rights is found in personal experience; and if we have not had the fortune to have our own rights outraged in this particular way, we are not likely to take very seriously the state of mind of others. Nevertheless this is fatal to any genuine conception of a democratic good. Resentment and trouble-making on the part of inferiors may not be soothing to the nerves, but it is a necessary condition for the extension of human rights.

Arthur Kenyon Rogers, 1868-1936. “The theory of ethics.” New York : The Macmillan Company, 1922.