#juncture 2012

[fideidefenswhore]

After 1536 the only bard to comment on affairs of state with any regularity was Lewys Morgannwg, who as unofficial poet laureate continued to praise Henry for his imperial qualities as the heir of Brutus and a second Charlemagne, and (in an allusion to the laws of 1534) for disciplining the unruly Welsh for their own good. The opportunistic poet who before the break with Rome had honoured the monastic vocation in an ode to the abbot of Neath now commended the king for suppressing the corrupt monasteries, and yet he did not entirely abandon his attachment to the traditional faith. After the fall of Anne Boleyn, who is held responsible for promoting the 'new religion', Lewys denounced her as a second Alice Rowena, whose corruption had betrayed the kingdom of the Britons in 'the treachery of the long knives.' In the same poem the king is urged to prefer local men before Englishmen of low breeding to high offices, for the sake of security and contentment of the realm.

British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533-1707, edited by Brendan Bradshaw, Peter Roberts

[luckyshinyhunter]

Fictional characters that definitely deserved better

💪Jen Walters (She-Hulk: Attorney at law)💪

She-Hulk is one of those shows I enjoyed because of the vibes, no surprise that a bunch of dudebros were doing their usual hate on the MCU crap again, especially going after this show.

I like how the show made Jennifer relatable and likable from the start, Tatiana did such a amazingly performance as the titular character along with matching her sassiness and wit like she have in the comics.

The possibilities of She-Hulk season 2 are slim to none, but I still have hope of Jen coming back in the future.

🛩️Andy Demayo (Steven Universe)🛩️

Even though he was kinda rude in his debut episode, but honestly, you would be confused and angry too if you see a bunch of strangers in your barn.

Besides Greg and the residents at Beach City, he rarely calls out Steven's dangerously daily lifestyle with the gems and shows that he cares about his recently known nephew.

After Gem harvest, he resolved the bittered distance and continue visiting his family, even showing at Garnet's wedding.

It was kind of a waste that Future didn't give him anything important to add, he would connect and helped Steven's dilemma with the fear of change, similar to his.

Also a hilarious fun fact, Andy's VA is Carl from Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

🐁Splinter (TMNT 2012)🐁

Honestly one of the most tragic characters in the show, from a broken man who lost everything, to a loving and protecting father who found a new lease on life, along with a family that care for each other to the very end.

He can be strict but he does care about his family and would die fighting for them, he literally died to save them and would do it again if he have to.

Hoon Lee's electrifying portrayal speaks for itself and the critical juncture of his past that parallels him and Shredder is another reason why the show is underrated.

I hate the backlash that this character has been getting and that people are labeling him as a bad father but he's not, the show literally has moments of him caring and protecting his family from danger.

🕸️Miles Morales (Spider-Man)🕸️

Without a doubt, Miles is one of the best Spider-Man characters of all. Pretty disgusting that people are using with the whole Miles Morales is Miles Morales crap to hate on a character that brings a new meaning for a iconic role model for kids.

Into and Across the Spider-verse done a outstanding job, making Miles's personal journey and growth so emotional and inspiring.

Sucks that the third film is going to take a long time to premiere, but at least the PS4 games also give him justice and continues shining Miles.

Miles Morales will forever be one of the best Spider-man, it just sucks that some people won't accept him continuously, but in some way at least there's some people who actually respect him as a character, knowing that he is in forever will be Spider-Man and that makes it him amazing.

📋Lois Lane (My Adventures with Superman)📋

My Adventures with Superman is a show that should be talked about especially on how well written it is, the show adapted Lois very well, along with her budding romance with Clark.

I literally hated how Lois gets treated like garbage by a certain amount of people after the whole secret identity thing, the show does prove that Lois is flawed and complex in a good way, making her likable and relatable, she makes mistakes but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing, everyone does.

The latest episode of season 2 really proves that Lois is a good character, showing her empathetic past and complicated relationship with her dad.

Also, Alice Lee's fun performance as the character is just top notch, whether she's happy or sad, she just nails Lois's character without a doubt.

🧬Morty Smith (Rick and Morty)🧬

This boy has been through enough, with neglectful parents, a sister that does care about him but is focused on her own life, Rick cares sometimes, but can be a real jerk. Morty is more you can be his own person the truth is some things can be holding him back, mostly his grandfather.

I'm glad that Rick is trying to change for the better, I remember I hated the way he treated Morty thoughout the seasons whether using verbal or physical abuse, it also sucks when he tried to do something good yet the universe basically just throws it back at him like a giant middle finger.

I'm glad that the later seasons proves that Morty could be a badass and he can handle himself, but I hope when the new season drops, they find a way to handle his trauma because he deserves a hug.

🎳Wade Whipple (The Sonic franchise)🎳

The Sonic films are underrated but it's problem is that it gets dunked on, especially thanks to a so-called outside of the box thinker.

But unlike the other live action films with bland and boring human characters, the human characters in Sonic are actually likable and memorable, among them is Wade Whipple.

I really don't think he's one of the worst characters in Sonic, honestly his sister and dad deserves to be on that list.

Honestly people hate him just because he have more screen time than Knuckles but one, because it's a TV show budget and Knuckles is in the show, they are acting like he never was in the show.

Two, at least it added layers and flaws that made him even more relatable and serves a purpose to Knuckles's journey.

Like with Tom and Maddie with Sonic, his friendship with Knuckles is another core example of why Knuckles work and his actor, Adam Pally's performance was great too.

🔪Sam Carpenter (Scream 5 and 6)🔪

Sam is another character that deserves more attention and respect than before, partially thanks to her actress.

Aside her rough past and learning the dark truth about her family, Sam cares about the people she loves and isn't afraid to fight for them, even fighting her own personal demons just to do so.

Melissa Barrera is a underrated actress, though Her performance in part 5 was good, I think she was just basically outperformed by everyone else, and it didn't help that she was getting bullied and criticize by bunch of toxic fans.

Scream 6 gave Sam justice and proves that she's a badass final girl, especially thanks to the crew and cast of the films who care and was there for her but thanks to a certain company that fire her for doing the right thing, what's the point of even watching Scream 7 without her and the core four but the good thing is at least it gave her and Sam a bittersweet ending.

🐝Chloe Bourgeois (Miraculous Ladybug)🐝

This one is a completely personal rant, I used to be a fan Miraculous. But after watching the season 3 finale, I feel like the magic of the show just basically disappeared, and seasons 4 and 5 was a huge sign that the show fully gone off the rails.

I remember hating Chloe in the first season and I'm pretty sure everyone else felt the same feeling too, but season 2 actually did the the most surprising thing, actually gave her some character development.

It might be baby steps but still development, she might have been spoiled and selfish sometimes but they actually do show that she has flaws.

Malediktator was one of the best episodes of season 2, they were able to showcase Chloe's vulnerability and it prove that she can change and still be a useful ally like the other miraculous holders.

She protected her friend from getting akumatized again, she almost got Mayura's miraculous, and heck, She literally defied Hawkmoth's control, unlike the other akumatized victims, that is basically spells hero-worthy.

But of course as always, Thomas is just too spiteful and that thinks that Chloe is not just worthy and replaced her with a bland, forgettable and useless character who only exists just because she is "better" than Chloe.

It's honestly just pathetic that her corrupt father who spoils her and the literal villain of the show, who done some horrible and awful things get a redemption arc, but a literal misunderstood child doesn't, it just proves that the writer's room just don't even know how to handle character development nor redemption arcs.

It's even more sad that the film actually treats Chloe better than the show does.

The truth is whether do you like or don't like Chloe, it's possible that she can change, it's just that Thomas is the actual problem of the show, I hope one day somehow Chloe might actually get a actual chance to shine as a character again but maybe in the future it could still could happen.

[callmearcturus]

So I was watching Skyfall (2012) last night for reasons that don't need elaborating at this juncture

And am I an idiot or is the entire instigating event fucking stupid

So Bond and a baddie are fighting on top of a train. Baddie has a hard drive on a necklace and that necklace has the NOC list I mean the NATO list. Number one priority is to recover that list.

Moneypenny is on an outcropping nearby with a sniper rifle but she can't get a clear shot of the baddie. M forces her to take the shot anyway, Bond gets hit and falls into the water and has an MGS3 intro moment.

Okay so. Am I stupid or is that whole setup fucking dumb? The options here were

Accidentally shoot Bond, which removes him from the scenario and prevents further tracking of the baddie

Or shoot the baddie, who would be knocked from the train and the NOC list would be gone anyway.

So what is the fucking point of taking that shot but to artificially set up tension between M and Bond? Am I missing something?

Anyway this was just the second of my numerous complaints and I only watched the first 40 minutes before going to bed.

(for the curious my next complaint was "what was even the point of that 5 second sex scene")

[3416]

My SCF prediction is Kings vs Leafs, it’ll go to 7 games. Not sure who’ll win. They play surprisingly intense hockey against each other. Kings this year look like the 2012 Kings to me (it was rare, I was there). Leafs have Mitchy in a magical season who’ll be bringing his New Dad power™️.

first of all.... i condone this message lkFJDOSKLXZ;... i think the kings winning any real amount of games at this juncture would be hilarious and fun, esp if they have to play the oilers again in the first round... THEY'RE DUE A WIN.

i actually don't mind the kings at all. kempe and kopitar and fiala and byfield are all babes when we don't have to play them so LOL. also i nneed some humbling to go down in the western conf and if it was them to carry that out.... GODSPEED. my prediction is leafs avs maybe but i don't want it, lol.

[parzival911]

Shadows of the Night, Shadows of the Self

Recommended Tea: Berry Fusion (for maximum effect... cold)

In this post, I'd like to explore the Edmund in all of us. In my previous two rereads (2012/2019), I sped right through this part of the book. It didn't register Edmund might reveal something till Chapter 8. But as that's a bit in the future, let's dive into where the narrative stands at present.

Chapter 3 - Roots of Betrayal

I've been treating my reading like I do my movies of late. Before it was, "Hey what a relatable story; I'm [Character]." Now it's like Narnia: not only is it dream-like, everything reflects a part of the whole. I'm not one character; I see myself in all of them. I reflected on how trying my hand at a story, I recognized all the protagonists were really facets of myself (my strengths, weaknesses, my faults and fears). It took until recently to see I also cast myself in the villain's role.

So how does Edmund factor into that? Simple: all of us possess a side of ourselves we shield, we mask, from the outside world. All of us possess a private self (as it should be). I'll save the majority of my thoughts on that for Edmund's character development later.* For now, let's focus on temptation.

The Witch's temptation comes on two levels: on the surface, there's the child, lured by sweets. On a deeper level, she lures Edmund into what he covets and craves: power. As explored in Devin Brown's book, it's part of the power dynamic: Edmund wants to dominate. He isn't the oldest boy (Peter) and resents the substitute mother (Susan); he can only lord anything over Lucy, but he wants more, hence how he acts at school. Like any villain, Jadis doesn't say, "Go do this." She suggests; Edmund freely chooses what he does wrong. No one forces him to.

Lewis explores the proper placement of pleasure in a healthy and adjusted life in "The Screwtape Letters." One doesn't have to be a Christian to see the point, validated by Buddhist teachings as well as the search for harmony in Confucianism. One craves what one shouldn't because it reminds one of what one should. As I've told my students if they start cursing up a blue streak, "I don't argue with your emotion. I argue with your expression of it."

Much more to explore, but for now I'll leave you with this to ponder.

Confronting Jadis since October 18th, Parzival

* And if I'm being honest, it's because I misplaced my notes from when I read it before Christmas :-(

Time travel segment soundtrack

1 - A favorite more and more (and since it makes me actually want to dance, that leads to...) 2 - Selected because of memories (2014), breaking free of the time loop (2018) and having zero foreknowledge of the ending clip (I wasn't even watching; I prefer to make my own mental movies) 3 - Chosen from the feeling I got starting the second verse above (and something tells me I'm not alone), the duration reminding me of an unforgettable night in 2008 4 - Because I already liked it, the words resonating with new meaning, (and the image always in mind when "I see you now") 5 - Echoes of past emotional memory, present shivers; the rest... classified (awaiting authorization by the Boss, and no, I don't mean Bruce, goober. Geez!)

Composition

Well now see I don't know; hasn't this all been about temptation? We're pretty far down the rabbit hole at this juncture, aren't we? This is the Restricted Section, Hermione... for now; maybe if you pay to play though...? Brew that Polyjuice potion. I won't tell if you don't ;-)

[news365times]

[ad_1] Paromita Das New Delhi. The recent decision by the United States to cut USAID funding to Bharat has sparked a major political debate, raising questions about the role of foreign entities in shaping democratic processes in sovereign nations. USAID, which has long been accused of serving as an instrument of the U.S. deep state, had been funneling millions of dollars into Bharat under the guise of promoting democracy and increasing voter turnout. The revelation that $21 million was being directed towards activities with unclear motives has led to widespread speculation about the intended objectives behind such funding. This decision comes at a crucial juncture, just days after Bharatiya Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with former U.S. President Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk, leading to further scrutiny of the timing and implications of the move. The cut in funding has been welcomed by many within Bharat, particularly the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has consistently warned against foreign interference in the country’s democratic processes. The Suspicious Nature of USAID’s Funding in Bharat USAID, an agency known for its extensive global operations, has been accused by security experts from Bharat, the U.S., and other countries of being involved in regime-change operations. The agency has often been criticized for using American taxpayers’ money to promote specific political narratives in developing countries. The latest revelation that $21 million was allocated to Bharat to increase voter participation has raised eyebrows, as such a large sum could have been used to subtly manipulate electoral trends in the country. BJP’s social media head, Amit Malviya, took to social media to express his concerns over this funding, questioning its real purpose. He pointed out that such a large investment in “voter turnout” raises serious concerns about external interference in Bharat’s electoral system, emphasizing that it was unlikely to benefit the ruling party. Malviya further highlighted an important connection from 2012 when the Election Commission of India (ECI) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Indian Foundation for Electoral Systems, an organization linked to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation (OSF). Soros, who has publicly expressed his opposition to Prime Minister Modi, has been known to fund various organizations that are often critical of the Bharatiya government. USAID has been a major contributor to Soros’ OSF, raising further concerns about the motives behind these financial allocations. Foreign Influence Through Media and NGOs One of the most striking aspects of the USAID funding controversy is the revelation of its connection with media organizations that have been historically critical of the Bharatiya government. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), often hailed as an independent journalistic institution but widely regarded in Bharat as an agenda-driven entity, has been one of the key beneficiaries of USAID funding. In the financial year 2023-24, BBC Media Action, the broadcaster’s international development arm, received an astonishing £2.6 million from USAID. This revelation is particularly concerning given that the financial year was just ahead of the biggest election year globally, including Bharat’s general elections. The timing of such funding raises legitimate concerns about attempts to shape public opinion in Bharat by external forces. Another significant revelation comes from WikiLeaks, which recently exposed that USAID has been financing an NGO called Internews Network, a U.S.-based media support organization operating in over 100 countries. Through its collaboration with Sambhavana Institute, USAID facilitated training programs for Bharatiya journalists, providing funding for over 2,500 workshops and training nearly 75,000 media personnel. What makes this particularly alarming is the ideological alignment of those associated with Sambhavana Institute. Many of

its alumni and affiliates are well-known government critics, including figures like Ravish Kumar, Akash Banerjee, Yogendra Yadav, Harsh Mander, Kavita Krishnan, Sandeep Choudhary, and Pranjoy Guha Thakurta. This raises serious questions about whether the funding was genuinely intended to promote journalism or if it was part of a larger effort to cultivate an anti-government narrative within Bharat’s media ecosystem. Bangladesh Also Affected by USAID Funding Cuts Bharat is not the only country affected by these funding cuts. The U.S. has also scrapped $29 million in aid to Bangladesh, which was previously allocated under the pretext of “strengthening the political landscape” in the country. The timing of this decision, especially in the wake of political unrest and the violent coup attempt against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, has led to speculation that the funding may have been designed to influence political outcomes in Bangladesh. The U.S.’s inconsistent stance on Bangladesh before and after the coup has exposed the geopolitical motivations behind such aid programs. While Washington had initially justified the aid as a means to strengthen democracy, the abrupt cancellation of the funding following the coup raises questions about whether the original intent was to destabilize Hasina’s government. The Broader Implications for Bharat and Its Sovereignty The revelation that over $650 million in USAID funding for voter turnout was allocated to Bharat over the last four years underscores the scale of foreign financial influence. This period coincided with an intensified global smear campaign against the Modi government, particularly through international media outlets and activist groups. The clear chronological link between funding allocations, media narratives, and political developments highlights the need for Bharat to be cautious about foreign interference in its domestic affairs. For years, Bharat has been fighting an ideological battle against externally funded narratives that seek to undermine its sovereignty. The government’s push for self-reliance through initiatives like “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (Self-Reliant India) aims to reduce dependency on foreign entities, ensuring that Bharat’s democratic processes remain free from external manipulation. The decision to cut USAID funding is seen as a victory for Bharat’s sovereignty and a step towards neutralizing foreign-funded misinformation campaigns. Time for Stricter Regulations on Foreign Funding The USAID funding controversy once again highlights the urgent need for stricter regulations on foreign funding in Bharat. While democratic nations must maintain openness to international cooperation, financial inflows that can influence domestic politics need to be scrutinized more thoroughly. Bharat has already taken steps in this direction, such as tightening regulations on foreign-funded NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). However, the recent revelations indicate that further vigilance is required. Additionally, the role of foreign media organizations in influencing Bharatiya political discourse needs to be critically examined. The influence of entities like BBC, funded in part by USAID, demonstrates how foreign powers can shape public narratives in Bharat through seemingly legitimate journalistic enterprises. Ensuring transparency in foreign funding to media organizations will be key to maintaining journalistic integrity. The Bharatiya government must also take proactive steps to build its own institutions for voter awareness, independent journalism, and public discourse, reducing reliance on foreign-funded organizations. By strengthening domestic institutions and fostering an environment of transparency, Bharat can ensure that its democracy remains free from external manipulations. Conclusion The decision to cut USAID funding to Bharat marks a significant victory against foreign interference. The exposure of massive financial allocations aimed at influencing

Bharat’s electoral process has reinforced the need for Bharat to safeguard its sovereignty against external forces. With the BJP welcoming the funding cuts and calling it a “big success,” this development has once again brought attention to the importance of transparency and vigilance in dealing with foreign aid programs. As Bharat moves forward, it must remain cautious of external financial inflows that could impact its political stability. The government’s decision to curb such interference is a strong step towards ensuring that Bharat’s democratic processes remain in the hands of its people, rather than foreign-funded entities with hidden agendas.     The post USAID Funding Cut: A Major Blow to Foreign Interference in Bharat’s Electoral Process appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[unansweredpoint]

Explaining the NFL Trade Deadline

The National Football League (NFL) trade deadline is a significant annual event that shapes the course of the season. It's the final date on which teams can exchange players in the current season, and its existence is crucial for maintaining competitive balance and strategic planning within the league.

The History of the NFL Trade Deadline

The concept of a trade deadline is not unique to the NFL; it's a common feature in professional sports leagues around the world. The NFL trade deadline has evolved over time, with changes implemented to foster more active trading and strategic roster management. Initially set after Week 6, the deadline was moved to after Week 8 in 2012, giving teams additional time to assess their needs and make decisions on trades.

The Rules Behind Trades

The rules governing trades in the NFL are clear and strict. All trades must be agreed upon and submitted to the league office by 4 p.m. ET on the day of the deadline. This ensures that all transactions are completed fairly and within the set timeframe. After the deadline, the trade window closes until the new league year begins in March, preventing any further player exchanges.

Why Have a Trade Deadline?

The trade deadline serves several purposes:

1. Strategic Roster Management: Teams must carefully consider their rosters and the potential impact of trades on their season. The deadline encourages teams to plan ahead and make strategic decisions rather than reactive ones.

2. Competitive Balance: By having a cut-off point for trades, the NFL ensures that all teams are subject to the same constraints. This prevents teams from gaining an unfair advantage late in the season when injuries or other factors might otherwise encourage lopsided trades.

3. Player Welfare: The deadline also provides players with a degree of certainty about their status for the remainder of the season. Once the deadline passes, they can focus on their current team without the distraction of potential trades.

Impactful Trades in NFL History

Over the years, there have been several trades at the deadline that have significantly impacted teams' fortunes. For instance, the trade of Roquan Smith to the Baltimore Ravens in 2022 and Von Miller to the Los Angeles Rams in 2021 were pivotal moves that shaped their respective teams' defenses.

Conclusion

The NFL trade deadline is a critical juncture in the season that can make or break a team's championship aspirations. It requires teams to be proactive, strategic, and decisive. As fans, the trade deadline adds an element of excitement and speculation, as we wait to see which moves will alter the landscape of the league.

For more detailed insights into the NFL trade deadline and its implications, stay tuned to the latest news and updates as teams maneuver to strengthen their rosters and push for glory.

[seemabhatnagar]

Matrimonial Discord: The Battle for custody

Devnath Ratre v. Smt. Malti Ratre

Before the High Court of Bilaspur

First Appeal 251/2018

Heard by the Bench Hon’ble Mr. Justice Radhakishan Agarwal J

Order passed

The Court considering the facts and circumstances and in the best interest of the girl child granted her custody to the mother and affirmed the finding arrived at by the Family Court concerning custody of the child to be with the mother.

Background of the matter

1.      The present Appeal is filed by the Husband against the rejection of his application by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur denying custody of his daughter.

2.      The Appellant husband was seeking custody of her minor daughter Ms Nikita under section 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 from his wife Smt. Malti.

3.      The couple were married in 2009.

4.      A girl Nikita was born in 2010.

5.      Later dispute arose between them & the wife left her matrimonial home along with a minor daughter for her parental home.

6.      Efforts were made for conciliation between them but of no result.

7.      Since then the Appellant and the Respondent have been living Separately.

8.      The wife filed an application for maintenance of herself and her daughter before the Family Court.

9. In the year 2013 a compromise was entered between the parties accordingly husband was directed to give 1500/- to the wife and Rs.1000/- to the minor girl.

Submission of the husband in Custody petition

1.      He is a natural guardian therefore custody of the minor girl be given to him.

2.      The wife has defamed her in society saying he has tortured her physically and mentally after consuming liquor which is not true.

3.      The wife is cruel hence, to save the girl from the cruel nature of her mother custody of the girl be granted to him.

Submission of the wife

1.      The husband tortured her physically & mentally for the demand of dowry.

2.      He had abandoned her daughter since 2012.

3.      Never cared to meet his daughter.

4.      He is not capable of maintaining her daughter.

5.      He is only earning Rs.6000/-pm.

6.      He is all alone living at home.

7.      She is taking care of her education and well-being.

8.      If the custody is granted to the Appellant it would have an adverse impact on the daughter.

9.      The daughter is now 12 years of age, & at this stage keeping in view the comfort of the daughter, the assistance of the mother is necessary.

10.   The order of the Family Court is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

Observation of the Court

1.      It is the ultimate welfare of the child which is the dominant matter for consideration of the Court in situations of conflicting demands made by parents.

2.      The demand cannot be decided only on a legal basis.

3.      Along with the moral and ethical welfare of the child its physical well-being is also important.

4.      There is nothing that can stand in the way of the Court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases.

5.      The averment of the husband that the father is the natural guardian cannot be given a preference as the welfare of the minor is of paramount consideration.

6.      It is also important to bear in mind a very germane biological aspect of the matter concerning puberty, privacy, and care needed for a girl child at age between 10 to 15 years. At this juncture of life, the girl needs special care and attention from the mother. There are certain biological changes, which a girl child undergoes during this age, which cannot be taken care of by the father.

Seema Bhatnagar

[kcyars189]

Bob Dylan Has a Lot on His Mind

In a rare interview, the Nobel Prize winner discusses mortality, drawing inspiration from the past, and his new album, “Rough and Rowdy Ways.”

Give this article

1005

https://web.archive.org/web/20230330042035im_/https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/06/14/arts/14dylan1/merlin_146478750_0a7f707b-ed5c-4046-a922-d33d68db402d-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp

By Douglas Brinkley

Published June 12, 2020Updated Sept. 18, 2020

Leer en español

A few years ago, sitting beneath shade trees in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., I had a two-hour discussion with Bob Dylan that touched on Malcolm X, the French Revolution, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II. At one juncture, he asked me what I knew about the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864. When I answered, “Not enough,” he got up from his folding chair, climbed into his tour bus, and came back five minutes later with photocopies describing how U.S. troops had butchered hundreds of peaceful Cheyenne and Arapahoe in southeastern Colorado.

Given the nature of our relationship, I felt comfortable reaching out to him in April after, in the midst of the coronavirus crisis, he unexpectedly released his epic, 17-minute song “Murder Most Foul,” about the Kennedy assassination. Even though he hadn’t done a major interview outside of his own website since winning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016, he agreed to a phone chat from his Malibu home, which turned out to be his only interview before next Friday’s release of “Rough and Rowdy Ways,” his first album of original songs since “Tempest” in 2012.

Like most conversations with Dylan, “Rough and Rowdy Ways” covers complex territory: trances and hymns, defiant blues, love longings, comic juxtapositions, prankster wordplay, patriotic ardor, maverick steadfastness, lyrical Cubism, twilight-age reflections and spiritual contentment.

In the high-octane showstopper “Goodbye Jimmy Reed,” Dylan honors the Mississippi bluesman with dragon-fierce harmonica riffs and bawdy lyrics. In the slow blues “Crossing the Rubicon,” he feels “the bones beneath my skin” and considers his options before death: “Three miles north of purgatory — one step from the great beyond/I prayed to the cross and I kissed the girls and I crossed the Rubicon.”

“Mother of Muses” is a hymn to the natural world, gospel choirs and military men like William Tecumseh Sherman and George Patton, “who cleared the path for Presley to sing/who cleared the path for Martin Luther King.” And “Key West (Philosopher’s Pirate),” is an ethereal meditation on immortality set on a drive down Route 1 to the Florida Keys, with Donnie Herron’s accordion channeling the Band’s Garth Hudson. In it he pays homage to, “Ginsberg, Corso and Kerouac.”

ImageDylan says he doesn’t think about mortality in a personal sense: “I think about the death of the human race.”Credit...William C. Eckenberg/The New York Times

Perhaps someday he’ll write a song or paint a picture to honor George Floyd. In the 1960s and 1970s, following the work of black leaders of the civil rights movement, Dylan also worked to expose the arrogance of white privilege and the viciousness of racial hatred in America through songs like “George Jackson,” “Only a Pawn in Their Game,” and “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll.” One of his most fierce lines about policing and race came in his 1976 ballad “Hurricane”: “In Paterson that’s just the way things go/If you’re black you might as well not show up on the street/Unless you want to draw the heat.”

I had a brief follow-up with Dylan, 79, one day after Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. Clearly shaken by the horror that had occurred in his home state, he sounded depressed. “It sickened me no end to see George tortured to death like that,” he said. “It was beyond ugly. Let’s hope that justice comes swift for the Floyd family and for the nation.”

These are edited excerpts from the two conversations.

Was “Murder Most Foul” written as a nostalgic eulogy for a long-lost time?

To me it’s not nostalgic. I don’t think of “Murder Most Foul” as a glorification of the past or some kind of send-off to a lost age. It speaks to me in the moment. It always did, especially when I was writing the lyrics out.

Somebody auctioned off a sheaf of unpublished transcripts in the 1990s that you wrote about J.F.K.’s murder. Were those prose notes for an essay or were you hoping to write a song like “Murder Most Foul” for a long time?

I’m not aware of ever wanting to write a song about J.F.K. A lot of those auctioned-off documents have been forged. The forgeries are easy to spot because somebody always signs my name on the bottom.

Were you surprised that this 17-minute-long song was your first No. 1 Billboard hit?

I was, yeah.

“I Contain Multitudes” has a powerful line: “I sleep with life and death in the same bed.” I suppose we all feel that way when we hit a certain age. Do you think about mortality often?

I think about the death of the human race. The long strange trip of the naked ape. Not to be light on it, but everybody’s life is so transient. Every human being, no matter how strong or mighty, is frail when it comes to death. I think about it in general terms, not in a personal way.

There is a lot of apocalyptic sentiment in “Murder Most Foul.” Are you worried that in 2020 we’re past the point of no return? That technology and hyper-industrialization are going to work against human life on Earth?

Sure, there’s a lot of reasons to be apprehensive about that. There’s definitely a lot more anxiety and nervousness around now than there used to be. But that only applies to people of a certain age like me and you, Doug. We have a tendency to live in the past, but that’s only us. Youngsters don’t have that tendency. They have no past, so all they know is what they see and hear, and they’ll believe anything. In 20 or 30 years from now, they’ll be at the forefront. When you see somebody that is 10 years old, he’s going to be in control in 20 or 30 years, and he won’t have a clue about the world we knew. Young people who are in their teens now have no memory lane to remember. So it’s probably best to get into that mind-set as soon as we can, because that’s going to be the reality.

As far as technology goes, it makes everybody vulnerable. But young people don’t think like that. They could care less. Telecommunications and advanced technology is the world they were born into. Our world is already obsolete.

A line in “False Prophet” — “I’m the last of the best — you can bury the rest” — reminded me of the recent deaths of John Prine and Little Richard. Did you listen to their music after they passed as a kind of tribute?

Both of those guys were triumphant in their work. They don’t need anybody doing tributes. Everybody knows what they did and who they were. And they deserve all the respect and acclaim that they received. No doubt about it. But Little Richard I grew up with. And he was there before me. Lit a match under me. Tuned me into things I never would have known on my own. So I think of him differently. John came after me. So it’s not the same thing. I acknowledge them differently.

ImageFrom left, George Harrison, Dylan, Little Richard and Mike Love at the 1988 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony.Credit...Ebet Roberts/Redferns, via Getty Images

Why didn’t more people pay attention to Little Richard’s gospel music?

Probably because gospel music is the music of good news and in these days there just isn’t any. Good news in today’s world is like a fugitive, treated like a hoodlum and put on the run. Castigated. All we see is good-for-nothing news. And we have to thank the media industry for that. It stirs people up. Gossip and dirty laundry. Dark news that depresses and horrifies you.

On the other hand, gospel news is exemplary. It can give you courage. You can pace your life accordingly, or try to, anyway. And you can do it with honor and principles. There are theories of truth in gospel but to most people it’s unimportant. Their lives are lived out too fast. Too many bad influences. Sex and politics and murder is the way to go if you want to get people’s attention. It excites us, that’s our problem.

Little Richard was a great gospel singer. But I think he was looked at as an outsider or an interloper in the gospel world. They didn’t accept him there. And of course the rock ’n’ roll world wanted to keep him singing “Good Golly, Miss Molly.” So his gospel music wasn’t accepted in either world. I think the same thing happened to Sister Rosetta Tharpe. I can’t imagine either of them being bothered too much about it. Both are what we used to call people of high character. Genuine, plenty talented and who knew themselves, weren’t swayed by anything from the outside. Little Richard, I know was like that.

But so was Robert Johnson, even more so. Robert was one of the most inventive geniuses of all time. But he probably had no audience to speak of. He was so far ahead of his time that we still haven’t caught up with him. His status today couldn’t be any higher. Yet in his day, his songs must have confused people. It just goes to show you that great people follow their own path.

On the album “Tempest” you perform “Roll on John” as a tribute to John Lennon. Is there another person you’d like to write a ballad for?

Those kinds of songs for me just come out of the blue, out of thin air. I never plan to write any of them. But in saying that, there are certain public figures that are just in your subconscious for one reason or another. None of those songs with designated names are intentionally written. They just fall down from space. I’m just as bewildered as anybody else as to why I write them. The folk tradition has a long history of songs about people, though. John Henry, Mr. Garfield, Roosevelt. I guess I’m just locked into that tradition.

You honor many great recording artists in your songs. Your mention of Don Henley and Glenn Frey on “Murder Most Foul” came off as a bit of a surprise to me. What Eagles songs do you enjoy the most?

“New Kid in Town,” “Life in the Fast Lane,” “Pretty Maids All in a Row.” That could be one of the best songs ever.

ImageDylan received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama in 2012.Credit...Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

You also refer to Art Pepper, Charlie Parker, Bud Powell, Thelonious Monk, Oscar Peterson and Stan Getz in “Murder Most Foul.” How has jazz inspired you as a songwriter and poet over your long career? Are there jazz artists you’ve been listening to lately?

Maybe Miles’s early stuff on Capitol Records. But what’s jazz? Dixieland, bebop, high-speed fusion? What do you call jazz? Is it Sonny Rollins? I like Sonny’s calypso stuff but is that jazz? Jo Stafford, Joni James, Kay Starr — I think they were all jazz singers. King Pleasure, that’s my idea of a jazz singer. I don’t know, you can put anything into that category. Jazz goes back to the Roaring Twenties. Paul Whiteman was called the king of jazz. I’m sure if you asked Lester Young he wouldn’t know what you’re talking about.

Has any of it ever inspired me? Well yeah. Probably a lot. Ella Fitzgerald as a singer inspires me. Oscar Peterson as a piano player, absolutely. Has any of it inspired me as a songwriter? Yeah, “Ruby, My Dear” by Monk. That song set me off in some direction to do something along those lines. I remember listening to that over and over.

What role does improvisation play in your music?

None at all. There’s no way you can change the nature of a song once you’ve invented it. You can set different guitar or piano patterns upon the structural lines and go from there, but that’s not improvisation. Improvisation leaves you open to good or bad performances and the idea is to stay consistent. You basically play the same thing time after time in the most perfect way you can.

“I Contain Multitudes” is surprisingly autobiographical in parts. The last two verses exude a take-no-prisoners stoicism while the rest of the song is a humorous confessional. Did you have fun grappling with contradictory impulses of yourself and human nature in general?

I didn’t really have to grapple much. It’s the kind of thing where you pile up stream-of-consciousness verses and then leave it alone and come pull things out. In that particular song, the last few verses came first. So that’s where the song was going all along. Obviously, the catalyst for the song is the title line. It’s one of those where you write it on instinct. Kind of in a trance state. Most of my recent songs are like that. The lyrics are the real thing, tangible, they’re not metaphors. The songs seem to know themselves and they know that I can sing them, vocally and rhythmically. They kind of write themselves and count on me to sing them.

Once again in this song you name a lot of people. What made you decide to mention Anne Frank next to Indiana Jones?

Her story means a lot. It’s profound. And hard to articulate or paraphrase, especially in modern culture. Everybody’s got such a short attention span. But you’re taking Anne’s name out of context, she’s part of a trilogy. You could just as well ask, “What made you decide to include Indiana Jones or the Rolling Stones?” The names themselves are not solitary. It’s the combination of them that adds up to something more than their singular parts. To go too much into detail is irrelevant. The song is like a painting, you can’t see it all at once if you’re standing too close. The individual pieces are just part of a whole.

“I Contain Multitudes” is more like trance writing. Well, it’s not more like trance writing, it is trance writing. It’s the way I actually feel about things. It is my identity and I’m not going to question it, I am in no position to. Every line has a particular purpose. Somewhere in the universe those three names must have paid a price for what they represent and they’re locked together. And I can hardly explain that. Why or where or how, but those are the facts.

But Indiana Jones was a fictional character?

Yeah, but the John Williams score brought him to life. Without that music it wouldn’t have been much of a movie. It’s the music which makes Indy come alive. So that maybe is one of the reasons he is in the song. I don’t know, all three names came at once.

A reference to the Rolling Stones makes it into “I Contain Multitudes.” Just as a lark, which Stones songs do you wish you could’ve written?

Oh, I don’t know, maybe “Angie,” “Ventilator Blues” and what else, let me see. Oh yeah, “Wild Horses.”

ImageDylan and a host of folk-music icons at the Newport Folk Festival in 1963.Credit...Rowland Scherman/Getty Images

Charlie Sexton began playing with you for a few years in 1999, and returned to the fold in 2009. What makes him such a special player? It’s as if you can read each other’s minds.

As far as Charlie goes, he can read anybody’s mind. Charlie, though, creates songs and sings them as well, and he can play guitar to beat the band. There aren’t any of my songs that Charlie doesn’t feel part of and he’s always played great with me. “False Prophet” is only one of three 12-bar structural things on this record. Charlie is good on all the songs. He’s not a show-off guitar player, although he can do that if he wants. He’s very restrained in his playing but can be explosive when he wants to be. It’s a classic style of playing. Very old school. He inhabits a song rather than attacking it. He’s always done that with me.

How have you spent the last couple of months home-sheltered in Malibu? Have you been able to weld or paint?

Yeah, a little bit.

Are you able to be musically creative while at home? Do you play piano and tool around in your private studio?

I do that mostly in hotel rooms. A hotel room is the closest I get to a private studio.

Does having the Pacific Ocean in your backyard help you process the Covid-19 pandemic in a spiritual way? There is a theory called “blue mind” which believes that living near water is a health curative.

Yeah, I can believe that. “Cool Water,” “Many Rivers to Cross,” “How Deep Is the Ocean.” I hear any of those songs and it’s like some kind of cure. I don’t know what for, but a cure for something that I don’t even know I have. A fix of some kind. It’s like a spiritual thing. Water is a spiritual thing. I never heard of “blue mind” before. Sounds like it could be some kind of slow blues song. Something Van Morrison would write. Maybe he has, I don’t know.

It’s too bad that just when the play “Girl From the North Country,” which features your music, was getting rave reviews, production had to shutter because of Covid-19. Have you seen the play or watched the video of it?

Sure, I’ve seen it and it affected me. I saw it as an anonymous spectator, not as someone who had anything to do with it. I just let it happen. The play had me crying at the end. I can’t even say why. When the curtain came down, I was stunned. I really was. Too bad Broadway shut down because I wanted to see it again.

Do you think of this pandemic in almost biblical terms? A plague that has swept the land?

I think it’s a forerunner of something else to come. It’s an invasion for sure, and it’s widespread, but biblical? You mean like some kind of warning sign for people to repent of their wrongdoings? That would imply that the world is in line for some sort of divine punishment. Extreme arrogance can have some disastrous penalties. Maybe we are on the eve of destruction. There are numerous ways you can think about this virus. I think you just have to let it run its course.

Out of all your compositions, “When I Paint My Masterpiece” has grown on me over the years. What made you bring it back to the forefront of recent concerts?

It’s grown on me as well. I think this song has something to do with the classical world, something that’s out of reach. Someplace you’d like to be beyond your experience. Something that is so supreme and first rate that you could never come back down from the mountain. That you’ve achieved the unthinkable. That’s what the song tries to say, and you’d have to put it in that context. In saying that though, even if you do paint your masterpiece, what will you do then? Well, obviously you have to paint another masterpiece. So it could become some kind of never ending cycle, a trap of some kind. The song doesn’t say that though.

A few years ago I saw you play a bluegrass-sounding version of “Summer Days.” Have you ever thought about recording a bluegrass album?

I’ve never thought about that. Bluegrass music is mysterious and deep rooted and you almost have to be born playing it. Just because you are a great singer, or a great this or that doesn’t mean you can be in a bluegrass band. It’s almost like classical music. It’s harmonic and meditative, but it’s out for blood. If you ever heard the Osborne Brothers, then you know what I mean. It’s an unforgiving music and you can only stretch it so far. Beatles songs played in a bluegrass style don’t make any sense. It’s the wrong repertoire, and that’s been done. There are elements of bluegrass music for sure in what I play, especially the intensity and similar themes. But I don’t have the high tenor voice and we don’t have three-part harmony or consistent banjo. I listen to Bill Monroe a lot, but I more or less stick to what I can do best.

How is your health holding up? You seem to be fit as a fiddle. How do you keep mind and body working together in unison?

Oh, that’s the big question, isn’t it? How does anybody do it? Your mind and body go hand in hand. There has to be some kind of agreement. I like to think of the mind as spirit and the body as substance. How you integrate those two things, I have no idea. I just try to go on a straight line and stay on it, stay on the level.

Douglas Brinkley is the Katherine Tsanoff Brown Chair in Humanities and professor of history at Rice University. He is the author of “American Moonshot: John F. Kennedy and the Great Space Race.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20230330042035/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/arts/music/bob-dylan-rough-and-rowdy-ways.html

Sent from my iPhone

[rachnaye]

Exploring the Legacy of Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam: His Famous Books and Popular Biographies

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, lovingly known as the "Missile Man of India," was not just a renowned scientist and the 11th President of the country, but also a prolific author whose literary works continue to resonate with and invigorate people globally. This article will delve into the enduring legacy of Dr. Kalam, with a spotlight on his celebrated books and well-regarded biographies.

The Literary Odyssey of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam:

"Wings of Fire: An Autobiography" (1999): "Wings of Fire," Dr. Kalam's magnum opus, presents an enthralling chronicle of his evolution from humble beginnings to becoming a respected scientist and statesman. Within its pages, he intricately weaves the tapestry of his early life, his pivotal contributions to India's space and missile endeavors, and his visionary dreams for a progressive nation. This autobiography stands as a compelling testament to Dr. Kalam's unwavering determination and resolute dedication.

"Ignited Minds: Unleashing the Power Within India" (2002): "Ignited Minds" is a thought-provoking masterpiece that underscores Dr. Kalam's vision for a flourishing India. He underscores the importance of igniting the minds of the youth, nurturing self-assurance, and fostering innovation. Dr. Kalam's insights on propelling India toward greatness through inventive thinking and inclusivity make this book a must-read for those invested in the nation's growth.

"Indomitable Spirit" (2006): Through "Indomitable Spirit," Dr. Kalam shares intimate anecdotes, transformative experiences, and pivotal encounters that have shaped his remarkable journey. In these inspiring narratives, he imparts invaluable life lessons on resilience, determination, and the power of positive thinking. This book offers an intimate glimpse into Dr. Kalam's character and the guiding principles that steered his extraordinary path.

"Turning Points: A Journey Through Challenges" (2012): "Turning Points" offers a reflective exploration of critical moments in Dr. Kalam's life and the profound insights he gleaned from them. From his involvement in India's nuclear endeavors to his presidency, Dr. Kalam provides readers with insights into his decision-making process and the core values that guided him through pivotal junctures. This book encourages readers to embrace challenges as stepping stones to personal growth.

Prominent Biographies on Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam:

"A.P.J. Abdul Kalam: The Visionary of India" by K. Bhushan and G. Katyal: This biography provides an in-depth exploration of Dr. Kalam's life journey, tracing his modest beginnings in Rameswaram to his monumental contributions as a scientist and leader. It delves into his instrumental role in India's defense and space pursuits, his visionary ideals, and his unwavering commitment to education and youth empowerment. An essential resource for those seeking a comprehensive grasp of Dr. Kalam's life and legacy.

"My Journey: Transforming Dreams into Actions" by A.P.J. Abdul Kalam: "My Journey," crafted as a heartfelt dialogue between Dr. Kalam and his close confidant Arun Tiwari, unveils the personal dimensions of his extraordinary life. This biography offers insights into Dr. Kalam's dreams, aspirations, and the transformative strides he took to bring them to fruition. The book beautifully captures his fervor, humility, and dedication, motivating readers to pursue their own aspirations.

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam's legacy stretches far beyond his scientific achievements and presidential tenure, echoing through his literary contributions. From the autobiographical masterpiece "Wings of Fire" to the thought-provoking "Ignited Minds" and other remarkable compositions, Dr. Kalam's writings provide profound insights into his life, ideals, and contributions to India and the global community.

For a deeper understanding of Dr. Kalam's journey, esteemed biographies like "A.P.J. Abdul Kalam: The Visionary of India" and "My Journey: Transforming Dreams into Actions" offer invaluable companionship. These books provide a richer perspective into his journey, principles, and the enduring impact he left on society.

In a world yearning for inspiration and direction, Dr. Kalam's literary gems and biographical narratives stand as guiding beacons, sparking minds and nurturing positive change. Let us celebrate the extraordinary legacy of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and tirelessly work towards realizing his vision of a brighter, better future.

[mischief-lies-and-stories]

Loki Series Theories 1/?

After my Season Two Wishlist post wound up being long as hell, I think it’s best that my theory list be broken up into a few parts. Since I want to post my ficlet (too out of context in my opinion for AO3) for one way to integrate this theory into the Loki show (though not exactly in the way I highlight in this post), and because this one is involved as fuck, I decided to start with this one.

Kid Loki is Kid Loki from Journey into Mystery (the comic)

When Loki introduces the other variants to Sylvie he says something like, “Us from the future, us from the past, us…as an alligator.” When he’s referring to Kid Loki, he either says “us from the past” or “us as a child” (I’m so sorry, I’m writing this at 10:30 and I meant to go to bed half an hour ago, so I’m not going to check on this). If he says “us from the past,” I think he’s wrong. I don’t think this is him when he was a child.

One, it’s not the same actor as in the flashback in (I think) The Dark World. Now, we know why that is: that actor is too old irl to play a child anymore. However, in the context of the fiction, this Kid Loki does not look like that Kid Loki. So what happened? Is he older, did this Kid Loki hit puberty? Maybe. He doesn’t sound like it, though, as far as I remember.

So I think Kid Loki is not him when he was a kid. I don’t think this is the normal timeline. Or, it is the normal timeline, because Loki doesn’t know how his timeline is supposed to go. So here’s how Loki thinks it goes: he’s a child. Then he and Kid Loki part ways. He continues to be a child, perhaps growing more resentful of Thor as he grows up normally. Meanwhile, in his mind, Kid Loki, for some reason at this juncture, kills Thor. And when he kills Thor, the TVA takes him in, prunes him, and sends him to the void.

But that’s not what happens.

Because Kid Loki is not 2012 Loki, as a child, making a split-second decision that ruined his life. This Kid Loki isn’t this Loki at all, at any point in his life. Actually, technically, 2012 Loki is part of Kid Loki’s past. But only on a technicality.

Because Kid Loki is the Kid Loki from the comics, not the flashbacks from the MCU. So, I’m going to try to integrate comic book Kid Loki into the later events of the MCU to make this work, but to do that I’m going to have to provide some context from the comics. And I’m going to get some things wrong, because it’s really fucking complicated and I think I’m missing some things. And also I read the Journey into Mystery run to get background on Loki’s character from Agent of Asgard that I didn’t fully understand in certain parts, not for the action plot, so I don’t remember some specifics of certain events I need for this theory. (Maybe one day I’ll do more research before posting, but today is not that day.)

Also, this Journey into Mystery is not the run from the 60s where Loki makes his debut. These comics came out in the 2010s. In-verse chronologically (I’m not sure about release date), it goes Journey into Mystery, Young Avengers, Loki: Agent of Asgard, in terms of my favorite arc. (After another author picks Loki up and erases all of his character development from the last three runs, Defenders: Beyond picks up where AoA left off.)

Okay, JiM starts out by introducing the first iteration of Loki. This first iteration was likely not the very first appearance of Loki from back in the 60s, I’m sure he’s probably died like eighteen thousand times in the course of the comics. But this first iteration of Loki is probably what you would think of when you think of a classical version of Loki (not Classic Loki, classical version from the comics). So pure evil, pure mischief, has it out for Thor, trying to rule over Asgard, etc. This first iteration of Loki has a plan. His plan has a few steps. First, he’s gonna purge himself from the book of the dead. This means that when he dies, whenever that will be, he cannot go to Valhalla (he probably wouldn’t go to Valhalla anyway since he probably wouldn’t die a hero), he can’t go to hel (so he won’t be punished forever as one of hel’s warriors. He won’t get to see his daughter, either, but I don’t think he really cares about that), and he has pissed off Mephisto, too, but he won’t be able to go to H-E-double-hockey sticks hell, either. This doesn’t mean he can’t die. He will die, he’s just not gonna go anywhere in an afterlife. (More on that later.)

The other thing he’s gonna do, is he’s gonna take over Asgard, like he normally tries to do. He’s gonna fuck over whatever business Thor’s got going on, he’s gonna kill him, he’s gonna cause Ragnarok, the whole kit-and-caboodle. So he’s doing all that, and he’s getting shit done. And then (and they might explain this in more detail elsewhere in the book, but I don’t remember. But in the prologue they basically say for some reason, no one knows why, so I’m gonna go with that.) And then for some reason, no one knows why, Loki decides, ‘This would be a lot more fun if I was on the other side.’

So he switches sides. He’s fighting on behalf of Asgard, now, against whatever hell he’s been raining down on it. (Not actual hell, I don’t think? But something of the sort.) Until he does manage to help Asgard out of whatever calamity he brought onto it. But at the expense of, one, the planet, so now it’s just a floating city over this little town in Oklahoma. And, two, at the expense of his own life. So now he’s dead.

Thor, as Thor does, and as we saw at the beginning of Endgame, misses his brother. (Which I love.) To the point that he starts looking for him, and I think maybe starts doing some other stuff, too. Some more active stuff than look for him. (This all takes place before JiM.) And eventually, he manages to find a kid. A little dark-haired, green-eyed, street urchin, who, he comes to find out, has a bit of his brother’s reincarnated soul hibernating inside of him. So (and I don’t know what the kid thinks of this) he awakens the reincarnated little shard of soul inside the street urchin.

So Loki is kind of back, but he’s different. It’s only a piece of his soul. The rest of him is somewhere, not anywhere in the afterlife since he erased himself from the book of the dead, but he’s not around. So Loki is now referred to as Kid Loki, and he remembers some of it. He has some of his personality, but he still has some of this childhood innocence from when he was just a normal kid. It’s this complicated thing where he’s kind of Loki and kind of not. And he’s also a kid, he doesn’t age up (that’s going to happen later). He’s about twelve, maybe.

He may look like a kid. He may, for the most part, act like a kid. But the rest of Asgard doesn’t trust him. So he spends a lot of time trying to prove himself, a lot of time needing to be rescued by Thor when members of Asgard try to air out their grievances about the old Loki on him.

At one point, as comics do, there’s this big battle of whatever (I don’t remember the details, I’m sorry). During this battle, Loki’s doing what he can, but he’s also twelve. So he enlists the help of Volstagg, who has a bunch of kids, so he’s cautiously trusting of Loki. He likes him when he’s acting like a child, and not so much when he’s reminded of the person Loki used to be. And Thor’s kind of off doing his hero thing, so he’s not really around Loki during this part of the comic. If I remember correctly, it gets to a point where Loki realizes, ‘Thor’s going to die during this. Thor’s going to have to die during this.’ And he doesn’t like that, and he wishes there were another way, but there’s no other way to end it, and there’s no other way to end it with fewer casualties and victoriously on the part of Asgard. So he orchestrates on his end what he can do to turn the tide of the war both in Asgard’s favor and against Thor. Loki essentially influences events in such a way that Thor gets killed by the enemy to save Asgard.

And Loki is beat up about this. First of all, he’s lost his protector, so anything can happen to him at this point. Second of all, he made a choice, pretty early on in this comic run, that he is not gonna be the old him. He is gonna try his damnedest to not be like that. And this kind of directly contradicts that. Yes, it was for the greater good, yes, Asgard won, fewer casualties were lost, but Loki got his brother killed purposefully. And third of all, he loves Thor, deeply. It’s really shown in this comic how much he cares about Thor, and how much he wants to be around Thor, and how much he wants Thor’s attention and affection and respect. So he’s really upset and he does grieve privately.

So to tie this back to the show. The timeline splits at the Ark. Thanos kills Loki. Classic Loki doesn’t die and goes off to his uninhabited planet. Our Loki does die. But, somehow (maybe he purged himself from the book of the dead. We don’t know what he did as Odin for four years), some part of him somewhere lives, and at some point after the war (after Thor 4, I don’t know where Love factors into this, I’m sorry), the child Loki before he’s Loki and Thor find each other, and Thor awakens that little soul piece in Loki.

And then we have Kid Loki. And then some big battle happens. (Maybe it’s Kang. They’re all outside of time right now. Maybe Kang ends up happening, I don’t know. I don’t know how this time thing works. I didn’t know how this time thing worked in Endgame, I’m confused as fuck right now.)

Anyway, something happens. Some big battle happens, and Loki’s like, ‘The only way to end this is for Thor to die.’ And somehow, the TVA, because the TVA’s been wrong before, thinks that Kid Loki killed Thor. Or maybe he just wasn’t supposed to let Thor get killed. Because I’m still saying that Kid Loki didn’t kill Thor, or at least didn’t do it. I’m still saying Thor got killed by some shit to stop this war. But, technically speaking, Kid Loki did it. He orchestrated some events that got him killed. He knew that was the only way.

But I’ll tell you this, he doesn’t love it. He’s beat up about it.

But wait, some more astute fans may be saying (to which I say, why are you still here? It’s been almost 2k words, go read something more interesting or drink water). Loki watched the entire tape of his life at the TVA and it ended with the Ark exploding. How could it have ended if he was meant to become Kid Loki? Because that was only the first tape. You know who else’s life is longer than one tape? Tevye and Maria von Trapp and Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in Titanic. Mobius didn’t even intend to show him everything on the first tape. He was trying to paint a picture of Loki’s character to get what he wanted out of him; why would he focus on a version of Loki actively trying to be better, a version of him more openly capable of showing affection toward Thor, a version of himself with friends (yeah, those friends were a hellhound puppy, a magpie with another shard of his soul, and a childlike illusion of Hela, but still)? Mobius didn’t even bother bringing that tape into the interrogation room, because Loki’s second life wouldn’t have served his purpose.

Now I want to talk about how canon I think this theory is. Do I genuinely think this is a possibility for the show, or do I just like how it sounds and would make this canon if I was writing it?

Canon Likelihood: Kid Loki is from the future, not the past…….Not Likely

Unfortunately, I think we’re done seeing him. I don’t think we’re gonna get anymore of his backstory, so we’re not going to hear about why he killed Thor, or how old Thor was when Loki killed him. Personally, I think it makes more sense for him to be JiM Loki. (Which is why I wasted all this time writing this post even if I don’t think it’s likely to be canon.) And! The goddamned episode where Loki meets Kid Loki is called “Journey into Mystery,” so why wouldn’t they reference that? But not likely. They just liked the shock factor of “I killed Thor.”

[back-and-totheleft]

The documentary every American should watch

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” George Santayana famously said. But often the problem is that people never learn the history to begin with. Here in America, we’re more likely to learn myths about Washington chopping down a cherry tree than, say, the real history of the CIA toppling democratically elected foreign governments. The problems of America mythologizing its past is a precinct issue in 2017 where we are somehow still debating if the Civil War was about slavery (hint: it was!) and political operators cite disgraces like the internment of Japanese Americans as “precedents” for current policy. No matter what your political opinions are, it’s always good to look at our history with a critical eye, which is why The Untold History of the United States is a documentary you should watch on Netflix.

The Untold History of the United States is a 10-part documentary that begins with World War II and ends with the Obama administration (it was released in 2012). It’s more watchable than your average History Channel show, eschewing boring talking heads for Oliver Stone’s narration voiced over historical footage and clips from popular films and TV shows like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Twilight Zone, and First Blood. The documentary focuses on the dark parts of American (and also world) history: the wars, political scandals, civil unrest, and missed opportunities. In short, the parts of American history we tend to gloss over in our politicians like to gloss over. But while Stone certainly has a viewpoint, the documentary is outside the scope of partisan politics that consumes American discourse. Stone has as much ire for Democratic politicians, especially Harry Truman, as he does for Republicans. It’s a documentary that’s sure to annoy almost everyone, which means it’s doing its job.

Stone worked with historian Peter Kuznick, who keeps Stone grounded in the historical facts. There is none of, say, Stone’s wacko conspiracy theorizing from JFK. This doesn’t mean you’ll agree with Stone’s take on everything—I certainly don’t—but the facts being presented are largely accepted at this point. The documentary is less the “untold history” of America and more the history that historians tell but that your average American rarely learns.

If there is an overarching theme of the series, it is that history is never inevitable. At every critical juncture, choices made and mere luck can shape the entire world. For example, one of the only politicians that Stone seems to admire is FDR’s progressive vice president, Henry Wallace, who was kicked off the reelection ticket by shenanigans at the the 1944 Democratic Convention. Wallace was replaced by little-known Harry S. Truman, who would become president after FDR’s death, drop atomic bombs on Japan, and help kick off the Cold War. Would a president Wallace have charted a different course for the post-WWII world and avoided the Cold War entirely? If JFK hadn’t been assassinated, would America have pulled out of the Vietnam War before the escalation and atrocities that occurred under Lyndon Johnson could happen? If Al Gore hadn’t lost the election by a tiny fraction of disputed votes, would America have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq?

Anyone who is living in 2017 and watched the British public narrowly vote for Brexit and Donald Trump eek out an electoral victory after losing the popular vote will be familiar with these “what if?” questions. What The Untold History reminds us is that history is not the inevitable conclusion of Hegelian forces, popular zeitgeist, or even the ruling global elites. It’s something that we are all of us making together, for better or worse. The Untold History can’t answer what if these questions, but it presents you with provocative evidence that will have you thinking about what could have been and what could be in the future.

-Lincoln Michel, "The Untold History of the United States Is the Documentary Every American Should Watch on Netflix," GQ, Aug 26 2017

[denimbex1986]

'There is a moment in Christopher Nolan’s political thriller Oppenheimer where its titular character – J. Robert Oppenheimer, the theoretical physicist behind the development of the nuclear bomb – begins to transform from scientific hero to political pariah.

At that story juncture it’s hard not to see him as the progenitor of America’s pandemic princeling, former presidential medical adviser Dr Anthony Fauci: one moment a saviour, the next almost nailed to a cross as politicians sought to assign blame for an event that it hadn’t come to terms with yet.

“That was a crazy time,” says actor Cillian Murphy, who plays Oppenheimer, “that intersection between science and politics. That was crazy. [The moment Oppenheimer realised] his utility was over. After that, the scientists, certainly in the army, were cut out. That moment in the movie is very telling.”

Oppenheimer is the work of director Nolan, but not quite as you know him. Based on the 2005 biography of Oppenheimer, American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, this might be Nolan’s most ambitious film. Perhaps his most political. Almost certainly, based on reactions at the first screening in New York, his best.

It boasts an extraordinary A-list ensemble: Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey jnr, Florence Pugh, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branagh. It speaks to Nolan’s reputation, and the impact of the film’s script when offered, that actors accustomed to headlining their own films were happy to take on smaller roles just to be a part of it.

Oppenheimer is a blockbuster, though not in the Batman sense of the word. The film is in both colour and black-and-white. It has few special effects, but the ones it has are practical, not computer-generated, an important footnote when you consider the story takes us to the Los Alamos headquarters of the Manhattan Project, and its world-changing 1945 nuclear test blast.

It is also Nolan’s first script written in the first person; as a storyteller he has always preferred complex, knotted narratives with multiple perspectives. And it is in many ways Nolan’s first romantic story, at least in the sense that Oppenheimer’s complex and passionate relationship with his mistress Jean (Pugh) is a central thread of the story.

“Those scenes were written deliberately,” says Murphy of the film’s sex scenes, which created headlines of their own months before the film’s release. “He knew that those scenes would get the movie the rating that it got. And I think when you see it, it’s so f---ing powerful. And they’re not gratuitous. They’re perfect. And Florence is just amazing.

“I have loved Florence’s work since Lady Macbeth [William Oldroyd’s 2016 period drama about a woman embittered by a loveless marriage] and I think she’s f---ing phenomenal,” Murphy says. “She has this presence as a person and on screen that is staggering. The impact she has [in Oppenheimer] for the size of the role, it’s quite devastating.”

Development on the film was announced in September 2021, with Murphy attached from the outset. It had actually begun a few months earlier when Nolan’s wife, producer Emma Thomas, had called Murphy. Even though the pair had collaborated on Nolan’s Dark Knight films (2005-2012), Inception (2010) and Dunkirk (2017), the pair are not particularly close.

“Myself and Chris don’t keep in touch, you know,” Murphy says. “We don’t hang out and go to have pizza. We work together. And then we don’t see each other, and then we work. So, when I got a call from Emma, I knew it must’ve been about something. And then Chris got on the phone, and he said, this is my next project, I’d like you to be my Oppenheimer.”

Murphy took the news quite calmly, he recalls. Particularly when compared with other similar, and significant, moments in his career. When he got 28 Days Later, Danny Boyle’s 2002 apocalypse thriller that became his breakthrough role, he was in a queue at London’s Stansted Airport. “I remember jumping up and down in the f---ing queue,” Murphy says, laughing.

And then when Nolan offered him the role of the villain Scarecrow in his Batman trilogy, Murphy was struck deeply by the scale of what lay ahead. “I went, holy shit, this is going to be f---ing big. [I knew] this is a lot of work. So immediately then it turned from kind of joy into focus.”

When Nolan offered him Oppenheimer, his visible enthusiasm was tempered by maturity, but no less engulfing. “I had to f---ing sit down,” Murphy says. “But it was one of those great, glorious, pure moments of the kind of joy that you get only a few times in your life.”

Critically, Nolan did not want a biographical stitch-up of Oppenheimer, nor did he want the film to rehabilitate Oppenheimer’s complex reputation and legacy. This is, after all, the “father of the atomic bomb”, whose research created Little Boy and Fat Man, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the Second World War. In the final accounting, those two events claimed almost a quarter of a million lives.

“There isn’t any simple answer to that,” Murphy says when I explain the film’s handling of Oppenheimer had left me conflicted. “And I love it when the film does exactly what it did to you; it provoked you and made you think about Oppenheimer in different ways. That’s what we want to do. We’re not making a documentary, it’s a fictional account. I don’t think it’s meant to give any answers. I think it’s meant to ask questions.”

Murphy was born in Douglas, County Cork, Ireland in 1976. After flirting with both acting and performing in a band, he made his professional debut as an actor in 1996 playing a volatile teenager in Enda Walsh’s critically acclaimed play Disco Pigs. Walsh described him as “enigmatic”. The play made it to Australia two years later, but alas Murphy did not; he had left the production by then.

The younger man in Disco Pigs and the 47-year-old man who walks confidently into a New York hotel room, a week before strikes shutter Hollywood, are not the same men. Yet Murphy still retains the enigmatic aura Walsh spoke of. The same quality casting director Gail Stevens saw when, several years later, she put him in line for the lead role in 28 Days Later.

“I always say this: when I was starting out, a director said it takes 30 years to make an actor,” Murphy says. “I’ve been doing it since I was 20, so that’s 27 years doing it, and I think it’s about right, that estimation. I’m not quite there yet. But I think it does take that long to figure it out. And I’m still figuring it out.

“Some of my instincts are the same as they were when I was a kid, but I’ve kind of refined them,” Murphy adds. “One of the most important things for me, and it changed me profoundly when I worked with Ken Loach [on 2006’s The Wind That Shakes the Barley], was that I realised it is pointless spending all the time in your head. It’s pointless intellectualising work.

“You can do all the research, and I did for Oppenheimer, I did six months of research, but when it comes down it, it’s just you and the other actors and the director, and what matters is the truth … and that moment,” Murphy adds. “All the f---ing research in the world isn’t going to help you there. I’ve become better at doing that, being open.”

Open perhaps on the set, but off the set, Murphy is an unusually private man. He does not dislike giving interviews, but he is happy to point out he does not always see the value in them. He acknowledges his work gives him a public profile, but does not see himself as a celebrity. And his anonymity, he says, is one of the most important tools in the actor’s toolkit.

“I don’t know if [fame] is destructive, but I don’t think it’s useful,” Murphy says. “I’ve always felt that way. It always seemed logical to me that the less people know about you, the more willing they are to invest in you on screen. That seems entirely logical to me.

“And I think people are probably f---ing sick of me saying this, but I don’t see any reason why you should be a personality, just because you’re an actor,” Murphy adds. “In fact, I think, again, that’s not useful. And so I try not to do that because I’m not good at it and I just want to put everything into the work.”

And between February and May last year that is what he did. The film was shot on location in New Mexico, New Jersey and California, and explosives were used to re-create the Trinity nuclear test, the historic nuclear detonation that defined Oppenheimer’s legacy. Nolan was inflexible on that one point: a real explosion was required for the cameras to capture.

Murphy would spend part of the film fencing with Robert Downey jnr’s character Lewis Strauss, the former naval officer and political identity who was initially Oppenheimer’s ally, but ultimately became a key figure in the 1954 investigation by the Atomic Energy Commission into Oppenheimer’s background and associations.

Nolan gifted the two actors an unexpected and somewhat whimsical jumping-off point: the 1984 Milos Forman film Amadeus. “I put a lot of time and effort into the walk, the voice, the shape of his body, all of that,” Murphy says. “But something very useful that Chris said was, watch Amadeus again.”

Specifically, Nolan pointed to the relationship between the older composer Antonio Salieri, instrumental in the early career of Mozart but for whom the relationship was ultimately poisoned by jealousy. “That relationship, Salieri/Mozart, that’s the similar sort of dynamic that he was setting up here,” Murphy says. “It became very clear to me then that’s kind of what he wanted this Strauss/Oppenheimer relationship to be like.”

Murphy and Downey jnr, however, did not spend too much time talking about it, Murphy says. “Downey is so super smart and has incredible insights and is incredibly emotionally available. But the way I work, I don’t really like talking about it too much. I don’t see the benefit of it,” Murphy says.

“In those scenes with Downey, there was some f---ing energetic transfer, some vibrations between the two of us that it felt to me like … like we were playing music,” Murphy adds. “He’s such a f---ing brilliant actor and he’s so responsive to the tiniest shift in energy from the other actor. And there were times where Chris would let us just improvise and it was kind of electric.”

History’s relationship with Oppenheimer is as complicated as Nolan’s attempt to craft a narrative around him. Strauss’s inquiry tried to turn him into a pariah and was, to some extent, successful; Oppenheimer’s security clearance was revoked. But Strauss’s ambition to become Secretary of Commerce was also derailed.

Then, in 2020, 55 years after Oppenheimer died and 68 years after the clearance was revoked, it was quietly reinstated by the US government, which described the original investigation as “a flawed process that violated the commission’s own regulations”. The timing is revealing, says Murphy. “I wondered, did they do that prior to all the noise around this film? Knowing that the spotlight would make people re-ask the question?” he says.

In the final analysis, Murphy reflects, Oppenheimer the man was somewhat unknowable. “In a conventional movie, the protagonist’s arc goes from A to B, something happens, and they’re a changed character. End of movie,” Murphy says.

“The case with Oppenheimer was all over the place. It was kind of unclear where he stood. He was unreachable, even to the people close to him. But when you’ve got arguably the greatest director of his generation, you just lean into him.

“I leaned into Chris all the time in terms of where we were and where he stood and his journey morally. I didn’t think it was an important message film, I never thought like that. All I was thinking about was trying to make the performance as truthful and as honest and as accessible as possible.”

Oppenheimer opens in cinemas on July 20.'

[fantastic-nonsense]

Okay, so this info-gathering saga over the DC Comics archivist and his lack of qualifications is coming to an end, I think. Here's the information I and @secretlystephaniebrown have gathered over the past 24-36 hours:

The current Head Archivist/Librarian of DC Comics, Benjamin LeClear, is wildly unqualified. He has not only never been to library school but had never worked in an archival/information specialist capacity before being named Archivist.

He has no MLIS or Certificate in Archival Science/Archival Administration/Public History, with only a B.A. in History; despite being an Archivist for seven years, he’s neglected to obtain such credentials or educational certification.

If he does have some sort of additional qualification, it’s not publicly available on either his LinkedIn page or any officially published DC material, and isn’t obvious from his professional conduct.

He had no prior library, archival, or information specialist experience or training. He was a customer service manager for decades before becoming an Executive Assistant at DC in 2012; in 2015 he went directly from being an Executive Assistant to “Manager of the DC Library Archives.” He’s since been promoted to Senior Manager.

Multiple library and archival professionals, after viewing the few public videos of him/the archives that exist, have noticed several issues regarding archival storage and preservation practices (potential lack of UV-protected glass, disorganized and un-sorted materials, shelving issues, etc.)

LeClear's lack of qualifications and competency are leading to a marked institutional-level inability to carry out work competently: DC Comics has a clear lack of writing/artistic style guides, required reading lists for writers, established continuity and lore-keeping best practices, cross-office information sharing guidelines, etc.

It’s also leading to an obvious institutional disengagement with both the academic community and the general public. Archive access appears to be exclusive to DC Comics insiders and specific comics journalists, and there’s zero official presence (on or offline) for the Archives. This is extremely odd for one of the largest media companies in the world, and has had a notable impact in the academic space (the lack of a DC-focused equivalent for Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, for example).

Not sure how to solve this problem at this juncture, but I think it's an issue comics fans and professionals in the library/archival space absolutely need to know about.

Relevant Links:

LeClear's LinkedIn

Two DC Universe Infinite Q&As, one from May 2020 and the other from Jan 2021, where he discusses his experience (or lack thereof), how he got the job, and how he approaches his work

A "behind the scenes" video interview with Syfy that shows the DC Archives and showcases LeClear's professional conduct

Also potentially helpful: a page from DC Nation #1 (publicly available for free on Amazon and published in June 2018) that talks about LeClear's job and mentions his scanning practices

[icecricnews367]

Best Bowlers in Women’s T20 World Cup History

The Women’s T20 World Cup has been a platform for many outstanding bowling performances over the years. From lethal pace bowlers to crafty spinners, the tournament has seen bowlers change the course of matches with their brilliance. These performances have not only secured victories for their teams but have also left a lasting legacy on the game. In this blog, we’ll take a look at some of the best bowlers in Women’s T20 World Cup history who have dominated the competition with their skill and precision.

1. Anya Shrubsole (England)

When talking about the best bowlers in Women’s T20 World Cup history, England’s Anya Shrubsole stands out for her consistent performances and ability to deliver in high-pressure situations. Known for her exceptional swing bowling, Shrubsole has been a key figure in England’s success in the tournament.

One of her most iconic performances came in the 2014 Women’s T20 World Cup final against Australia, where she bowled a sensational spell of 3/12. Her ability to swing the ball both ways has troubled even the most accomplished batters. Shrubsole's knack for picking up early wickets has often given England a significant edge.

Key Stats:

Matches: 28

Wickets: 41

Best Figures: 3/6

Economy Rate: 5.53

2. Ellyse Perry (Australia)

While many recognize Ellyse Perry for her all-round capabilities, her bowling has been instrumental in Australia’s dominance in the Women’s T20 World Cup. Perry’s ability to bowl with pace and accuracy makes her a nightmare for batters. Her performances in the 2010 and 2012 tournaments were pivotal in Australia lifting the trophy.

In the 2010 final against New Zealand, Perry’s 3/18 showcased her ability to perform under pressure. Her relentless accuracy and adaptability across different conditions have cemented her place among the best bowlers in Women’s T20 World Cup history.

Key Stats:

Matches: 39

Wickets: 40

Best Figures: 3/12

Economy Rate: 5.90

Check Out:- Ravichandran Ashwin Retires From Intl Cricket

3. Shabnim Ismail (South Africa)

South Africa’s Shabnim Ismail is one of the fastest bowlers in women’s cricket. Her aggressive bowling style, coupled with her ability to consistently clock high speeds, makes her one of the most feared bowlers in the Women’s T20 World Cup. Ismail's ability to generate bounce and seam movement has led to several match-winning performances.

In the 2020 Women’s T20 World Cup, Ismail was at her destructive best, taking 3/8 against Thailand. Her fiery spells have often provided the breakthrough South Africa needs at crucial junctures.

Key Stats:

Matches: 32

Wickets: 43

Best Figures: 3/8

Economy Rate: 5.60

4. Sophie Ecclestone (England)

Young, talented, and incredibly consistent, Sophie Ecclestone has quickly risen to become one of the best bowlers in Women’s T20 World Cup history. The left-arm spinner’s ability to extract turn and maintain a tight line and length has made her a crucial weapon for England.

Ecclestone's standout performance in the 2020 tournament, where she finished as one of the leading wicket-takers, showcased her ability to bowl in any situation. Her calm demeanor and tactical acumen make her a bowler to watch for many years to come.

Key Stats:

Matches: 19

Wickets: 28

Best Figures: 3/7

Economy Rate: 5.35

5. Poonam Yadav (India)

India’s Poonam Yadav has been a revelation in the Women’s T20 World Cup with her deceptive leg-spin and flighted deliveries. Poonam's ability to outfox batters with her variations and slower pace has been instrumental for India, especially in the 2020 edition where she was India’s leading wicket-taker.

In the opening match of the 2020 Women’s T20 World Cup against Australia, Poonam Yadav’s magical spell of 4/19 turned the game on its head. Her control over her deliveries and her ability to bowl in pressure situations make her one of India’s most reliable bowlers.

Key Stats:

Matches: 22

Wickets: 28

Best Figures: 4/19

Economy Rate: 5.60

Why These Bowlers Stand Out

The best bowlers in Women’s T20 World Cup history have a few things in common: precision, adaptability, and the ability to thrive under pressure. Whether it’s the searing pace of Shabnim Ismail, the swing mastery of Anya Shrubsole, or the spin wizardry of Poonam Yadav, these bowlers have shaped the outcomes of crucial matches and led their teams to glory.

These bowlers have not only performed consistently but have also evolved with the game. Their ability to read batters, bowl to specific plans, and adapt to different conditions makes them legends of the Women’s T20 World Cup.

The Impact of Bowlers on the Women's T20 Game

In a format often dominated by batters, the contributions of these bowlers have added depth and excitement to the Women’s T20 World Cup. Their performances have demonstrated that a well-timed wicket can change the game just as much as a six can. These bowlers have shown that discipline, skill, and mental strength are just as important as raw talent.

Conclusion

The Women’s T20 World Cup has given us some unforgettable bowling performances. From fast bowlers who can intimidate with pace to spinners who can outthink batters, these bowlers have proven their worth time and time again. Their contributions not only bring balance to the game but also inspire future generations of cricketers.

Check Out:- Ravichandran Ashwin Retires From Intl Cricket