#publishing this ask with a link is literally the bare minimum

[painted-bees]

Help my family. War is devastating. There is nothing left to live. No schools, no universities, no home, and no dreams. All dreams have been shattered. I hope for help before it is too

okee lads, this one appears to have been vetted no. 176 on this verified fundraisers sheet. They've currently raised 25k euros of the 37k they need, so if you've got some currency burning a hole in your pocket, here's a very helpful place for it:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/dydb36-gaza-palestine

Since we're here, please take a look a the other fundraisers on that spreadsheet as well. Many voices are crying out and I know it's been going on for a while but we can't allow ourselves to relegate it into becoming a background white noise. Please help all those you can; peace finds you in the act of doing so.

[cripplecharacters]

Hi! I’m writing a story about a lady with Down Syndrome. I was wondering if you knew where I can find any resources about Down Syndrome made by people who actually have it, or any organisations that would be good to follow. Any resources made by people with intellectual disability would be really helpful as well.

I read your post about this and it was really helpful so thank you, I’m going to use it as a starting point for my research.

If you’d like some context about the story she’s literally a lady in the 1920s who’s trying to get control of her family’s estate from her brother. Shes underestimated for her disabilities and for being a women but I’m trying to not focus so much on the discrimination and work more on giving her an interesting mystery to solve with the detective she hired. I’d like it to be a bit lighthearted. Anyway, as she’s a main character I really wanted to make sure I wrote her well. Thanks!

Hey!

There aren't many resources out there unfortunately, but there is a page on the UK Down Syndrome's Association's website where members with DS share their opinions on representation in TV and film. You can read it here. For info on intellectual disability in general the best I can do is link some of my previous posts on it - there's close to nothing that's actually made by us unfortunately, everything that I was able to find is always made by someone who knows a person with ID at best. To be clear, not all of it is bad - I thought this interview (TW for abuse that happens in the movie's plot) about a movie starring actors with DS was pretty good - but it's still a sign that we aren't getting enough #OwnVoices representation. It's slowly changing though.

To learn more about DS I would probably recommend NDSS, it's one of the very few orgs that have people with Down Syndrome as board and team members (should be the bare minimum, but it unfortunately isn't). There's also information on things like preferred language and myths that often show up around Down Syndrome.

I'm not great with history, but in the 1920s she would be a subject to a lot more than just discrimination. Eugenics and institutionalization would definitely be present. Not sure what route you'll take there, but basically all the words around that time that she would be described with are currently considered slurs or pejoratives. The racist term for a person with Down Syndrome was officially used into the 60s, and the ableist one is still used legally in 2024. But if you want to skip past that, I think that's more than fine. You don't always have to aim for 100% historical accuracy, just be aware of the real history.

A detective story sounds very exciting. If you decide to publish it on Tumblr or other online site feel free to send me an ask with a link, I'd love to read it.

Thank you for the ask,

mod Sasza

I’m just popping in as a history fan for a couple bits of history notes — but again, like Sasza said, you don’t have to be 100% historically accurate if you don’t want to and if you don’t feel it’s necessary.

So, especially in the first half of the 1900s, a large part of disabled children, including children with Down Syndrome, were institutionalized very early in their life. Around this time the push that immorality caused disability was strong, and people were often convinced by doctors and professionals that the children’s needs would always be too much for them. Eugenicism was sort of reaching a peak around this time, as well—I would say it was at its most intense in the period of 1900-1940s.

Not all parents institutionalized their children, though. There was pressure to do so, but that doesn’t mean everyone fell victim to it. There wasn’t really any official support for parents who did this, and there weren’t official organizations for Down Syndrome. From my research, the current large DS organizations seem to have popped up in the 60s.

The term ‘Down Syndrome’ wasn’t in popular use until the 70s, and it wasn’t known that it’s caused by an extra chromosome until 1959.

Life expectancy in 1900-1920 for people born with Down Syndrome was 9 years old. Some of this could absolutely have been due to conditions in institutions, but likely even more relevant is that about 50% of people with DS are born with heart defects (also known as congenital heart disease) that can be fatal if not treated with surgery. Heart surgery wasn’t really feasible until the late 30s and early 40s. Another risk factor is a higher risk for infection, which isn’t easy to manage in a world that doesn’t yet have antibiotics.

I actually wanted to find pictures of adults with Down Syndrome pre-1940ish, though, to see real tangible evidence of adults being part of a community. First I found just one picture of a baby in 1925 on this Minnesota government website. But then I found a collection someone made of photos of both children and young adults, but they are not specifically dated. The first baby picture is from the 30s according to the poster!

Judging by the clothes I see people wearing in these photos, photo #4 (man with Down Syndrome in a suit next to a woman) seems to be from the 20s and photo #13 (young woman with Down Syndrome and very long hair) seems to be from about the 1910s. #18 (large family with a lot of sons, including one boy with Down Syndrome) could be from the 30s. Those three are the oldest people with DS in the photos, and they seem like young adults. A lot of these pictures show a community and aren’t just isolated kids, which I find nice.

It’s hard to find specific historical record of people with Down Syndrome from that period of time, but I wanted to show photos of real people in their communities to show, hey look! They were there, too!

Either way, I love detective stories and historical fiction and I’m glad you’re writing a story and that you care about your character’s portrayal but I totally know the feeling of that tricky balance between historical accuracy and modern acknowledgement that we should have been doing better.

— Mod Sparrow

[mass-convergence]

A collarary to the advice of "they'll read it if they want to and they won't if they don't" is - they need to find it. People not reading your work is not a mark against its' quality, it's simply evidence that people haven't found it. As a published author myself I get it, it sucks when noone reads your work. It feels that you have put something out into the world and that it is being ignored. But it is not being actively ignored, it is not being judged as poor quality. It simply hasn't been found. Courage and patience. Don't be scared to send links to reviewers or people in other circles.

Sincerely - thank you.

Long, somewhat disorganized, ramble

It is frustrating, and part of this is my (admittedly ADHD related, though trying to blame it solely on that isn’t really getting the full picture) need for instant gratification and complete lack of patience in anything. And the general insecurity that if it doesn’t get some kind of recognition, positive or otherwise, that I’m just showing my whole ass to the world and people are being too polite to mention it. I also have issues with emotional regulation so it literally feels like someone’s squeezing my heart whenever I get into this state.

And I’ll be honest: I’m frustrated with people who have said they’ll read it or check it out and then never do. And I don’t feel like keeping on poking them and asking them if they are. Because I’ve gotten the “I’m sorry I’ve just been so busy” explanation about a hundred times now (only slightly exaggerating).

And I don’t want to call them liars because I’m an adult with a day job and a mountain of responsibilities that I’m only somewhat keeping up with. There’s plenty of stuff I want to watch or consume that I don’t have mental bandwidth to handle. I’ve read the first paragraph of Gideon the Ninth and I want to read more I just haven’t gotten a chance. Which also is lending to mental health issues but we do not have the time to unpack that rn.

This is something I’m passionate about and pouring my heart into and not even getting the bare minimum of support from people who purportedly said they’re interested is not really a fun spot to be in. (And I know one or two of my friends have been reading and I love you guys). My mom said she was gonna read it which is slightly terrifying because she’s not into queer fantasy but she’s also like unabashedly supportive and has been trying to get me to publish my writing and sell my art for goddamn ages. I’m not on the level of Tolkien or Pratchett or Gaiman (Martin you stay the fuck out of this) and I’m not trying to be them either. But I think I’m like decent.

And I guess I took some of the advice when I was writing fanfic that “well people who aren’t interested won’t read it so don’t worry about posting cringe” and extrapolated it to original fic. Which isn’t a 1:1 - people legitimately do not give a shit about other’s OCs unless they’re given a reason to care.

Side note: Partially the reason that while I could advertise this (and probably should) as a story lead by queer protags, two of whom are POCs, that doesn’t really tell you anything about them. Aside from representation. Admittedly: I’m not too great at self promo because I feel like I’m hyping me and my story telling ability way too much. Which is a self fulfilling prophecy when I inevitably don’t get any bites.

It’s a rough situation all around and frankly demotivating. Part of the reason I just didn’t post on Thursday because I was just so damn tired of posting and having to deal with the pain over and over again. I have a huge buffer of words and chapters and I’m frankly having a hard time deciding if I should keep posting them. I mean my last chapter didn’t get any notes except for the one reblog … which was my own fucking reblog onto this blog.

And I think I’ve come a long way from like not disparaging my own shit. I love my writing. I love my art. I just hate sharing it and not getting the same level of excitement I feel to tell a story I want to tell.

[bkh-s-7449]

this is so insane but i need everyone to get fucking real and stop complaining about “scammers” or whatever when it is obviously a Palestinian person reaching out and begging for your help lmfao. please. please. learn a modicum of empathy for your fellow human beings, or, at least, the decorum to just shut the fuck up. do not comment on it “in character.” do not make some dumbass post I have to read with my eyeballs about how you are so put out because a nonwhite person had the audacity to ask you for help and you cannot imagine, cannot conceive of someone who is not American or european communicating with you. “This was probably written by AI” “this person is having another person run their gofundme” brother i imagine if you were in that situation you would also use the tools available to you to ask for help in a language you are not fluent in. take the, at maximum, singular minute, out of your day, to investigate, maybe, if you are so completely suspicious of some person asking you to - AT MOST - just publish or share their cry for help, and see if they have been vetted or look at their profile or literally any process at all which will not truly inconvenience you whatsoever. you cannot be fucking posturing as leftist on this website and then not only refuse to do the bare minimum in the face of an ongoing genocide, but actively assist in the denigration and smearing of these people by wholesale labeling all of them as shifty scammers trying to steal your money. the way these people are talking to you, calling you friend or family, telling you about what is happening to them, is because they are trying to communicate with you. as a person. they are asking for your grace and your help while they are being killed. they are routinely ignored. if you must, if you truly cannot bear to post a fucking gofundme link and check a vetted account, at least, AT LEAST, do not make me fucking read the drivel you feel the need to post about it. leftist my fat ass this is needlessly cruel and self serving behavior. otherwise understand you are fully in league with dumbasses like this, whether you believe it or not

[wenellyb]

Anthony Mackie is homophobic

There’s no way around it, Anthony Mackie is homophobic and here’s why.

This is how you make a headline..! You make a shocking title and then a catchphrase and the job is done.

You want it to be provocative, intriguing and you want people to click on read more, you want to catch everyone's attention.

Who cares if it's misleading or not accurate, right? People will get the rest of the idea/article when they read the whole article.

But what about those who don't click on the link and read the article? Who see the headline and then their idea is set.

Most people don't have the time to read the full article for further explanation. Some people will read the headline, take the information and move on. Sometimes they will even share that headline... without even reading the article. And I won't pretend I haven't done it too... I have done it and still do it. I've read headlines, retweeted them and shared it without reading the content because the headline was enough information for me.

And a lot of people on the Internet do this...and I think that it's part of the game. But, if you're going to use those headlines to throw accusations at someone and then share those accustions with people, the bare minimum is to read the article first.

And I feel like there has been 3 types of people in the Anthony Mackie story:

Those who read only the headlines and tweets but didn't read the article

Those who read the FULL article but didn't listen to the podcast ( This is much much better than the first one btw)

Those who read the article and listened to the audio.

And I also feel like people making the most noise are part of the 1st category.

I keep receiving some asks that I feel that some of them are missing the point so I'm going to write what I think about all of this and hopefully I can just link this post whenever I get a question.

And I am also disturbed by the fact that this is the 3rd option I get when I type Anthony Mackie on Twitter.

Now that the situation is calmer and the story died down a little, I wanted tovshare my thoughts. And of course you don’t have to read this, but I had to write this down, at least for myself.

I will be exploring 3 angles, so feel free to skip the ones you are not interested in.

It should have never been about the ship

If you say someone is homophobic, at least you have to explain why

Your minds were already made up on Anthony Mackie even before the article was published.

Part 1: It should have never been about the ship.

For the people who read only the headlines... It's a shame because the headlines made the interview all about “Anthony not liking Sam and Bucky's relationship as romantic”. '

A lot of the people based their opinion on the articles and didn't even look further... it was set that Anthony didn't like Sambucky as a couple.

It was revealed with the audio of the podcqst that it wasn’t what Anthony said at all, and he wasn't talking about Sam ans Bucky's relationship but was answering another question that the interviewer had asked about male friendships. And in fact, and it was the interviewer who said that male friendships were rare in the superhero context... He set up the question that way.

But that is the not the point, the point is that EVEN IF Anthony had said he didn't see Sam and Bucky as romantic... that is not enough to say he is problematic or homophobic.

And the intensity of the backlash he received is because he is a Black man, sure... but the accusations of being homophobic  would have been there anyway.

Because fandoms are not rational.

When Sebastian Stan said he didn't play Bucky as in love with Steve in 2016, he also received backlash from the fandom and got accusations of being homophobic, even though he had said people were free to interpret it as they wanted. And guess what he still got the accusations lesser level than Anthony, but still...

Anthony and Sebastian have both played gay characters in the past, more than once. And I repeat this so you understand, they have played gay characters more than once. So maybe, MAYBE if they say their character isn't gay or bi, maybe it isn't because they're homophobic, or because they don't want their characters to be ....but because that is how their character is written in the script?

Again, Anthony didn't say any of this about Sambucky but even if he had, it would certainly be because he played the part they were supposed to play.

Some people want to make Anthony this big bad guy who "killed the ship" but I'm sorry, Anthony doesn't own the production company, he isn't the writer or the executive producers.... The actors who be the last in line to blame for this.

And I don't want to make it seem like it's only the general public doing this...Because even some journalists have been writing articles about how Anthony shouldn't be "shutting down ships or dismissing Sambucky" because there is so little representation in the MCU... I'm sorry but what??? WHAT???

I understand the sentiment and I know that a lot of ships are there to compensate the lack of representation on screen...but how is it Anthony's responsibility or his fault?

It’s great when actors go along with the ship, do not invalidate it and leave the doors open, but it is not their fault or their responsibility if they don't, especially actors who have no clue about how shipping or fandoms work.

If it's written in the script that the charcter is straight and the actor says the character is straight you shouldn't be lashing out at the actors for "killing the ship"...Do you want him to change the script? Go blame the production company instead.

I know actors are an easy target because it is much more easier to tweet about them than look up the names of Executive Producers or CEOs and write them letters to ask for more representation. Actors are an easy target but it is literally not their call.

Some of these articles making headlines blaming Anthony because he shut down the idea of romantic Sambucky when there is so little represenration and not making headlines blaming the multibillion dollar company that refuse to have decent representation!

Sure, let's blame the Black actor who said that Sam and Bucky are just friends for the decades of nothing expect a total of 10 seconds screentime for a character nobody remembers and just calls the “Russo cameo”.

And again, Anthony Mackie didn't even say anything against a romantic reading of Sambucky, nothing! But it shouldn't matter, even if he had said they were just friends... it wouldn't justify any backlash at all... if it is about the ship.

Him shipping Sambucky or not should be the last point the fandom is focusing on.

An actor doesn't ship your ship and it bothers you? Move on, ship another couple if you want to... Don't start calling him names because of the ship.

When you make the debate about the ship, it kills the discussion before the discussion can even start because how can you have a constructive discussion if the debate has no foundations?

For instance, if Anthony made hurtful or problematic comments, the right way to deal with this,  would be to ask for apologies or for a better explanation of his words .... But since a lot of people, and even news outlet made this story about the ship, what do you want to do?

Ask Anthony to apologize for thinking/saying Sambucky is platonic?  We do realize how insane this would sound right? Or are there people who really want Anthony to come out and make a public statement about how he apologizes and supports romantic Sambucky? Is this were we want to go?

People made it about the ship, so he will also think the problem is that he doesn't "ship" Sambucky... but that wasn't the problem right? At least I hope it wasn't.

All of this should have never been about the shipping...If you are bothered by an actor not liking your ship ...it's ok. Stop shipping it if you want to and move on, but don't act like they're the worst human being on the planet because of it.

When I first read the article I was surprised by Anthony's comments about Sambucky because he had never talked like that about the relationship before... but the first thinf I said ia that he is an actor... he reads and interprets the script he has... he doesn't make the decisions...

But when I listened to the audio... I was even more horrified by the way the whole story was handled.

Part 2. If you say someone is homophobic, at least you have to explain why

This might be an unpopular opinion but I don't mind people saying that Anthony Mackie is homophobic. I don't know him, so I won't pretend to know what he is or isn't. What I do mind is people saying he's homophobic but not giving any explanation or evidence.

And I have seen people do that. A lot... And I have receiced asks like that.... "Have you seen those articles? Anthony is homophobic," “He dug his own grave”

But all of the articles and headline are talking about the ship...is that your evidence?

If your opinion is based on a headline or some tweets, I don't know how you expect people to believe you.

I have seen people calling Anthony homophobic because of his comments on the explotation of homosexuality. But to me it was clear that he wasn't talking about the Queer fans, even though I could be wrong... (I talk abour this more in the part 3)

The part where Anthony Mackie has made comments that could be dubious are the comments about how he is bothered that he can't go to bars with his friends anymore.

No matter how you turn it, making it seem like it's a problem that people think you're gay when you're with your friends, has homophobic undertones.

That is the part that really bothered me personally... It really made me feel uncomfortable.

But is it enough to say he is homophobic? I don't think so, but if I'm wrong and it means he is, in what way? You need to give an explanation. Even a short one.

And even with that comment about the bars, if you add the context, you could imagine that maybe he's not talking about the characters but about his real life experience because we know that some people ship him and Sebastian romantically, and if he was talking about that... It could be understandable that he is bothered by that because he's a celebrity and when people make assumptions about celebrity love lifes they can become annoying or even toxic sometimes.

People shipping the two of them romantically makes me unconfortable so I can't imagine how it would make HIM feel.

But anyway, that part of the interview bothered some people and I personally don't think it's enough to call him homophobic but I do think it is worth a discussion.

Unfortunately, most people didn't focus on that... they focused on the shipping or other words that were taken out of context... By mixing everything with the shipping, the battle for a legitmate discussion was already lost before it even started.

Part 3: Your minds were already made up on Anthony Mackie even before the article was published.

I think that what bothers me the most were that some people were waiting for this moment... They were holding their breath until the moment he would finally slip up so they can be hateful in peace.

This is a screenshot of a post from April 2021, way way before this whole story.... Some people already had in their mind that him being a Black masculine man, he was homophobic... and were just waiting for a confirmation it seems.

( I cropped the OP’s blog name to avoid any problems going their way)

I have said this before... But I don’t follow celebrities foolishly. If you think Anthony Mackie gives off homophibic vibes or could be homophobic... you may be right.... but I would need evidence, or an explanation, not just a “vibe”... I asked evidence to that OP or at least an example of an homophobic joke he had made and they blocked me...

I have watched a lot of Anthony Mackie interviews and never got that "vibe" so I really wanted to know. Later, I asked one of my mutual to reach out to ask them about it and the OP finally answered to my mutual and said that an example of a moment they could tell he was homophobic was the interview were Anthony talks about his soft spot.

So that person based their impression of Anthony being homophobic on the fact that Anthony doesn't like to be touched in the back by strangers...Imagine me staring at the camera like I’m in The Office

And this isn't about racism because that person who wrote the post is Black apparently. But it is about how Black men are perceived and stereotypes that are often attached to them.. People make all of these asaumptions on then wait for the moment they can be proven right.

For this OP, a masculine Black man from the south =homophobic ...

And I don't think they are the only one.

What's worse is that they make it sound like all of this is on Anthony:

"Sambucky won't happen because Anthony gives off homophobic vibes"

Not only are they sharing accusations without even a small proof... they are the acting like he would be the only one to blame if Sambucky doesn't happen... Let me tell you that sometimes when I come to Tumblr I want to scream at how irrational people are... Disney has a history of being homophobic and never having any kind of representation, but if Sambucky doesn’t happen, it would be because of Anthony Mackie.

Please, PLEASE!

Anthony Mackie isn't writing the scenarios, he isn’t a Disney Exec.... Does anyone really belive he would walk away from the movie and the contract just because his character is gay, bi or pan? When he has played gay characters in the past??? Why are people trying so so hard to put all the blame on Anthony? I don't understand....

I have also seen "Sambucky won't happen now that Anthony made that interview and said he didn't like it...." How??? How does that even make sense????

What I believe is that a lot of people already had their minds made up about him and were holding their breath until they could finally throw accusations at Anthony because the minute there was a potential scandal... they didn’t try to look for more or try to dig deeper...their mind was already set.

And from then on... their idea were already set on how they were going to interprets the things he said.

For instance, When I first read the article without the context of the audio... I thought a lot of the things Anthony said weren't contreversial because those are ideas expressed on Tumblr every day...the fetishization of some MM ships etc,... But I thought he had expressed it in the worst possible way because he seemed like he was mixing a lot of stuff.... well, I found out later that it was because it was taken out of context.

But even in the context of the article, it was clear to me that Anthony was talking about anybody BUT the Queer fans when talking about the exploitation of homosexuality etc,...

We talk about the fetishization of MM ships by straight women on a weekly basis on Tumblr etc.... What would make anybody think that when Anthony was talking about the some things being “twisted” explotation of homosexuality he was talking about the Queer shippers???

I have joined and left BL fandoms after 2 weeks because of the problems exposed by Anthony. I have seen people who shipped real life actors to the point where it affected the actors's lives. I have seen an actor from a popular M/M ship make a dramatic public statement explaining that nothing will change for his fans that he still loved them and still loved his costars... and made it seem like he had a terminal illness or something....It turned out he had just gotten a girlfriend......?????

And these examples are specific to the BL genre but I have seen similar behavior with some MCU stans.... look at how some (I insist on some) Seb stans react to Seb having a girlfriend (I have seen things).

What made people think Anthony was talking about the queers fans if not the fact that you already had your mind set on the fact a Black man talking about a topic like this was homophobic in some way or the other and some people were just waiting for a confirmation?.

I’m not going to pretend that I wasn’t confused by some parts of the interview. What is  “There’s nothing more masculine than being a superhero and flying around and beating people up” even supposed to mean? And it wasn’t the only sentence. But I don’t think any part of his interview deserved the backlash he received.

A discussion? Yes. Remarks? Yes. Blacklash and hate? No.

TL:DR: If you're going to call out Anthony for what he said.... you better  be ready to give a few arguments other than.... "bohoo he doesn't ship Sambucky" or “have you seen the headlines?” and  you should probably check your own pre-conceived ideas first..

If you come in my asks to tell me I write too much I will save you the trip and tell you... I already know that😂

[jonsa101]

Thoughts About Sharpwin in Episode 3X14

Hey guys!! I feel like there has been so much pandemonium in the fandom since all of these spoilers and content has come out prior to the finale on Tuesday.  I have revised this meta so many times due to new things coming out every day and I honestly debated if I should even still publish a meta before the finale. Either way, I’m putting this out there because I still have some thoughts to share and it was highly requested by y’all! 😉 As always, I’m going to try and share my thoughts as honestly and as logically as I can. 

Going into the season finale, I think the question we need to ask ourselves is what are the most important aspects of the season finale? For me, I’ve always believed that the time-jump and the cliffhangers would be the most important aspects of the episode and based on what we’ve seen so far, I think that opinion still holds true. True to his words, in this interview here https://tvline.com/2021/05/25/new-amsterdam-season-3-finale-spoilers-time-jump/ , Schulner specifically said that the finale episode would be nothing like we’ve seen before. From yesterday’s spoiler, it’s fair for us to assume that that the episode we are about to see on Tuesday is linear and is a full time jump episode. How long is the time jump? I’m not sure but my guess is that it’s at least 3 months.

Now you might be thinking “what if the time jump is only a week or two?” Here’s why I think it’s not.

Look at this picture with Helen and Mina.

In this week’s episode Helen and Mina were still bumping heads after weeks of Mina living with Helen. They were talking about college applications and it wasn’t until the end that we finally see Helen and Mina put their walls down and start to connect with each other. Again, look at the picture down below! Clearly their relationship has done a complete 180 and they seem closer than ever. Mina is literally on the verge of tears as she and Helen are about to say their goodbyes. That relationship transformation doesn’t take place in a week or so. I personally don’t think it takes place in a month either. That type of transformation and healing takes time. Also, if one of the primary reasons that Helen is in London is to drop off Mina for college that means Mina had to go through the whole college application process which is incredibly long! Mina would have to write essays, take the SAT or ACT, go on interviews and hell, probably go on college tours too! In 3x13, she was just starting that process guys. So, if we are seeing Helen drop off Mina for school, at the BARE MINIMUM it has to be at least a three month time jump. Mind you, I’m doing the bare minimum here because I’m not sure the show would commit to a 6-months to a year time jump, which is typically a standard timeline for the college application process.

Now also look at Floyd’s photo.

He is serving breakfast in bed y’all!!! Do you know what that tells me? It tells me that this man is COMFORTABLE and has been in the midst of his situationship for a while now. Logically, do you think that he can get this comfortable with Dr. Malavo within the span of a week or two especially after the episode that we just saw? No!! A person like Floyd who has gone on and on about his life plan since season one definitely would have had to be worn down for a while for him to be caught up and comfortable in a situationship!

Again, this is just how I feel. I could be wrong but to me I feel like at least a 3- month time jump would be realistic. Moving on from the time-jump let’s talk about these cliffhangers. Y’all I STRONGLY believe that there is a reason why we are receiving so much spoiler and promotional content before the finale. Based on everything we’ve seen, at this point we should all know that we are going to see Helen and Max finally become an official couple in the finale. This is a given! We are all excited to see them finally get together and without a doubt how that unfolds is a huge part of the finale. I just want to make an argument that Max and Helen finally coming together isn’t the most important point of the episode. 😬😬😬 Again y’all, look at the content we’ve received so far! We got a Sharpwin focused promo, a ton of promotional photos, we got that amazing sneak peek voicemail from Max and hell, we even got Ryan Eggold telling Us Weekly that he just felt like it was time for these characters “to go one way or the other! “All of this is great but at the same time it’s super heavy handed! Mind you, in episode 3x12 which was a pivotal episode for Sharpwin, we barely got any spoilers, in fact I think even the episode synopsis was delayed as well. Clearly, I understand that the show hasn’t shown us the most important parts of how Max and Helen are finally going to get together but what I am saying is that they’ve shown us enough to make me believe that isn’t the most important point of Sharpwin’s story in the episode. In the finale for Sharpwin, to me, the question isn’t about if they’re going to get together or how they finally get together, it’s about what’s in store for the FUTURE they choose to have together. Max said it perfectly himself in that voicemail when he said 

I need to see you.

I need to talk to you.

I need to be with you in all the ways I’ve been dreaming about.

That last line is so significant because to me it tells me exactly where his mind and heart is at. Apart from the obvious where Max is clearly thinking about making love to her, I think Max is also dreaming about having a life with her. Again y’all! From episode 3x12 an onwards the question has never been about if they want to be together. It is clear that they both WANT THIS. The question is what that looks like for them and where they go from here after they come together. There are a lot of important conversations they need to have and decisions to be made, hence Max’s “I need to see you,” and “I need to talk to you.”

This brings me back to the cliffhangers. In the article I linked above, Schulner made it a point to emphasize the importance of cliffhangers this year. According to him there should be at least five cliffhangers in the season finale. In my mind, that means all of the main characters should have a cliffhanger that immediately sets them up for their main storyline in season 4. Especially considering the fact that the season 3 finale will already be a time jump episode. So, if the finale is centered around Sharpwin and we know that we should expect cliffhangers, shouldn’t we expect that Max and Helen will probably have a big cliffhanger that impacts their relationship going forward? It wouldn’t make sense for Iggy, Lauren, and Floyd to have these pivotal cliffhangers in finale while Max and Helen just end up as a happy couple. I could be wrong but that logically doesn’t make sense to me. We should totally expect them to maybe have the biggest cliffhanger out of everyone else since technically this episode is mainly about them! I like to think that Max and Helen have a collective cliffhanger but it’s also possible that they have cliffhangers as individual characters and those cliffhangers effect the trajectory of their relationship. By the way, I’m absolutely expecting a positive cliffhanger/cliffhangers for Max and Helen. I truly do believe the best is yet to come for them! All I’m trying to say is that I think this is going to be the most important part of Sharpwin’s story in the season finale. Not how they finally get together! 

For me, one of the big things that sticks out that could play a role in a collective Sharpwin cliffhanger or an individual cliffhanger is Helen’s trip to London. I predicted this trip would be a trip of healing past wounds and finding answers when it comes to her family in my meta here: https://jonsa101.tumblr.com/post/649841094458310656/max-goodwin-and-his-declaration-of-love-and this seems to be panning out. I think this trip is really going to put things in perspective for Helen about what she wants and the things that really matter to her. I think about episode 3x4 where Helen proclaims that she keeps “running out of time” in the areas of her life that are really important to her. Her deepest desires have always been to have a family and a child of her own. As she heals, reconnects with her family, and reflects on what matters most to her, I wonder if her desires for a family of her own will be at the forefront of her mind when she reconnects with Max? What’s that state of her mindset after a trip like that? I might be thinking entirely too deep about this but these are the thoughts that run in my mind now as we head into the finale.

For Max, we saw him sort out the custody battle for Luna in 3x13. We also saw Helen basically tell him that their relationship was worth the fight. From yesterday’s sneak peek, we know at the beginning of the finale he is deeply longing for Helen and is clearly pondering a life with her. What shifts his focus away from that is when he thinks he’s misplaced his wedding ring. We all know that this episode will be the final step Max takes to let go of his past and embrace his future with Helen but again what does that look like? Again, all of this plays a role to what I think will be the most important part of the episode. 

Their Cliffhanger!!!

So, what exactly could their cliffhanger or cliffhangers be? At this point, the possibilities are endless! Like I said, I believe the best is yet to come for them and that any cliffhanger coming their way will be a great one! At the very beginning of the season, I said that this is the season of love declarations and commitment and that I wouldn’t be surprised if Max and Helen ended up engaged: https://jonsa101.tumblr.com/post/649841094458310656/max-goodwin-and-his-declaration-of-love-and. Max saying he wanted to build something better for Luna and Helen struck me and these were my thoughts.

“Max is just giving me MAJOR “I love you and I’m trying to commit and build something for us vibes.” I think one of my greatest gifts in life is the ability to read between the fucking lines. As a grown 26 year-old women, if a man that I have feelings for that I know has feelings for me comes to me and says, “I want to build something better for you,” we are either married or a marriage proposal is around the corner. A man is not trying to build something better for/with a friend or a confidant. Ok! You build something with someone you want to spend your life with! These are the types of conversations you have with your husband, wife or life partner! Period! After everything they’ve been through before and especially after a year of being in a pandemic, I think now more than ever Max is going to get or has already gotten clarity about what and who he wants and he’s going to go after it. When you realize how quickly life can change it literally shifts everything and makes you change your priorities and go after what you actually want. To me, this will be reflected in the show.”

Oddly enough, I think my words are pretty similar to Shaun Cassidy’s tweet about this finale:

Max will get clarity.

Max will see the light.

Mind you, I wrote this meta after seeing the first episode of the season. Now as we head into the season finale, after all of Max’s personal suffering, after everything Max and Helen have been through together, after Max’s second death or life experience, I think Max seeing the light or gaining clarity is a hell of a lot more than them just becoming a couple! It’s established that Max wants her! It’s established that Max wants to be with her and they’re going to be couple! Shaun is already out here retweeting “couple era” tweets. I think seeing the light holds weight and I think an engagement fits the bill. I think Max and Helen are at a point in their lives and in their relationship where they want a life together! They are completely all in I just think they’re trying to navigate what the hell that looks like. Also, like I said earlier, where we leave off in the season 3 finale will be the setup for the main storylines in season 4. I think many people in the fandom believe that at some point in season 4 Max and Helen will try for a baby and we will see her infertility struggles play out. I have my own personal opinions on this topic but I’ll save that for another meta. If there is an expectation that in season 4 we will see Max and Helen as a happy couple, Helen stepping up as Luna’s mom/co-parent and them potentially wanting to expand their family, don’t you think it makes sense for Helen to at least be his fiancee?! Honestly y’all! Think about it! Do you think Max would start the process of trying to get pregnant with Helen without marrying her first? I don’t think so. I definitely think he’s a put a ring on it type of guy! Another point that I want to make is this. Luna is in the picture. Luna and Max are a package deal. Helen knows this and when they have this conversation about how they’re going to navigate their lives together, I know that without hesitation we are about to see Helen loving Luna unconditionally and basically being her mom in season 4. Loving your partner’s child unconditionally as your own is the highest form of love and commitment you can show and do for your partner. I know without a shadow of doubt that Helen is going to do this. So as Helen shows him her love and commitment, how can Max tangibly SHOW her how much he loves her and is committed to their lives and their future together? These are just things I’ll leave y’all to think about. 

To wrap this up here are some other quick thoughts I have about the finale.

At this point I strongly believe that Max and Helen are in New York City based on the promos and spoilers I’ve seen. One thing I will say though is at the same time don’t discount the possibility of Max and Helen at some point in the episode also being in London as well. Remember all the promos, spoilers and sneak peeks we’ve seen so far are things they want us to see!!!! We only have pieces of the full story and because of that ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE! I remember back in season one when spoilers came out for the season finale. Going into the finale, most of us who were in the fandom back then already knew there would be some sort of accident/ ambulance crash. At best we thought that it would only affect Max, Georgia and Luna. We had no idea that the season finale would also put Bloom and Helen’s life at stake as well!! The point I’m trying to make is this, even though we saw the spoilers we didn’t have the full picture of what exactly was filmed in those spoilers.

I think when Max and Helen finally have their moment it will be glorious and romantic af! I’m expecting to see kissing, lovemaking, and everything in between but the most important thing are the conversations!! I’m expecting to see a lot of deep conversations about how they’re going to make this thing work after they say there I love you’s. 

Long before the episode synopsis came out, I told y’all that Max and Reynolds moment in the season finale would be pivotal for Sharpwin in this same meta https://jonsa101.tumblr.com/post/649841094458310656/max-goodwin-and-his-declaration-of-love-and and that’s what we are going to see play out on screen. It’s natural for Max to have an emotional attachment to that ring. He was married to Georgia and had a life with her. That doesn’t negate how he feels about Helen. Even more so than that do you know what I also think is at play here? Guilt. The guilt of him trying to move on with the woman he’s had feeling for since season 1. I mean, I personally don’t think they’re using voiceovers of Max and Helen’s conversations in season 1 in their promo for no reason. I don’t see why they wouldn’t address it especially when for us as an audience we know that’s the case. I also think it’s not a coincidence that Reynold’s finds himself in a situation that’s pretty similar to where Max was at. So in my mind, I think it needs to be addressed in order to move on. As he starting a new relationship, he should be honest about having feelings for Helen while he was married and get that off his plate. I think he’s been carrying the weight of that guilt since season two and it’s time to let it go.

Last but not least there is the Mina and Max scene from the spoilers. I don’t know what to make of this but if Mina is in London and the finale is a full time jump episode with no flashbacks, I don’t see how Mina and Max could have a convo in NYC. If they’re having a conversation, I think it’s going to be in London. That’s just how I see it! I could be dead ass wrong but again this is just my opinion. It could be possible that we might see more than one day take place in this episode. I mean realistically, I don’t see how Helen can listen to his voicemail, send Mina off to school, reconnect with her mama and then fly to NYC and meet up with Max all in the same day. That’s super unrealistic to me! Spoilers don’t give us the full scope of what’s going on. Also, I think it’s a little bit weird for Max and Mina to be having a conversation at night with no prior relationship with each other. So, my guess is whatever conversation they’re having would be after Max and Helen have established themselves as an official couple. Just my two cents. 

As always feel free to reach out with me with any questions you might have and also let me know what cliffhanger you think is in store for them!

[mittensmorgul]

when ao3 receives more money than their goal, do they keep the extra money for next year or not?

I’m sending you to page 2 of my ao3 tag, since page 1 currently is all hugo nom squee. You’ll have to scroll down past the posts about how AO3 saved a lot of us back during the recent nippocalypse scare here, where we were terrified that tumblr was just gonna start dumping blogs wholesale like strikethrough or boldthrough did, and loads of us uploaded tons of meta and other posts there in the span of a few weeks (I personally added close to a million words of meta there in less than a month).

Below that, you’ll see posts about how AO3′s legal team was fighting against Article 13 passing in the EU, a few about practical posting stuff, and then toward the bottom of page 2... posts on this exact subject from the last go-around of fundraising.

http://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/tagged/ao3/page/2

(actually, since I’m tagging this post ao3 also, you’re probably gonna have to scroll down and go to page 3 >.>)

AO3 is a nonprofit organization (i.e. a charity). They’re run entirely by VOLUNTEERS. Money donated to them doesn’t go into anyone’s pocket. There’s no CEO whose salary we’re padding here. Money they raise pays for the physical things that require money to exist-- literally server storage space (they own the servers, so that nobody can come along and say “oh, I don’t want this gay smut on my servers,” and just delete swaths of the archive), legal expenses (they fight for our rights to write and post fic, and even attorneys working pro bono incur expenses like court filing costs, etc.), but you can read exactly where your money is going here, in their publicly available budget that was just updated:

https://www.transformativeworks.org/otw-finance-2019-budget/

from the budget linked there ^^:

Given your generosity in previous years, we have a healthy amount in reserves, which we plan to keep in store for a rainy day. Thanks to this, we can explore alternative revenue sources to supplement your donations. The Finance team has made progress in its search for a suitable investment method for a small non-profit organization like the OTW and aims to fully set up a low-risk, conservative investment portfolio by the end of 2019.

The reserves also help bolster us in years when we’re planning larger than usual purchases. As mentioned previously, we have plans to replace old server hardware over the next few months as well as purchase new server hardware, which significantly increase our expenses for this year. Some of the forecasted expenses outlined in this budget may not take place before the end of the year, due to various constraints. To account for this uncertainty, even though all expenses we anticipate are described in the budget spreadsheet, we have projected a withdrawal of US$96,000 from our reserves to cover the amount corresponding to the less likely expenses. This additional amount may be withdrawn from reserves on an as-needed basis during the year. Our budget update, which will be published in October, will contain more precise information about which expenses will take place in 2019.

Quick reminder from this post from a while back: http://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/179128952410/hey-ao3-can-you-like-give-the-extra-38k-you-made

AO3 is in the top 300 websites in the world, and the top 100 in the US. It is the number 2 literature website.

Number 2 in the entire world. JSTOR is 20.

It sees about 6 million people a day. About 250k an hour. Each of those people is loading multiple pages, many are running searches that execute on literally hundreds of potential variables per search. The demands involved are astronomical.

JSTOR, btw, makes 85 million dollars a year.

It’s 18 ranks below AO3′s traffic, and takes in 650 times the amount of money.

So... yes, of course they keep the extra money. They’re holding it in reserve for a rainy day, for when their servers require maintenance or replacement, for unexpected legal costs, for planned future expansion. They want to ensure that Ao3 continues to exist in perpetuity, and not just from one donation drive to the next. The fact they set their goal at $130k twice a year is the bare minimum they need to keep the lights on. If you actually clicked through and read their operating budget, it’s closer to $450k than the $260k total they set as goals annually. The additional money raised isn’t “extra” money. It’s not money they don’t need, you know?

All of this information is available publicly. Right on the same red bar at the top of the site that’s asking for donations. You can also find a link to the budget in the home page of AO3, sandwiched between an article about preserving fanworks and the Hugo Award nomination announcement.

For an organization managing an archive as large and as functional as AO3? Yeah their annual budget is practically microscopic. Why why WHY does this get asked every single time a fundraising drive happens? Twice a year, every year. I mean, I think part of it might be their complete transparency about how much they aim to raise during each drive. People assume that’s all the money they require to continue operating. But that’s not how any of this works. Just go read the budget, read exactly where your donation is going. Understand WHY they were nominated for the Hugo Award, for the work they’ve done as VOLUNTEERS to create, maintain, and improve AO3, and to ensure fanworks will be preserved in perpetuity.

[what-eats-owls]

THE MERCIFUL CROW Master Post!

GUYS. JUST LOOK AT THIS COVER. GUYYYYYS. GUYYYYYYYYYSSSSS!!!!!

I have been screaming about this A LOT, but I wanted to consolidate some info in one handy post for y’all. So I will be updating this with new info as it comes in, and as always, you can check my #themercifulcrow tag for things like art and excerpts that aren’t included here.

SO. Let’s start with the big one: preorders. The neat thing is that preorders count towards the numbers for the NYT Bestseller list! I’m not gonna lie........... I really wanna be on that list. AND I THINK WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.

So here are links to preorder from major retailers: Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Indigo Books, Books-A-Million, IndieBound

Can’t preorder but still want to help out? (or you want to do both because you’re a rad human being?) YOU DEFINITELY CAN, AND HERE’S HOW:

Request The Merciful Crow at your local library. Most library websites let you request a purchase, and that’s HUGE. Look for links like “Suggest a Purchase”, “Ask the library to buy a book”, etc - sometimes it’s under the Contact page, sometimes under Services, but it’s always free for you! They’ll want to know the book title (The Merciful Crow), the author (Margaret Owen! That’s me!) and the ISBN (1250191920). 

Add it to your TBR on Goodreads! For better or worse, the Goodreads stats can be an indicator of how interested readers are in the book. All you have to do is follow this link, find the drop-down menu beneath the cover thumbnail on the left, and select “Want to Read.” 

Honestly, just talk about it??? Word of mouth remains the most effective form of marketing, and yet also the most low-commitment way to do it?? Literally just tagging stuff on instagram or dropping a link in the groupchat??? idk it’s witchcraft y’all but it works somehow

Those are all the key ways to support the book right now! The Merciful Crow comes out on July 30th, 2019, so we’ve got plenty of time to really make a difference. 

Now, below the cut: a bit about the book itself.

SOME QUICK STATS:

The Merciful Crow is a Dark Young Adult Fantasy. It releases July 30, 2019. It’s being published by Henry Holt Books for Young Readers, a division of the Macmillan Children’s Publishing Group. For bookstagram folks, bloggers, reviewers, etc: it is a Fierce Reads title, so you’ll want to reach out to them for publicity-related things like Advance Copies (though you can submit a direct request through my Google form here or keep an eye out on Edelweiss and NetGalley for e-ARCs.)

THE OFFICIAL SUMMARY:

A future chieftain Fie abides by one rule: look after your own. Her Crow caste of undertakers and mercy-killers takes more abuse than coin, but when they’re called to collect royal dead, she’s hoping they’ll find the payout of a lifetime. A fugitive prince When Crown Prince Jasimir turns out to have faked his death, Fie’s ready to cut her losses—and perhaps his throat. But he offers a wager that she can’t refuse: protect him from a ruthless queen, and he’ll protect the Crows when he reigns. A too-cunning bodyguard Hawk warrior Tavin has always put Jas’s life before his, magically assuming the prince’s appearance and shadowing his every step. But what happens when Tavin begins to want something to call his own?

CONTENT WARNINGS:

The story deals with enormous differences in privilege and power. I wanted to be honest about what that looks like without being harmful to readers who have first-hand experience with marginalization, but I still want to provide a list of content warnings to let readers decide that for themselves. The story involves the following:

Discussion of violence and harassment targeted at the main character’s specific caste

Depictions of violence and harassment targeted at the main character’s specific caste

Brief threat of a sexual assault, and discussion of the societal implications

Mention of past child abuse

Mention of past sexual assault

A scene involving a cat in a significant and distressing amount of danger

General gore and body horror... like, guys, I didn’t mean to write a body horror book but I sure did. The main character cuts throats for a living and, as you may have seen me joke, the big bag of human teeth is not the most upsetting thing in the story, not by a long shot. I have no time or patience for torture porn, so the body horror is more in the Uncanny Valley range of nightmarish (less Zombieland, more Coraline) but it’s meant to be very unsettling nonetheless.

LGBTQ+ REPRESENTATION

I got this question on twitter, so I’ll basically rehash my answer here! The short version is yes, there are LGBTQ+ characters, but their specific experiences and relationships are not explored much. 

The longer version is this: I think writing inclusively is the bare minimum we can expect from authors, especially YA authors, in the year of our lord 2018. As such, of the main trio, the prince is explicitly coded as gay, and the love interest is coded as pansexual; one of the secondary characters uses they/them pronouns; another is a woman with multiple spouses; I try to avoid gender-binary language or language that ties gender to genitalia; there are casual references to same-sex relationships and marriages. I am also VERY aware of the Bury Your Gays trope and I am avoiding it like the plague.

That said, I currently identify as your garden-variety cisgender straight woman, so I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to occupy space on the bookshelf that is better served by LGBTQ+ authors writing much-needed stories about their experiences and relationships. (Nor do I think I’m qualified to write those stories, tbh.) So there’s a whole array of folks present and identified on the page, but the main romantic relationship that is developed and explored is between a cisgender pansexual boy and a cisgender straight girl. 

PREORDER CAMPAIGN

If you do preorder the book or place a request with your library, take a screencap and/or hold onto the receipt! I’ll be putting together some fun things to mail y’all as a thank-you once we’re closer to the release date.

That’s all I got right now, but please hit up my inbox if you have any questions!

[reasonandempathy]

Federal Minimum Wage Per Year: $15,080 Gross

After Taxes: $13,926.38, $1,160.53 per month.

Now, let’s do some basic numbers here.  Let’s subtract the median or mean (depending on data access) costs for necessities from this.

Median rent in the USA: $959/month.  $11,508/year.

Average rent for studio in the USA: $1,135.78/month.  $13,629.36.

That’s $11,208 in rent.  The cheapest place to live (Wichita, Kansas) has an average rent of $470  Or $5,640 a year.  If you were to limit it to cities specifically (hence having drastically lower fuel and transit costs), a 1-bedroom apartment would be $1,234.43.

Now, “why get a 1 bedroom when you can get a studio?” is a decent question to ask.  However, check out the link above.  The average studio apartment costs more than the median 1 bedroom, and there is no median cost of a studio I can find in the US.  Studios are also far more likely to be in cities than rural areas, so their simple locations lead them against being cheap.

Unless you can bring me numbers on studio apartments, I literally can’t do that math.  And the entire point of this is to actually use numbers and research.

Remaining cash: $2,718.38.

Theoretical remaining cash: $8,286.38

Cheapest livable diet for one adult: $175/month, $2008/year

The “thrifty plan”, the cheapest meal plan for an adult aged 19-50 is $175/month (slightly more for men, slightly less for women).

Remaining cash: $410.38

Theoretical remaining cash: $6,278.38

Gas+Heating: $138.20/month, $1658.37/year

The cheapest gas in the country is $2.25/gallon in Texas (i.e. not Kansas, so you’re either paying more for rent or more for gas.)  The average gas consumption per driver is at a relative low of 656 gallons per driver (which can be aggregated to “adult not in a city and some adults in cities”).  Using the cheapest possible gas in the country, you’re spending an average of $2.528 per gallon, or $1,658.37/year.  Texas will cost you $1,476 per year.

Remaining cash: $-947.99.

Theoretical remaining cash: $4,620.01

All told, from just those three costs in the best, impossible context you’re spending at least $10,459.99 a year.  In all actuality, you’re probably spending about $15,174.37.  That’s without ever once spending more money on food than you need, never once having your car break down or getting rear ended, and if the average price of gas never goes up an entire year.

Let’s presume you managed to somehow sneak in a house to avoid paying rent, and actually making a smart economic decision to try to own something.  Using the median numbers from 2013 (published in 2015) we come up with how much it actually costs to have a place to live for a year, utilities included.

Real Estate Taxes:  $150 per month or $1,800 per year

Property Insurance:  $63 per month or $756 per year

Electricity:  $111 per month or $1,332 per year

Natural Gas:  $50 per month or $600 per year

Drinking Water:  $42 per month or $504 per year

Trash / Garbage Disposal:  $23 per month or $276 per year

Routine Maintenance:  $33 per month or $396 per year

Add it all up and you get $20,838 a year.  This is not including internet or a phone.  Now, I know, we’re using Median numbers instead of “literally the cheapest option possible”.  So let’s cut all these numbers in half to get a more “bare bones” estimate.

$18,006 a year.

And that’s if you have nothing go wrong and no social life.  If you never go to the doctor, if you never get sick, if your hot water heater never breaks, if your car never gets dinged or breaks down, if you don’t pay for a car inspection, if you have no internet or phone, if you don’t buy toiletries or clothes (honestly, finding “median numbers” on these or “lowest possible spent” on these is unreasonably difficult, so we’ll presume they’re free),if gas never gets more expensive, if your rent never goes up.

[patriotsnet]

Did Any Republicans Vote For Witnesses

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-any-republicans-vote-for-witnesses/

Did Any Republicans Vote For Witnesses

Sen Whitehouse: Congress Examining Role Of Some Gop Officials In Capitol Riot

BREAKING: Republicans Don’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses

If these shocking allegations are true, then taken together, prosecutors may be able to link rioters to GOP senators and link GOP senators to the president, a pattern that would place them all in the same, massive conspiracy. Such a plot to overthrow the U.S. government by American citizens would suggest that our democracy is facing a peril graver than any we have seen since the Civil War.

Impeachment, of course, does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For most senators watching, more proof that Trump incited a violent riot is not needed. For others, notably the 44 GOP senators who have indicated they will vote to acquit, the question of causation phrased as whether there was indeed incitement still offers an off-ramp.

As one of us urged with the last impeachment, given the critical importance to the country of the outcome of the trial, the Senate should not be in a hurry. Calling witnesses would likely require issuing subpoenas and then having the patience to enforce them. But given that the Democrats hold the bare majority needed to make that call, the choice is theirs.

Republicans Block Impeachment Witnesses Clearing Path For Trump Acquittal

The narrow vote came after Republican senators said they did not need to hear more evidence, and pressed toward acquitting President Trump next week.

By Michael D. Shear and Nicholas Fandos

WASHINGTON The Senate brought President Trump to the brink of acquittal on Friday of charges that he abused his power and obstructed Congress, as Republicans voted to block consideration of new witnesses and documents in his impeachment trial and shut down a final push by Democrats to bolster their case for the presidents removal.

In a nearly party-line vote after a bitter debate, Democrats failed to win support from the four Republicans they needed. With Mr. Trumps acquittal virtually certain, the presidents allies rallied to his defense, though some conceded he was guilty of the central allegations against him.

The Democrats push for more witnesses and documents failed 49 to 51, with only two Republicans, Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine, joining Democrats in favor. A vote on the verdict is planned for Wednesday.

As they approached the final stage of the third presidential impeachment proceeding in United States history, Democrats condemned the witness vote and said it would render Mr. Trumps trial illegitimate and his acquittal meaningless.

Still, those Republicans said, they were unwilling to remove a president fewer than 10 months before he is to face voters.

You dont apply capital punishment for every offense, Mr. Alexander added.

transcript

Louisiana Gop Votes To Censure Sen Cassidy

Literally minutes after Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., voted to convict President Donald Trump the Louisiana GOP voted to censure him. Cassidy was one of seven Republicans to cross party lines.

“The Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Louisiana has unanimously voted to censure Senator Bill Cassidy for his vote cast earlier today to convict former President Donald J. Trump on the impeachment charge,” the Republican Party of Louisiana said in a statement.

Cassidy, who vacillated between convicting and acquitting the president this week, has been a senator since 2014. He was previously a congressman from the state. A censure officially condemns a politician, but does not carry any further power, such as removal from office.

“Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person,” Cassidy said in a statement. “I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty.”

-ABC News’ Quinn Scanlan

You May Like: How Many Democrats In House

Republicans Are Open To Impeachment Witnesses But Democrats Need A 4th

Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney seem open to witnesses in President Trumps impeachment trial. With one more Republican, Democrats could commandeer the proceedings.

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

WASHINGTON The Capitol math is clear: Democrats need only four Republican votes to force the Senate to subpoena witnesses like John R. Bolton, the former White House national security adviser, to testify in President Trumps impeachment trial. Three have signaled they may be open to doing so: Senators Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

That leaves Democrats searching for an elusive fourth vote.

The question of whether four Republicans will defect and if so, who looms large in the Capitol as the Senate prepares to receive articles of impeachment from the House on Wednesday, prompting the third presidential impeachment trial in American history. If they did, Democrats could effectively commandeer the Senate floor during the proceeding and defy Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, by moving to call witnesses.

That could derail Mr. McConnells hopes to secure a quick acquittal of Mr. Trump with little debate, drastically altering the course of the trial and potentially, of Mr. Trumps presidency.

Am I curious about what Ambassador Bolton would have to say? Yes, I am, Ms. Murkowski told reporters, according to Alaska Public Radio. But she said she would not prejudge the need for him to testify until after the cases are presented.

Sen Mcconnell Who Voted To Acquit Trump Says Former President Is Practically And Morally Responsible For Provoking Attack On Capitol

In remarks on the Senate floor after he voted to acquit Trump, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the former president is practically and morally responsible for provoking the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol but that the Senate was upholding the Constitution by acquitting him.

The Senates decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day, McConnell said. It simply shows that senators did what the former president failed to do: We put our constitutional duty first.

Trump, by contrast, appeared to take his acquittal as a vindication of his actions before, during and after the Jan. 6 attack. In a statement, Trump called his second impeachment by the House another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country and hinted at a return to national politics.

McConnell spent much of his remarks condemning Trumps actions and directly linking them to the Jan. 6 insurrection. The former presidents supporters, he argued, launched their violent attack because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth, because he was angry he lost an election.

Theres no question none that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, McConnell said at one point. No question about it.

He argued, however, that it was beyond the power of the Senate to hold Trump accountable for those actions.

Also Check: I Bet My Numbers Would Be Terrific

Impeachment Trial Highlights: A Showdown Over Calling Witnesses

Senators rejected a call for additional witnesses in President Trumps impeachment trial, dealing a fatal blow to efforts by Democrats to bring about new evidence.

Mr. Blunt? No. No. Mr. Booker? Yes. Aye. Mr. Boozman? No. No. Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change his or her vote? If not, the yeas are 49, the nays are 51. The motion is not agreed to. This will set a new precedent. This will be cited in impeachment trials from this point to the end of history. The documents the president is hiding will come out. The witnesses the president is concealing will tell their stories. And we will be asked why we didnt want to hear that information when we had the chance. There is a way to decide right up front in some quick way whether theres really a triable issue, whether you really need to go to all the trouble of calling in new witnesses and having more evidence in something like that. Its not just about hearing from witnesses. You need documents. The documents dont lie. The question here before this body is, what do you want your place in history to be? Do you want your place in history to be, lets hear the truth? Or that we dont want to hear it? You did hear evidence. You heard evidence from 13 different witnesses, 192 video clips, and as my colleague the deputy White House counsel said, over 28,000 pages of documents.

It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed, Ms. Murkowski added

Democrats Hopeful To Convict Trump

The ball is in the court of the Republicans as a minimum of 17 GOP senators would have to join all the Democrats to reach the two-thirds majority required to find Trump guilty of “incitement of insurrection.”

While the Republican vote seems like an unlikely scenario, Democrats hope;they can win over enough Republican senators to convict Trump for his role in January’s Capitol riots.

Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Susan Collins of Maine;are some of the names the Democrats could seek to persuade.;

These four;are frequent critics of Trump and have said in the past that he incited the insurrection. They have also joined with Democrats twice to vote against the Republican efforts to dismiss the impeachment trial.

But in what appears to be a shock for the Democrats, Senate’s top Republican Mitch McConnell said Saturday he will vote against convicting the former president.

While describing the vote on whether to convict as a “close call,” McConnell told colleagues in a letter that “I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal and we, therefore, lack jurisdiction.”

“I will vote to acquit,” McConnell added, leaving it highly likely that the Senate will fail to reach the two-thirds majority necessary to convict Trump.

You May Like: What Witnesses Did The Republicans Want To Call

Trump Attorney Blames Senate For Not Trying Trump In January Does Not Mention Sen Mcconnell Blocked Trial

Trump attorney Michael van der Veen on Saturday blamed the Senate for not holding the impeachment trial in January, without mentioning that then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked the chamber from doing so.

The January exception argument is a creation of the House managers own conduct by delaying they sat on the article, van der Veen said. They could have tried the president while he was still in office if they really believed he was an imminent threat. They didnt.

After last months bipartisan impeachment vote in the House, McConnell said Trump had simply no chance of a fair or serious trial before Bidens inauguration Jan. 20.

McConnells office informed aides to then-Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer that he would not agree to immediately reconvene the Senate that week, according to a person familiar with the matter, despite pressure from Schumer to invoke rarely used emergency powers that allow the two Senate leaders to unilaterally reconvene.

Van der Veen also on Saturday falsely claimed the House impeachment managers had not referenced the Constitution or due process in making their closing arguments.

Several of the managers had done just that. Just minutes earlier, Rep. Joe Neguse had called out Trumps defense team for not allowing the former president to be a witness.

You cant claim theres no due process when you wont participate in the process, Neguse said.

Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.

Vote Comes After Surprise Call For Witnesses

Senate Republicans Reject Democrats Demand For New Witnesses | NBC Nightly News

Closing the House managers’ argument, Raskin played to senators’ sense of history in urging them to convict the former President for inciting the rioters to attack the Capitol and failing to stop them after the violence unfolded.

“This is almost certainly how you will be remembered by history,” Raskin said. “That might not be fair. It really might not be fair. But none of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now. Our reputations and our legacy will be inextricably intertwined with what we do here, and with how you exercise your oath to do impartial justice.”

Van der Veen argued that Trump did not incite a riot that had been preplanned, again repeating the falsehood that the rioters represented both left and right fringe groups, when video evidence and court documents conclusively show that the riot was perpetrated by Trump supporters.

The final vote came quickly on the fifth day of the Senate trial after a surprise Democratic request for witnesses earlier Saturday threw the trial briefly into chaos.

Read Also: Why Do Republicans Want To Take Away Health Care

Impeachment Trial: Trump Lawyers Wrap Up Defense

Closing arguments in former US President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial;started Saturday after the;Senate reached a deal to skip witness testimony.

US senators had been;close to concluding the trial;, when proceedings were briefly halted as Democrats, along with five Republicans, initially won a vote to call witnesses.

The trial rules say that if senators agree to hear witnesses, votes to hear additional testimony would be allowed.

Hours later, senators agreed;to accept new information from a Republican congresswoman about Trump’s actions on the day of the deadly Capitol siege on January 6 and proceed from there without calling witnesses.

The ex-president stands accused of;inciting;the deadly;insurrection when he;called on a crowd of supporters to march on Congress, which was in the process of certifying Joe Biden’s victory.

White House Expects Gop Defections On Calling Witnesses In Senate Impeachment Trial

Washington ;The White House is preparing for some Republican senators to join Democrats in voting to call witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, which could get underway in the coming days.

Senior White House officials tell CBS News they increasingly believe that at least four Republicans, and likely more, will vote to call witnesses. In addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado, the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a “wild card” and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an “institutionalist” who might vote to call witnesses, as one official put it.;

Last week, Collins said she was working with a “fairly small group” of GOP senators to allow new testimony, adding that her colleagues “should be completely open to calling witnesses.” Romney has expressed an interest in hearing from former national security adviser John Bolton, who has said he would testify under subpoena. Murkowski said last week that the Senate should proceed as it did during the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial.;

Gardner and Alexander have both said the Senate trial should be fair and impartial. Paul has said the president should be able to call his own witnesses, including the whistleblower whose complaint about Ukraine sparked the impeachment inquiry in the first place.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Won In Yesterday’s Elections

Takeaways From The Trump Impeachment Trial After Defense Wraps Up

Raskin suggested deposing Herrera Beutler by Zoom for an hour. Trump attorney Michael van der Veen responded that if the Democratic House managers wish to call witnesses, he will need “over 100 depositions.”

Five Republicans voted with Democrats Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who changed his vote to yes after initially voting no.

Van der Veen said he would oppose holding any depositions by Zoom, saying they should be “in person in my office in Philadelphia,” drawing laughter from the Senate. “I haven’t laughed at any of you,” van der Veen responded.

Confusion on the floor

After the vote, the Senate ground to a halt, amid general confusion among senators about how to proceed from here.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., when asked whether he was expecting this, threw up his hands. “Shelby says he’s seen three of these and this is the craziest,” referring to Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby.

Before the deal was reached to avoid witnesses, an informal adviser to the Trump defense team dismissed the Democrats’ move, saying there was a risk that it would drag out the trial for weeks, all so that they can depose a witness whose contribution was already made public in a press release.

Trump attorney Bruce Castor said his side would call “lots” of witnesses. Van der Veen threatened to call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Harris as witnesses.

Trump Impeachment Trial Live Updates: Biden Says Charge ‘not In Dispute’ In 1st Comments On Acquittal

Biden remembered those who were killed and called for unity going forward.

Senate votes to acquit former President Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump’s historic second impeachment trial ended with a 57-43 vote to acquit in the Senate. He faced a single charge of incitement of insurrection over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

You May Like: How Many Republicans Are In The Senate Vs Democrats

Here Are The Republicans Who Voted To Hear Witnesses At Trump’s Impeachment Trial

By Clare Foran and Ali Zaslav, CNN

Five Republicans voted with Democrats on Saturday in favor of allowing witnesses during former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, a move that now means it is unclear when the trial will conclude. The final vote tally in the Senate was 55-45.

Susan Collins of Maine

Ben Sasse of Nebraska

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Kristin Wilson contributed to this report.

Republicans Vote To Silence Impeachment Witnesses Fast

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

Save Story

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

On Friday night, lawmakers voted on the issue of allowing further evidence in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. As there were no doctors on hand to perform emergency spinal cord transplants, Republicans defeated the attempt to introduce relevant witnesses and documents 5149, with just Mitt Romney and Susan Collins voting with Democrats. Thats obviously a sad and depressing outcome but, in the long run, probably just sped up the inevitable, i.e., Republicans acquitting the president and paving the way for him to continue abusing his power for the next one to five years. And rather than attempt to make the case that Trump did nothing wrong and thats why theyre trying to wrap this thing up ASAP, GOP lawmakers are just coming out and saying it: He did it and we dont care. And thats not some biased liberal-media interpretation of what theyve saidthose are the actual words coming out of their mouths.

In a Medium post entitled My Statement on the Presidents Impeachment Trial, writes:

Rubio doesnt note that, as of March of 2019, we didnt know about the presidents alleged attempt to extort Ukraine for his personal gain, but we digress. He continues:

Twitter content

But apparently that information is neither here nor there.

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, to subscribe.

Twitter content

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Hate Planned Parenthood

[alanaknobel99]

Book Review: “How To Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy” by Jenny Odell

1. What is your favorite quote from the book and why do you find it meaningful?

“It's a bit like falling in love, that terrifying realization that your fate is linked to someone else's, that you are no longer your own. But isn't that closer to the truth anyway? Our Fates are linked, to each other, to the places where we are, and everyone and everything that lives in them how much more real my responsibility feels when I think about it this way! This is more than just an abstract understanding that our survival is threatened by global warming, or even a cerebal appreciation for other living beings and systems. Instead this is an urgent, personal recognition that my emotional and physical survival are bound up with these strangers not just now but for life.” (pg 183) 

I know this is a long quote, but when I first read this passage my eyes filled with tears and I let out the most inspirational “wow.” I was just shocked when I read this, at this point in the book this quote made everything make sense. We are connected to each other and to this earth, and our survival is counting on that connection. However, we are so absorbed in the attention economy we forget what and who are around us. We need to fall in love with each other again rather than the people stuck on our little screens. 

 2. Why do you think this book, released by indie publishing house Melville Press, has become an unexpected bestseller in Corona Times?

What else do we have to do during quarantine than sit our phones? We are quite literally in a cage where the only thing we have is to lose ourselves in the attention economy. People forgot how to take walks outside, rather than go to the gym, or just sit on the porch and watch the kids play. I think why this book was so successful during Corona Times is because people needed a break, and this book was a guide to that break. There was a pause in life, and I don’t think anyone truly knew how to take that pause. 

This past year has been a constant pressure cooker of the attention economy, and people needed to find a way to turn it off. While social media was a great way to connect us when no one could be together, we really had no escape. This book also came out at a time when a lot of people found it necessary to evaluate their life, and really look at themselves including what and who we surround ourselves with. The book, I believe, allowed people to open their eyes to seeing more than what was really there. 

 3. How does the attention economy benefit from our social media activity and media streaming consumption?

Refresh, Refresh, Refresh. That’s how the attention economy benefits from our social media activity. There are certain aesthetic choices that suck us into platforms like Instagram, or Facebook. The endless scrolling is what sucks you in as a consumer, and its main purpose is to keep you scrolling. There is always something new, and it never stops. 

Our attention span as society has continued to dwindle down to the bare minimum. Musicals and plays used to be over 3 hours, and now they are compact into 90 minutes with a 15-minute intermission, to recharge your attention. With the advancement of technology, our attention span continues to decrease. So much that we can’t deal with the feeling of not knowing something. We have to take out our phones and ask Siri. Our phones and other devices have allowed us to develop these emotions that we don’t want to feel anymore, and the only way to avoid that is to continue our use. 

 4. How does this book relate to the topic of celebrity culture?

Celebrity culture is a huge part of the attention economy. A majority of the ‘news’ on my Facebook feed is about celebrities. Social media allows them to develop a brand, and it’s almost as if they are constantly selling to us. Also, social media breaks down this barrier between the celebrity and the audience where it makes us feel as though the celebrity is our friend. The closer that connection becomes the easier it is to get sucked into this cycle of celebrity culture that is produced on social media. 

 5. Do you take digital detox breaks? If yes, describe them. Have they been more challenging during the quarantine era? Why?

I don’t take digital detox breaks. For one, I just don’t think I could remember all of my passwords after. 

All joking aside, for me I don’t know if they would work. I feel like no matter how long the break was, I would just go back, and perhaps it would be worse. What did I miss? Who messaged me? I’m not saying there aren’t benefits, but I try and find other times to avoid social media during the day. Maybe I’ll take one just for an experiment. However, I feel as though I would have to be alone. I don’t know how effective it would be because I have roommates, and watching someone else scroll all day wouldn’t give me the same benefits that I would expect to happen if I were alone. 

 6. Do you sleep with your phone or computer? Are you aware of impacts on your sleep cycles and relaxation caused by overnight proximity?

My phone is on my nightstand, plugged in, and on do not disturb at night and mostly throughout the day. Notification sounds just bother me, especially if I’m trying to concentrate on something else like homework or reading a book. However, I have many habits with my phone. Just like notification sounds, notification numbers bug me so much. If I see one I have to clear it, I like things to be clean on my phone. Usually when I’m stressed about something I will go on my phone to escape or avoid. I follow a lot of “aesthetically pleasing” accounts that I turn to in order to calm myself down when I get anxious. Scrolling through Pinterest always helps because I’ve tailored that to be aesthetically pleasing to my eyes. If I’m surrounded by a calm, good-looking space, it’s less likely I’ll be anxious, and that pertains to my phone as well. 

That being said, I am trying to limit my phone usage. I’ve noticed I can’t watch television without scrolling on my phone. This is just bad for my eyes and everything else cause I’m staring at two screens. My biggest habits with my phone are in the morning and before I go to bed. I’m very into my routines, and this has just become part of it. I also look at my phone when I first wake up, and I scroll for about 30 minutes. Mainly, it’s just to clear all my notifications from overnight. Then at night, which is where I watch tv shows or Youtube, and then scroll on my phone before I go to bed. I’ve been trying to break this habit by reading before bed, which ultimately limits my watch time because if it’s past a certain hour, I just go to sleep. I’m very aware of my habits and am trying to change them, especially because of this book. But I don’t think it has an impact on my sleep cycle, if anything my phone relaxes me because I use it in a relaxing way, but that is also a problem within itself.

 7. What is the role of nature in Odell's book, in particular the role of birds? (P.S. Did you know that birdwatching has become a HUGE pastime in the Covid era with a Snow Owl becoming a celebrity in NYC's Central Park? See NY Times (Links to an external site.)  article on Birdwatching and another on the snowy owl  (Links to an external site.))

The presence and care for nature in Odell’s book is what I mostly took away. We as a society are so absorbed within ourselves and advancement of technology that we have lost a state of consciousness with the very ground we walk upon. I watched a TED talk by Graham Hancock called “The War on Consciousness” (which was originally banned from TED due to it’s radical content) and he echo’s a lot of what Jenny Odell says. Humans have lost this connection to spirit, and if we don’t reconnect we may be holding ourselves back from further evolution. The way that Hancock suggests we grasp this reconnection is through the psychedelic drug of ayahuasca. There are a lot of parallels between these two because Odell suggests a lot that we need to render our attention, in order to open ourselves to more than what is considered surface level. If we allow ourselves to embrace a further, deeper state of consciousness we can reconnect with earth, and the nature that surrounds us in order to become a greater society. 

We need to reintroduce ourselves to nature, rather than take it for granted, which is why I think something like birdwatching became a pastime activity during COVID. I also want to mention the attention that nature has been getting during COVID. I remember a couple weeks after the lockdown there were stories of how animals and wildlife were starting to come back to places they haven’t occupied in a long time because nature was somehow repairing itself. There are also a lot of before and after lockdown pictures of cities where you can see the difference in pollution form the sky color. I think a lot of people took that as a sign that we are the problem, and things need to start changing. 

 Here is the link to the TED Talk, I highly recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w

 8. Experiment: Leave your phone at home for one hour to talk a walk in your neighborhood. Write down your observations when you return and draw a map of your path. What did you observe?  Take a photo of your map to include in your book review. Did the experience provide any revelations? Were you anxious, relieved, inspired? Did you notice anything you'd never seen before?

I love taking walks, it’s been a daily activity for me since Corona Times have begun. I usually just plug my headphones in and listen to music, but I don’t really look at my phone when I’m walking. My phone is also a safety net for me, so walking without it made me a little more anxious than comfortable. 

I live kinda close to a park in New York, but it’s a bit of a trek to get to. Usually I speed through my neighborhood in order to get to the quite area when the park begins, but not this time. I took more of a casual stroll through my neighborhood, still the same route. There was a lot of traffic noise, music from people’s speakers at storefronts, groups of people talking in Spanish. I always walk by a pet store to stare at the puppies in the window. Once I got to the park there is always this sense of relief, and it was still there even without my phone. The wind was brushing through the trees, footsteps of people running, birds chirping. There was a lot that I noticed, I sometimes forgot my phone wasn’t there and I could just be present. 

9. What does Odell mean by 'doing nothing?' Are we capable of doing nothing? 

The very last line of her book when she describes her encounter with the pelicans was, “The answer was nothing. Just watch.” We need to be able to disconnect, and we have lost that ability to disconnect ourselves from the attention economy. We live in a society that tells us we can’t do nothing, because you can’t survive that way. To take time to breathe, relax, connect with nature is looked at as selfish rather than necessary. The question of if we are capable of doing nothing is simple, of course we are capable. However, are we willing? 

[fitnesshealthyoga-blog]

New Post has been published on https://fitnesshealthyoga.com/deployment-with-two-kids-the-fitnessista/

Deployment with two kids - The Fitnessista

This is my second to last deployment-related post! All we have left to share is a fun video. 😉 I had quite a few requests on how to juggle life with small kiddos while your partner is away on a deployment. Doing the solo parenting thing is no joke, but really once you find your groove, you get into a routine and it’s ok! I feel like it’s worth mentioning (again) that I was very fortunate to be around family during this deployment. I know it’s not always the case, but these are all things that would have helped if we stayed in Valdosta.

Here are some of the things that helped me deal with a deployment with two kids:

Ditch the countdown calendar. While he was gone, I didn’t want it to feel like we were just counting down until he was home. I didn’t want the girls to feel like we were waiting for something constantly and not be able to enjoy the moments. So we talked about when dad would be home (after Liv’s birthday), but never had an official countdown. I never focused on how long he’d be gone, but instead I tried to pump them up for things to look forward to along the way. We also enjoyed talking with him whenever possible + putting together his care packages.

Plan something fun each month. This is probably my #1 tip. Each month, we had something really fun to look forward to, whether it was a trip to Disney or San Diego, a holiday-related celebration (we celebrated every single major holiday and birthday while he was gone), or a show (like Music Man or Disney on Ice).

Take care of yourself, too. This one was definitely challenging, but something I tried to do while he was gone. For me, the major one is getting in my workouts because they help with my anxiety and make me feel good. Sometimes that meant paying a babysitter so I could lift some weights before working, but it was worth it. I booked a massage while he was gone (which was heaven) and a glorious spa day at Miraval. It’s really easy to get into the “mom is the only thing I do and am” mentality because it’s really ALL YOU, but taking a little time to watch a show I loved, planning nights with girlfriends, and being a little easier on myself was worth it.

Do things you wouldn’t normally do. I mentioned in a recent post that we had breakfast for dinner a lot! We also dined at restaurants more often, and for the last 2 months of deployment, I let the girls sleep in our bed every night. I wish I would have done that sooner because we all sleep better! (The rule is usually that they have to fall asleep in their room, but can come in during the night if they don’t wake us up. For the last couple months of deployment, I let them fall asleep in our bed and it was so much more peaceful. Now we’re working on UN-doing the fact that I let them sleep in our bed for so long, but in the moment, it was all about survival mode.)

Put together packages to send to your loved one. We had a lot of fun putting packages together to send to the Pilot. We’d send funny cards, the girls would draw pictures, and we’d include his favorite snacks and candy. Some of the things he requested: protein powder, jerky, gum, good coffee, trail mix, bars, and his favorite sweet treats (Swedish fish, Reese’s, sour watermelon candies, Milano cookies, etc.). We also sent him comfy jersey pajama pants, a heated blanket, a neck massager, and fun things to share with the guys at work, like a drone that they ended up flying around (they just covered the camera with tape), a sloth shooter, and Nerf guns.

Reap the benefits of technology! We are so fortunate to live in a world where WiFi connects us across countries. Since he had access to WiFi (which isn’t always the case. I feel very thankful that they had access to this!), we could video or voice chat through Facebook, and we’d send video messages through Marco Polo. I’m also SO, so thankful to the USO for their program that allows deployed service members to read to their children. He had some opportunities to go to their office, pick out a couple of books for the girls, and they’d record him reading the books. They’d send us the USB cards and the books for free, along with a little note from him. You guys. These digital storytimes were pure treasures. The first time we opened one and he popped up on my computer screen holding the same book that we held in our hands, it was everything in my power to not cry my face off. It was really special. He sent 4 or 5 different rounds of books over the 7-month span, and each time we watched one of these videos, the girls were glued to the screen. He’d also ask them questions while he was reading and they’d answer back, which was the cutest ever.

Surround yourself with support and love to get you through the loneliness. I feel like whether you choose to go home or stay near your duty station (like I have previously), it’s so important to have a support system in place. Make sure you have childcare lined up, don’t feel like you have to do everything on your own, and plan activities with other people who are either compassionate and fun, or know exactly what you’re going through. This is what makes or breaks the deployment experience, and each time he’s been gone, I’ve been beyond thankful to have an incredible support system around me.

Some of the things that were challenging:

– Getting in all of my work stuff finished. Even with childcare a couple of times a week, many times I felt like I was struggling to complete the bare minimum in this space. I had to stay in bed with the girls until they fell asleep (we’re working on changing this), and P is a major night owl, so it was tricky. If I had loose ends to finish up for work, sometimes my work evening wouldn’t start until 10 or 10:30pm. That was for real. Thankfully, the Pilot is home and we can tag-team the bedtime duty. I felt like I dropped the ball a lot over the past 7 months and many times, I was just doing everything I could to create content and stay afloat. I just want to say thank you so much for reading and for sticking around. I don’t feel like I was the best blogger over the past 7 months… almost all of my energy was spent trying to be a great parent to our girls without my partner/best friend/love of my life around.

– The long days. When the Pilot was home, I could count on him to take over for a bit at the end of a day filled with meals, clean up, drop-offs, pick-ups, and after-school activities. During a deployment (or ever a long TDY, like when he was gone for 5 weeks last spring), the evening routine feels you feel like you’ve been handed a 5k at the end of your marathon. The dinner, bath time, and bedtime rituals make it an extra long day.

– Feeling lonely. I’m so fortunate have a great community of friends and family here in Tucson, but at the same time, after the girls were asleep at night, I felt lonely. The house felt dark and too quiet. I used this as an opportunity to watch TV that the Pilot would never be into, but I had no one to yell, “OMG did that really happen?!” with at the end of a basketball game or This Is Us. 🙂

– When things would break. Our toilet broke and I was like OH NO, but thankfully my mom had stopped by and literally fixed it in 30 seconds, so there ya go. We also had a couple of issues with our circuit popping out because I put too many Christmas lights into a single extension cord. Oops.

– Answering some of the “bigger questions” on my own. Liv asked me a couple of doozies while the Pilot was away, and in my mind I was like AHHHHHHHH. Then I just was as straightforward and honest as possible (and tried to not make it awkward or weird, just a normal thing) and she was happy with my answer. It literally ended up being NBD but I definitely panicked for a second.

If you’re going through a deployment, hang in there. You can do hard things and there’s a light at the end of the tunnel… even though sometimes it seems really freaking far away. I’m sending you so much love, strength, and a giant glass of wine.

xo

Gina

Source link

[suzanneshannon]

Smaller HTML Payloads with Service Workers

Short story: Philip Walton has a clever idea for using service workers to cache the top and bottom of HTML files, reducing a lot of network weight.

Longer thoughts: When you're building a really simple website, you can get away with literally writing raw HTML. It doesn't take long to need a bit more abstraction than that. Even if you're building a three-page site, that's three HTML files, and your programmer's mind will be looking for ways to not repeat yourself. You'll probably find a way to "include" all the stuff at the top and bottom of the HTML, and just change the content in the middle.

I have tended to reach for PHP for that sort of thing in the past (<?php include('header.php); ?>), although these days I'm feeling much more jamstacky and I'd probably do it with Eleventy and Nunjucks.

Or, you could go down the SPA (Single Page App) route just for this basic abstraction if you want. Next and Nuxt are perhaps a little heavy-handed for a few includes, but hey, at least they are easy to work with and the result is a nice static site. The thing about these JavaScript-powered SPA frameworks (Gatsby is in here, too), is that they "hydrate" from static sites into SPAs as the JavaScript loads. Part of the reason for that is speed. No longer does the browser need to reload and request a whole big HTML page again to render; it just asks for whatever smaller amount of data it needs and replaces it on the fly.

So in a sense, you might build a SPA because you have a common header and footer and just want to replace the guts, for efficiencies sake.

Here's Phil:

In a traditional client-server setup, the server always needs to send a full HTML page to the client for every request (otherwise the response would be invalid). But when you think about it, that’s pretty wasteful. Most sites on the internet have a lot of repetition in their HTML payloads because their pages share a lot of common elements (e.g. the <head>, navigation bars, banners, sidebars, footers etc.). But in an ideal world, you wouldn’t have to send so much of the same HTML, over and over again, with every single page request.

With service workers, there’s a solution to this problem. A service worker can request just the bare minimum of data it needs from the server (e.g. an HTML content partial, a Markdown file, JSON data, etc.), and then it can programmatically transform that data into a full HTML document.

So rather than PHP, Eleventy, a JavaScript framework, or any other solution, Phil's idea is that a service worker (a native browser technology) can save a cache of a site's header and footer. Then server requests only need to be made for the "guts" while the full HTML document can be created on the fly.

It's a super fancy idea, and no joke to implement, but the fact that it could be done with less tooling might be appealing to some. On Phil's site:

 on this site over the past 30 days, page loads from a service worker had a 47.6% smaller network payloads, and a median First Contentful Paint (FCP) that was 52.3% faster than page loads without a service worker (416ms vs. 851ms).

Aside from configuring a service worker, I'd think the most finicky part is having to configure your server/API to deliver a content-only version of your stuff or build two flat file versions of everything.

Direct Link to Article — Permalink

The post Smaller HTML Payloads with Service Workers appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

Smaller HTML Payloads with Service Workers published first on https://deskbysnafu.tumblr.com/

[thenonpartisanleague-blog]

Are Kids Dumb?

Leading by example is often the best form of instruction.

Unsurprisingly, it’s not something easy to do. It requires you engage with your opponents on logical grounds, and sometimes admit to being wrong.

It’s exactly the thing which columnist Rob Port seems to be lacking in his recent two-part discourse on Swede Greta Thunberg.

Starting off mockingly, comparing the other side to “religious zealots” isn’t exactly rational. Then, while your questioning of the sincerity of some students is valid, it doesn’t invalidate those who are sincere. Additionally, your generalization of “grown-ups” seeing children as “dumb” seems to pertain more to your personal beliefs than to any real evidence- as developmental psychology has developed as a field, we’ve begun to find that children are often much more intelligent than we give them credit for (Source 1). If anything, we’re the ones to blame for kids being “dumb” as you say- as Victor Hugo once wrote, “Teach the ignorant as much as you can… the guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.”

Indeed, you may argue that we’re playing Argumentum ad dictionarium here, but it seems to me the issue of students is not being “dumb”, but of an ignorance of the large context and “big picture” of the issues they’re having to grapple with. The issue is, instead of using your platform to educate people on the “economic, social, and scientific complexities” which you yourself admit exist, your argument has essentially been reduced to name-calling, not only of students but of adults as well.

Let’s address that argument. Indeed, a wide majority of youth would be unable to function without their parents and, indeed, many adults fail to grow past their inadequacies in scientific education- an interesting study in 2012 (Source 2) found that individuals with low scientific literacy were more worried about climate change than those with a high scientific literacy. Indeed, among several surprising findings, political factors seemed to matter more than science.

In many ways, this is more worrisome than being ignorant. It implies that members of political parties are coming to conclusions without evidence, and that no amount of evidence will change their view. This is a reversal of the scientific method: instead of having a hypothesis, and finding evidence to support it and come to a conclusion, it seems both parties are starting with a conclusion that is invulnerable to facts or evidence.

Divorcing politics and science, let’s actually consider the evidence from an economic perspective. Others have previously discussed the evidence for human-caused Climate Change better than can be done here; conclusions are clear and the science is established. Source 3 includes discussions of the evidence from both sides of the political spectrum; contributing to such a discussion here would be redundant (though, specific points may be open to debate).

One paper published in 2017 (Source 4) found that every 1°C of warming will cost roughly 1.2% of annual US GDP; some global estimates are as high as 23% by 2100. With some back-of-the-napkin estimates of our current trajectory, this conservatively adds up to cost hundreds or even thousands of trillions of dollars in the US alone by 2100.

A valid argument can be made that the cost of mitigation strategies (such as the Green New Deal) is unsustainable and would actually cost even more than climate change itself. However, this argument is scientifically flawed: not only do those costs compound in future centuries, mitigation has been shown to cost 1.2% of GDP or less even under pessimistic scenarios for the Paris agreement (Source 5). In other words, even 1 degree of warming reduction would end up saving money overall.

This isn’t to say that the Green New Deal is the solution. Indeed, a number of components betray a lack of scientific knowledge around GMOs, industrialized agriculture, and the problem in general. However, it doesn’t get the cost wrong. Indeed, mitigation strategies under the above scenarios are both necessary and beneficial, and in the tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars for the US alone.

The second thing it doesn’t get wrong is the need for action. While the world certainly isn’t ending in 12 years, delaying action until 2030 would make the Paris goals essentially infeasible, leading to climate feedback loops and consequently much higher costs in the thousands of trillions of dollars, conservatively.

Here, the term “conservatively” is meant to convey that these are not the worst case scenarios. For those, you need only consider the implications of a DOD report from 2015 finding that climate change is a security risk, acting as a thread multiplier while worsening global security (Source 6).

In summary, not only will climate change mitigation likely cost hundreds of trillions in the US alone by 2100, that cost is dwarfed by the cost of doing nothing. That’s not my opinion, that’s not something a politician or reporter is saying, that’s the scientific evidence. All my sources are included below, so if you don’t believe me you have the ability to check the evidence for yourself.

So, are these policies being put forward by Thunberg “extremist”? Perhaps not when considering the cost of doing nothing. In fact, she’s not wrong when she says that we ought to have acted sooner- had we begun action in 2013 instead of 2020, the cost of mitigation may have been 33% lower (Source 5). That doesn’t mean that she ought to be involved in working-level engineering talks, but it does mean that those talks need to take place. The engineering of solving this problem is well understood, however, the political “fad” movement necessary is only just beginning to take hold. In fact, compared to the cost of doing nothing, even some of the Green New Deal’s ideas are somewhat “reasonable” (See above, and Source 7).

Now may be a good time to analyze some of the argumentative strategies being put forth. The point is made, “who would dare criticize children?” It would seem said comment is meant in a somewhat satirical manner; in fact, the entire tone of both columns is rather dismissive. Still, the question ought to be asked: why would you criticize people at all? The term Ad hominem literally translates as “to the person”, as in, a fallacious argumentative strategy where attacks are directed at people instead of the idea itself. Why is this important? People can learn and grow; ideas can be disproven. Ad hominem attacks in the form displayed by the source columns not only attempt to reduce the value of the source individual, they reduce the very value of debate itself by not allowing the idea itself to be challenged. As stated above, there are indeed ideas that need to be challenged, such as the Green New Deal.

And now, to the second column in question.

Again, the same points are being made, again without directly addressing the facts of climate change, instead focusing on the over-generalization of all children being less than adults. This proves nor disproves nothing logically. It seems to argue that, since children aren’t adults, they have no value to society politically. Indeed, yes, “think of the children” is a fallacious argument itself not worthy of valuable recognition. However, “two wrongs make a right” is also a fallacy, and the fact that a column complains about being “roasted” while simultaneously attacking others in an immature fashion should be a quite apparent example of what maturity isn’t.

This is not to say that Mr. Port is immature, simply that he has done something lacking maturity. It is my goal to encourage him to set better examples; he obviously is doing something right with his readership being as wide as it is.

A point where I will contend with Mr. Port is indeed this- to view information with skepticism. While politicians can have good intentions while exaggerating or lying about the specifics of Climate Change (as Al Gore was while producing An Inconvenient Truth), in the same way that a coal miner can have good intentions when trying to save their job and take care of their family, we ought to temper our expectations with the acknowledgment of such facts. We have much more in common than what divides us.

Finally, Mr. Port, Autism is not a disability. While indeed disabling for some individuals, there are many more where it is a part of who we are, without defining us. It is incumbent upon you, as a public figure who has significant media presence, to do your research. If you can’t, you ought not to speak on topics you don’t understand or are unwilling to look into. At the bare minimum, I encourage you to look into the high suicide rates among high-functioning autistic individuals which is in no small part influenced by public misunderstanding.

While I’m not a teacher or a teenager, such systemically flawed arguments and Ad hominem attacks seen in Mr. Port’s two columns would warrant an F in my personal opinion. Please do better next time.

EDIT 1:

Since this was initially written, it appears a third column on the topic has been published. In it, much the same fluff of “kids being kids” and being restricted from choices makes them illegitimate as “props in political movements”; in other words, much the same fluffy circular arguments that have been discussed above. As such, it isn’t much worth further addressing as nothing of value is added to the topic of discussion, aside from some Non sequitur arguments about marriage (?).

If Greta Thunberg or I are incorrect on climate change, proving us wrong should be simple. All you need to do is show the evidence, prove our sources are wrong, and show an alternative scientific explanation. Don’t believe me, I’m honestly a bit of a dunce, so I’ve linked all my sources below for you to prove me wrong.

Ending Notes:

After reaching out to Mr. Port to see if he has anything to say to the above, after a week he has yet to respond. As such, assuming he has received and seen the email, there are no plans to further debate him for the immediate future. Why? If he isn’t willing to respond to the above criticisms, and continues to make unimpressive ad-hominem style attacks on his opponents, he is essentially arguing in bad faith.

There is no value in challenging such bad faith; it often only allows the platform of the opponent to expand. While there is value in debunking those arguing in bad faith, there is also value in de-platforming those who refuse to use their freedom of speech in a productive manner. Until this changes, I won’t be addressing him again.

“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is always an order of magnitude larger than it took to produce it.”

- Brandolini’s Law

Source Column Part 1:

https://www.inforum.com/opinion/columns/4676990-Port-Who-cares-what-children-think-about-complex-policy-questions

Source Column Part 2:

https://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/columns/4690117-Port-Still-not-convinced-we-should-listen-to-teens-on-policy

Source Column Part 3:

https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/i-guess-maybe-the-kids-really-are-dumb/

Source 1:

First link is a research study published in a journal with an Impact Factor of 4.902 in 2018. The second link is an interview with the researchers, where they discuss their surprise at the high comprehension level of children when being taught complex scientific information and the context around it.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613516009

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2014/can-young-children-understand-complex-science

Source 2:

First link is to the article publication, second is a direct link to the full PDF. Nature’s Climate Change journal had a whopping 21.722 impact factor in 2018-2019 (though, it appears to have increased since the article below was published in 2012).

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=faculty_publications

Source 3:

Potholer54 is a journalist from Australia, who worked as a geologist on offshore oil platforms for several years. He cites his sources, and debunks bloggers and political commentators on the internet who (interestingly enough) often fail to do the same:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Simon Clark is a recently graduated PHD student studying climate change. He makes videos on the topic of climate change and the science behind it.

https://www.youtube.com/user/SimonOxfPhys/videos

Harry Brewis is an internet entertainer who created a comedic video responding to numerous climate denial strategies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLqXkYrdmjY

Thunderf00t is a citizen-scientist who notable for being radically anti-feminist and holding a number of other alternative views. While I can’t endorse his political beliefs (or profanity), he’s quite good at using his understanding of thermodynamics to “see through” BS:

https://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t/search?query=climate

Source 4:

This article looks at the cost, per county, of climate change to the US. Note that the damage is not equally distributed: coastal and warmer regions will be more significantly affected than the rest of the country. Science Magazine had an impact factor of 37.205 in 2016. Wow.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362

Source 5:

First link is the article’s page in Nature, and the second is a direct link to a PDF of the article. The third link is a tool allowing you to adjust parameters from their model to estimate mitigation costs as percentage of GDP; following the Paris agreement with a temperature limit of 2 degrees Celsius, 50% probability of success, and intermediate energy demands, the pessimistic mitigation cost comes down to 1.2% GDP.

The 33% figure is found comparing the pessimistic cost in 2013 to the cost of delaying until 2020, i.e. 1.2 vs 0.8% GDP.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11787

http://www.environmentportal.in/files/file/cost%20estimates%20for%20climate%20change.pdf

https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v493/n7430/extref/nature11787-s2.xlsx

Source 6:

DOD report considering the cost of the risks of climate change.

https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery

Source 7:

Fact check on the cost of the Green New Deal, and some good discourse on the costs of Climate Change.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-new-deal-cost/

[sportscarss]

117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17

With the rollout of the 2012 A7, Audi has abutting the growing account of automakers that are either advanced of their time, or activity aback in time (you decide), by introducing midsize auto sedans that are advised to attending like adult action coupes.

117 Audi A17 Review, Specs, Pictures, Price & MPG – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

It’s apparently safe to say that this is a new booty on an old abstraction – a auto with a rear bear instead of a accepted block lid, alms added account aback it comes to loading and accustomed baggage and cargo.

Among the accepted offerings in this new agent chic are exceptional models such as the A7, BMW X6 and Acura ZDX, all of which can run advancement of $50,000, and added affordable entries such as the Honda Accord Crosstour and Toyota Venza.

Automakers that accept formed out this new, glassy appearance of five-door sedans are arena on the accepted acceptance of the crossover account agent but are designing these cars to address to those of us who amount administration over versatility (but appetite to accumulate at atomic some admeasurement of the latter).

As my cogent added acclaimed afterwards blockage out the A7, “You could put a breadth of plywood in the back.” And she would, too – she’s the do-it-yourself being in the family, appropriately at home in the aisles of Home Depot as she is at Macy’s.

This sleek, admirable car has basement for aloof four people, but anybody rides in abundance – everyone. Aback the two rear captain’s chairs aren’t bare for passengers, their backs can be bankrupt to accessible up the burden breadth for those do-it-yourself food or sports equipment.

In the driver’s seat, though, there is no adumbration whatsoever that this is a account vehicle. It drives aloof like a action coupe, about like a sports car, with the affectionate of absolute alley administration that one would apprehend from a German-engineered affluence vehicle.

117 Audi A17 Specs – Roadshow – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

It’s not cheap. Base amount is $59,250 (plus $875 freight), and with options, it can run up to $70,000. Our tester, which didn’t accept aggregate that could be added to the A7, had a final sticker of $66,220, including bales and options.

But for addition like me, who loves the abstraction of a adult car with a bear that accommodates the loading of a big-screen TV in the burden area, the A7 aloof ability be the absolute vehicle.

Under the awning is a 3.0-liter V-6 agent that, with its accepted supercharger, cranks out 310 application and 325 foot-pounds of torque (yet seems alike added able than that). It’s affiliated to an Audi eight-speed Tiptronic automated chiral with manual-shift capability; no chiral manual is offered, however.

Standard is Audi’s Quattro full-time all-wheel-drive system, which automatically maintains absorption on all alley surfaces, wet or dry.

Audi says the A7 can go from zero-60 mph in aloof 5.4 seconds. But alike admitting the speedometer registers as aerial as 180 mph, the A7 is electronically bound to a top acceleration of 130. (Bummer! I agreement they don’t do that to their European customers.)

The car is so attractive that it turns active wherever it goes. We anchored it in advanced of our admired pizza abode one black – no, not a chain, but a absolute Italian ancestors restaurant – and one of the adolescent chefs came out to look. “Is that the new A7?” he asked, drooling.

Seven Unbelievable Facts About Audi A 30 | audi a 30 – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

Fuel abridgement is absolutely decent, with EPA ratings of 18 mpg city/28 highway; during our analysis drive, we averaged aloof added than 24.

Craftsmanship and affection are axiomatic throughout this vehicle, from the wraparound cockpitlike birr to the covering seats and copse autogenous trim.

Weight has been kept to a minimum through the use of aluminum anatomy panels on a animate frame, which Audi says improves handling, assurance and ammunition economy. An chip rear addle-brain deploys at aerial speeds to advance bottomward the rear and to advance the car’s aerodynamics.

The A7 additionally has Audi’s newest telematics/audio/navigation technology, including autography acceptance for the nav and buzz systems, for accessible access of addresses or buzz numbers.

Optional is the Audi Connect system, which Audi says it the aboriginal factory-installed, voice-activated Google Earth, Google Local search, and (for passengers) adaptable Wi-Fi.

Other accessible appearance accommodate a head-up affectation for the driver, LED headlights, night-vision assistant, adaptive cruise ascendancy and a 1,300-watt Bang & Olufsen audio arrangement with 15 speakers.

2012 Audi A7 sportback (4g) – pictures, information and … – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

The rear bear opens and closes automatically at the blow of a button on the alien or the driver’s door. There are accepted Xenon headlights with LED daytime active lights, frameless ancillary windows to accord the car a auto attending and ambient autogenous lighting that uses LEDs.

Also accepted are a ability sunroof, keyless agitation with push-button start, three-zone automated altitude control, Sirius accessory radio, 18-inch auto with all-season tires, power/heated advanced seats with lumbar support, accepted barn opener, and automated headlights with ablaze and rain sensors. Exceptional and Action bales action 19- and 20-inch wheels, a action abeyance and a three-spoke action council caster with about-face paddles.

Our tester included the Exceptional Additional Package ($3,620), which includes 19-inch wheels, HD radio, the Audi Connect, auto-dimming alfresco mirrors and a 7-inch blush driver-information arrangement display.

But our agent traded the 19-inch auto for the 20-inch ones with the Action Package ($1,500), which additionally brought the appropriate abeyance and the council caster with the about-face paddles. The Audi Ancillary Assist ($500) showed aback there were cars in the dark atom on either side.

The tester had Dakota Gray exoteric paint, a $475 option.

Total sticker, including bales and options, was $66,220.

117 AUDI A17 17.17 TFSI QUATTRO FULL SPEC UNREG 117 | RM 17,17 … – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

Contact Express-News automotive columnist G. Chambers Williams III at 210-250-3236 or chambers@express-news.net.

117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17 – audi a7 specs 2012 | Encouraged to help my website, with this occasion I’m going to show you regarding keyword. And now, here is the first picture:

117 Audi A17 Review – Automotive Dealer Solutions | Digital … – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

Think about graphic earlier mentioned? is actually in which incredible???. if you think therefore, I’l d explain to you several photograph all over again beneath:

So, if you desire to have all these amazing photos related to (117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17), press save link to save these pics in your personal pc. They are available for obtain, if you like and wish to obtain it, just click save logo on the article, and it will be immediately saved to your pc.} Lastly in order to secure unique and the recent graphic related to (117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17), please follow us on google plus or book mark this page, we try our best to offer you daily up grade with fresh and new pics. Hope you love keeping right here. For many updates and latest news about (117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17) pictures, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on bookmark section, We try to provide you with update regularly with all new and fresh graphics, enjoy your surfing, and find the right for you.

Here you are at our site, articleabove (117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17) published .  Nowadays we are excited to announce we have discovered a veryinteresting contentto be reviewed, namely (117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17) Most people searching for information about(117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17) and of course one of them is you, is not it?

117 Audi A17 Price, Trims, Options, Specs, Photos, Reviews … – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

117 Audi A17 Specs and Features | U.S. News & World Report – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

Find Audi A17 for sale on JamesEdition – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

The Hood Audi A7 Sportback 3 0 Tfsi Quattro S Line Us Spec 2010 14 US – illinois-liver – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

Audi A117 – used audi a117 xenon – Mitula Cars – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

2012 Audi A7 Reviews, Specs and Prices | Cars.com – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

2012 Audi A7 Reviews, Specs and Prices | Cars.com – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

Do You Know How Many People Show Up At Audi A26 26 | audi a26 26 – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

2012 Audi A7 Review, Ratings, Specs, Prices, and Photos … – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

117 Audi A17 Prestige Price – LapNews.com – cars, photos, specs, and … – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

2012 Audi A7 Sportback Price, Specifications, Review … – audi a7 specs 2012 | audi a7 specs 2012

The post 117 Mind Numbing Facts About Audi A117 Specs 117 | audi a17 specs 17 appeared first on Sports Cars.

from WordPress http://flyinghamster2.com/2017/01/17/117-mind-numbing-facts-about-audi-a117-specs-117-audi-a17-specs-17/

[gossipnetwork-blog]

'Brawl in Cell Block 99': Brutal, Batshit Prison Flick Brings the Pain

New Post has been published on http://gossip.network/brawl-in-cell-block-99-brutal-batshit-prison-flick-brings-the-pain/

'Brawl in Cell Block 99': Brutal, Batshit Prison Flick Brings the Pain

Say “Vince Vaughn,” and what’s the first image that comes up? His “you’re so money” suit-wearing Swingers alpha male? His heroic environmentalist-slash-shutterbug in the first Jurassic Park sequel? Maybe your go-to Vaughn is The Break-Up–era bloated version that graced tabloid covers and Jennifer Aniston’s beach pics, or the smarmy comic Casanova of Wedding Crashers? Forget those other Vinces. Whenever someone says the actor’s name, you’ll now see a glowering, menacing hulk of a man, one with a tattoo of a cross on the back of his shorn skull and balled fists held up in front of his battered face. The role he plays in this ultra-violent, nihilistic slab of a prison flick is enough to wipe the past-persona slate clean. If that misbegotten sophomore season of True Detective gave us anything, it was the notion that Vaughn’s mid-to-late-career move would be to edge toward darkness. He’s officially made good on that promise. Full-on into-the-abyss mode fits him well.

When you meet his working-class stiff Bradley Thomas, the man has just lost his towing job and discovered his spouse (Dexter‘s Jennifer Carpenter) has been seeing someone on the side. He does what any man would, i.e. physically dismantle her car piece by piece (the ex-boxer is inhumanly strong; take note of this fact), then vows to make things right again. Bloodied hands, busted marriage, they’re both recovering alcoholics – director S. Craig Zahler seems to be leading us into a kitchen-sink drama about lives of full volume desperation. Fast-forward 18 months, and Bradley is delivering drugs, he’s upgraded his living situation and his wife has a bun in the oven. An ill-conceived partnership leads to a pick-up going bad and a shoot-out with cops. Our man is staring down a seven-year bid for not giving up names. And you are drumming your fingers, wondering if this somewhat sluggish, so-so jailbird movie is ever really going to take off.

The answer is: Hell yes. After a full hour-plus of set-up, a mystery man shows up to visit Bradley in his new minimum-security home. Anyone with a casual acquaintance of oddball cinema and vintage Eurosploitation knows right off the bat that when that man is played by German actor Udo Kier, who can turn a blank-eyed stare into a shorthand for perversity and/or a punchline, things are about to get weird. The gent has a message: His employer is angry that the convict cost him that botched deal. Bradley has to find and kill another prisoner in penance, or else his kidnapped wife is going to suffer. There’s a catch, however. The target is in a different prison, one renowned for its no-tolerance, pro-torture policies. Which means he needs to get himself transferred to a waking nightmare by any means necessary. 

And like Zahler’s previous movie Bone Tomahawk (2015), which starts out as a standard-issue Western and then detours into some truly horrific territory, Brawl makes a hard left going into its last half and truly comes alive. Suddenly, our man in the jumpsuit is loudly breaking bones and literally busting skulls (the audio team here deserves a mantle full of awards for what we’ll call “wet impact” sound design) and headed to the catacombs dungeon that is Cell Block 99, what the warden (Don Johnson, actually twirling his mustache) describes as the “prison within the prison.” Each mano y mano encounter is filmed mostly in full-body shots with a minimum of edits but a maximum amount of cuts and contusions – the effect is like watching Fred Astaire’s dance scenes if the hoofer decided to wallop giant thugs with bare knuckles and barbells instead of waltz. 

Whether such things are your jam, of course, will determine how much you go with Zahler’s vision of a skinhead Virgil descending into hell. This is a thriller that’s nasty, brutish and anything but short – grindhouse devotees could add a half-star to the review for the way the film wears its sadism so blatantly on its blood-stained sleeve, or deduct a half-star for the fact that any such joint clocking in at 132 minutes is questionable. The story takes its sweet time so you to get to know and invest in its players, but you wouldn’t really call Brawl‘s broad narrative sketches “character development” any more than you’d call its digs at America’s haves and have-nots “class commentary.” This is a film that wants to shock you, smack you around and shake you up, and once its star starts bringing the pain, it succeeds with honors. It’s excessive, but that’s the point. The fact that this grungy gem is within spurting distance of being a modern exploitation-movie classic simply frustrates you that it isn’t one.

What makes Brawl in Cell Block 99 work so well isn’t the violence, however, but Vaughn. Sporting a physique that’s less beefcake and more like “beef + cake,” the actor sells the notion that Bradley is a person capable of stomping out someone’s brains on a concrete floor when push comes to shove. You’re surprised it’s taken someone this long to figure out that his bulky size and towering height could be deployed for such blunt-force trauma. The usual motor-mouthed patter you associate with him is gone, replaced by a dry, deadpan wit – asked if his muscles are for show, he replies “They help me lift stuff” – and the ain’t-I-a-stinker charisma that even characterized his more disturbing turns (see Clay Pigeons) is AWOL. If many male stars of a certain age are destined to become late-act action heroes, we hope this is Vaughn’s Taken, and his particular set of skills will continue to involve dishing out such graceless, effective hurt. And if this the first stop of an all-out Vaughnaissance, consider us on board for the ride.

Source link