#PROFESSOR becker

[babybluesays]

SCHOOL AU PROMPT CUS IM TIRED

The entire class: *crying*

Sec who just walked in: What is going on...

Blue: I'm gonna miss you guys so much

Sec: Did someone die or wot

Green: *ugly crying asf* I literally can't breathe, holy shi-

Sec: Green why are you crying, you ditch class like every day

Green: *sob* I know but it's like the last day of school

Sec: Okay? I would be crying too but tears of happiness

Purple crying in the corner:

Sec: Why is he crying? Who's gonna miss him? Everyone hated him in this class.

Red: *sobbing into the desk with his head down fr we love that*

Sec: Are we just gonna cry all day!?

Yellow crying too fr and getting his glasses fogged up:

Sec: Yellow we're gonna see each other over the summer, what the hell?

Purple: sob I hope y'all will still remember me 💔💔

Sec on the floor laughing: Are we moving to different planets???

Professor Becker: sobbing You guys are gonna make me cry

*Second slamming his fist against the floor asf cus like I'd be laughing too*

Professor Becker: Second go to the office! hOw bOuT tHaT?!

Second: NO I'M GOING HOME. HOW BOUT THAT?

[liverpool-enjoyer]

some a my faves from the new kit photoshoot <3

[penname-tbd]

hi sorry i'm on mobile and cannot copy/paste in volume :( HOWEVER!!

🌈☕️ for wren, doc prof, vale, ariel, AND danika ALL plz (eh heh heh)

💔🌨💙 for danika and ariel!!

(or if that's too overwhelming pick ur fave from the lineup!!)

Oh boy!! I'll do my best!! (From this ask game)

🌈 - Do you associate any colors with them?

Wren/Phantom: Dark blue, black, silver

Doctor Professor: The color of coffee with just a bit of milk in it

Axton Vale: Black and white

Ariel: Dark, rich colors like forest green

Danika: Sunset colors - pinks and oranges

☕ - What is their preferred beverage(s)?

Wren/Phantom: Something fizzy, probably Coca Cola.

Doctor Professor: Red wine tbh.

Axton Vale: Non-alcoholic? Black coffee. Alcoholic? Some kind of scotch that's way too expensive.

Ariel: Iced coffee!

Danika: Chocolate milk.

💔 - Does forgiveness come easily or with difficulty to this oc? Can they forgive others? What about themselves?

Danika: She definitely wants to see the best in people, so for that reason I think forgiveness comes pretty easily to her - and that includes for herself. She can be hard on herself sometimes, but she tries to put it in perspective and give herself some grace, too.

Ariel: For people he cares about? Sure, he can forgive pretty easily. He could probably hold a grudge against someone he's not close to, though, especially if they wronged him or someone he cares about. And himself? I think he has a bit of trouble forgiving himself without prompting from someone else.

🌨️ - If this oc had a day free from all their responsibilities, how would they spend it?

Danika: Playing video games!! Trying to beat all her high scores. Or, possibly also reading her favorite superhero comics.

Ariel: Marathons of his favorite scifi shows, while hanging out with his cat :3

💙 - Describe their bedroom! Is it personalized, unchanged? Messy, neat?

Danika: Very neat! Her comic collection is all lined up on her shelves, her bed is made, all her hero posters are pinned up at the corners so they won't fall down.

Ariel: Usually a bit messy. His baseball stuff is piled up in a corner, his homework is spread out all over his desk, his bed is kinda halfway made. At least the floor is clear.

Thanks for the ask!! <3

[craft2eu]

Ausschreibung Friedrich Becker Preis 2023: Bewerbung bis 10.02.2023

Ausschreibung Friedrich Becker Preis 2023: Bewerbung bis 10.02.2023

Professor Friedrich Becker (1922–1997) gehört zu den herausragenden Künstlerpersönlichkeiten unserer Zeit. Als international bekannter Goldschmied, als Gestalter kinetischer Objekte und Designer im Umkreis der Düsseldorfer Kunstszene wurde er prägend für die Goldschmiedekunst der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Für seine Werke erhielt er weltweit erste Preise und höchste Anerkennungen.…

[probablyasocialecologist]

In theory, in a meritocracy, hard work leads to elevated socioeconomic status and stability, and such status and stability is available to all talented hard workers. In recent years, much ink has been spilled over the realization that meritocrats aren’t much different from the aristocrats of the past. I, for instance, have always worked hard. I also have White, married, college-educated, financially stable parents. I have both inherited and achieved their same level of education, economic stability, and social standing. In a meritocracy, social advantages can look like the reward of hard work, even if they really are inherited. Books like William Deresiewicz’s Excellent Sheep (2014) and Daniel Markovits’s The Meritocracy Trap (2019) have identified both the ways in which the meritocracy excludes deserving workers and how its values fail to satisfy those within it. The philosopher and Harvard professor Michael Sandel’s recent contribution to the discussion, The Tyranny of Merit (2020), goes even further in its examination of the injustice of these values and the impossibility of perfecting a meritocratic system of reward. “The problem with meritocracy is not only that the practice falls short of the ideal,” Sandel writes, but that “it is doubtful that even a perfect meritocracy would be satisfying, either morally or politically.” These books argue that the system is functionally closed. It cuts off most (not quite all, keeping the myth of mobility alive) of the people who are not already within its demographic fold. Meritocrats are indeed talented hard workers, by and large. And yet what gets them – us – to the top is not hard work. It is birth. Wealth begets wealth. Power, power. Ballet class begets ballet class. Advanced Placement courses beget Advanced Placement courses and SAT prep sessions and summer enrichment and service opportunities.

[...]

A second problem is that the meritocrats aren’t happy. The relentless pursuit of achievement and advantage engenders anxiety, which often manifests itself in working harder. We keep working to maintain our status and to ensure our children have what they are supposed to have – piano lessons and tutoring and international travel – only to face despair. Suicide, substance abuse, clinical anxiety, and depression all occur at high levels among the meritocrats. These signals of deep dissatisfaction send a warning that this life of relentless hard work, entertainment, affluence, busyness, restlessness, and achievement does not accomplish much that matters. In Sandel’s view, meritocracies are bound to fail not because they can never live up to their own ideals, but because they rest upon a foundational assumption that GDP defines the common good, that economic productiveness is the highest value for society. Sandel traces the history of meritocratic ideals through Protestantism and western philosophical traditions. In his lengthy discussion of Friedrich Hayek’s capitalist philosophy, he comes to a concise conclusion: “[Hayek] does not consider the possibility that the value of a person’s contribution to society could be something other than his or her market value.” Reducing humans to their earning potential is dehumanizing, and it fails to consider non-monetary contributions that individuals make within their families and communities.

[bridgewaterpodcast]

Bridgewater is a fiction podcast by Aaron Mahnke and Lauren Shippen about a folklore professor in the incredibly haunted Bridgewater Triangle. When new evidence arises in the mystery of his missing father, Jeremy Bradshaw, along with his father’s former partner Anne Becker, must chase the clues that will tell him whether his father really did fall victim to a Satanic cult in the Bridgewater Triangle—or something much more dark and unexplainable.

Starring Misha Collins, Melissa Ponzio, Karan Soni, and Tricia Helfer. It has two seasons as well as another Grim & Mild podcast that takes place in the same universe, Consumed. Here are some links to get you started in your exploration of the Bridgewater Triangle:

Official website

Listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

Fanart from our incredible listeners

Episodes

Fan-made transcripts

Ask writer Lauren questions

Lauren's Bridgewater tag

Happy listening! Don't believe everything you hear out in the woods...

[bianc0re]

In all my years of being an artist, I've never had the courage to ask someone this. However, I'm having an ✨existential crisis✨ and figured "eeehhh why the f not". Anyway, I adore the way you draw anatomy. Any tips / tutorials / favourite references or books/ etc?

Welcome to the ✨existential crisis✨ club,i’m still currently learning anatomy in school and one of my professor gave me this useful advice to make a habit of sitting down and sketching at least 15 minutes daily from photographs on either one of these websites (it’s timed)

http://reference.sketchdaily.net/

https://quickposes.com/en

or even from ones you find on Pinterest, just keep them simple at first and try to not spend too much time on each pose.

If you find it too hard at first focus on parts of the body (ex. hands) then once in a while try to draw from imagination.

I also still always use references and when i don’t it shows 💀 so if i can’t find any good ones for a pose i have in mind i either take a picture of myself or make it in Magic Poser, an app to pose models in any way you want. I even bought the full version so you know it’s that useful.

As for tutorials i used to religiously watch on youtube Sinix Design and Ethan Becker, as for books i liked Point Character Drawing by Taco and art books of styles i like.

just keep drawing and if you can get some critic from someone skilled to point you in the right direction, i used to get it from art discord servers as there’s some channels just for that.

as i said before i still don’t think i’m at a level to give actual good advice so try what’s good for you, good luck! don’t be afraid to ask stuff, it’s what the internet is for

goofy example:

[ghostflowerdreams]

Audio Drama Recommendations, Pt. II

For part one, click here. I went on another audio drama binge and I found some that were pretty fun to listen to. I usually tend to go after the ones that are completed because the longer the wait, the more likely I will forget the details, but this time I just went for anything that caught my attention. This also isn’t in any particular order.

The Magnus Archives – is a horror fiction anthology podcast written by Jonathan Sims, directed by Alexander J. Newall, and distributed by Rusty Quill.

The new Head Archivist of the Magnus Institute, Jonathan Sims, attempts to bring a seemingly neglected collection of people’s testimonials of their encounters with the supernatural up to date, converting them to audio and supplementing them with follow-up work from his small but dedicated team. [COMPLETED]

It has five seasons, each 40 episodes long, as well as additional content such as Q&As, non-canon fan-submitted statements and one-off episodes that tie in with Rusty Quill's other podcasts.

It does start out slow and maybe at some point you’ll be wondering where is this going and what does some of these episodes have to do with the overall story, but it does all eventually connect. Your patience will pay off because once the build-up is done it picks up and things get really interesting!

Unwell – is a horror podcast starring Clarisa Cherie Rios and produced by Hartlife NFP.

The story follows Lillian Harper who has returned home to Mt. Absalom, Ohio to care for her estranged mother Dorothy after an injury. Living in the town's boarding house which has been run by her family for generations, she discovers conspiracies, ghosts, and a new family in the house's strange assortment of residents. [ONGOING]

This audio drama has five seasons which runs for 12 episodes. It currently has 54 episodes in total and each one is about 20-30 minutes long. New episodes are released fortnightly (biweekly) on Wednesdays. They take a mid-season break between episodes 6 and 7.

Bridgewater – is a supernatural thriller audio drama produced by Grim & Mild and by iHeartRadio, created by Aaron Mahnke and written/directed by Lauren Shippen.

Folklore professor Jeremy Bradshaw is pulled into the mysterious 1980 disappearance of his police officer father, Thomas, by new evidence that threatens to upend decades of certainty. Along the way, he’s helped by some unlikely partners who challenge everything he believes in, and ultimately tries to answer the question: can the past actually be rewritten?

Together with his father’s former partner, retired Detective Anne Becker, Jeremy must chase the clues that will tell him whether his father really did fall victim to a Satanic cult in the Bridgewater Triangle—or something much more dark and unexplainable. [ONGOING]

It has two seasons, the first consist of 10 episodes and the second has 12 episodes. Each one runs about 20-30 minutes long. Season three was put on hold when there was news of a possible television series. However, that fell through and by then everyone was working on other projects. So a season three, well, that’s pretty much up in the air.

It stars Misha Collins (Supernatural), Melissa Ponzio (Teen Wolf), Nathan Fillion (Firefly, The Rookie), Karan Soni (Deadpool), Kristin Bauer (True Blood), Hilarie Burton Morgan (The Walking Dead, One Tree Hill), Wil Wheaton (Star Trek: The Next Generation), Jonathan Joss (The Magnificent Seven, Parks and Rec) and Lori Alan (Spongebob Squarepants, Family Guy).

The Lovecraft Investigations -- is a mystery thriller/horror fiction podcast written and directed by Julian Simpson, based on several works of H.P. Lovecraft. It’s produced by Sweet Talk Productions for BBC Radio 4. It concluded with three seasons and each episode is about 25-30 minutes long. There might be a fourth season in the works, but even if there isn’t the series is considered to be finished.

The first season starts off with an investigation into the disappearance of a young man, Charles Dexter Ward from a locked room in an asylum. [COMPLETED]

It stars Barnaby Kay (Shakespeare in Love), Jana Carpenter (Doctor Who), Nicola Walker (MI-5, Unforgotten), Mark Bazeley (The Queen, The Bourne Ultimatum), Phoebe Fox (Eye in the Sky, The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death), Steven Mackintosh (Rang De Basanti, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels), Samuel Barnett (Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, Penny Dreadful), Alun Armstrong (Sleepy Hollow, The Mummy Returns), Adam Godley (The Great, The Umbrella Academy), and so on.

Midnight Burger – is a monthly sci-fi audio drama about a diner at the end – and somehow the beginning – of the universe.

When Gloria took a waitressing job at Midnight Burger outside of Phoenix, she didn’t realize she was now an employee of a time-traveling, dimension-spanning diner. Every day Midnight Burger appears somewhere new in the cosmos along with its staff: a galactic drifter, a rogue theoretical physicist, a sentient old-timey radio, and some guy named Caspar.

No one knows who built Midnight Burger or how it works, but when it appears there's always someone around who could really use a cup of coffee. Come by any time, we open at six. [ONGOING]

The audio drama currently has three seasons and each episodes averages about 30 minutes to an hour or so.

Rex Rivetter: Private Eye – is a 1950s-style noir detective audio drama written by Greg McAfee, directed by Rhiannon McAfee, and produced in San Diego, CA by Downstairs Entertainment with editing and sound design by Steve Murdock. The Rex Rivetter theme “Nightmare” by the Artie Shaw Orchestra is used with permission of Music Sales Corp.

The year is 1955. Tinsel town. The land of make-believe. It's a time of growth in American prosperity. Especially in Los Angeles. Here, dreams are bought and sold.

But there's a seedier side to the City of Angels, the shadows where pimps and narcotics pushers live, where organized crime stands just around every corner with one hand out, and the other wrapped around a roscoe. It's a city full of fancy dames and slick cons, where bookies know the vig, so you better, too.

Some folks call it noir or pulp fiction. But for a private eye named Rex Rivetter, it's home. [ONGOING]

It has four seasons and each one runs about 20-30 minutes long. Due to the pandemic, it is still unknown if season five will ever come out and so far there hasn’t been any news about it either.

Mansfield Mysteries – is a satirical, cozy murder whodunit written by Amy Henson, directed by Nicholas Hoyt and produced by The QuaranTeam.

It follows the inquisitive, martini-loving socialite Dorinda Mansfield and is set in quiet, affluent Berkshire Bay. So far it only has one season, which contains nine hilarious episodes, each three-chapter story finds Dorinda wrapped up in a new murder. With the help of her devoted daughter, Stacey—as well as the occasional frenemy—Dorinda digs for clues, navigates Berkshire Bay’s elite social circles, and sifts through years’ worth of grudges and motives. In this company town, no one can be trusted, and everyone has something to hide.

Whether at the Labor Day Extravaganza, the Halloween Tennis Club Open, or secret karaoke night, Dorinda sets out to find the real killer before they get away with murder… Just as soon as she orders her martini! [COMPLETED]

If you’re looking for a bite-sized audio drama, this might be for you. It has three seasons (or chapters) and each one only takes three episodes to complete its tales, which is fun, amusing and will keep you entertained while you’re working on something or resting your eyes.

The Call of the Void – is an indie science fiction mystery audio drama created and written by Josie Eli Herman and Michael Alan Herman. It’s produced by Acorn Arts & Entertainment. It contains three seasons of 28 episodes and each one is about 25-30 minutes long with a cast of about 35 actors.

In the bustling streets of New Orleans, a tour guide and a palm-reading outcast team up to unravel the mystery behind cases of sudden insanity besetting the city. [COMPLETED]

Wolf 359 – is a science fiction audio drama created by Gabriel Urbina and produced by Gabriel Urbina and Zach Valenti under Kinda Evil Genius Productions. It consists of four seasons with 61 episodes in total and each one is about 25-40 minutes long.

It is set on board the U.S.S. Hephaestus space station orbiting the star Wolf 359 on a deep space survey mission. The dysfunctional crew deals with daily life-or-death emergencies, while searching for signs of alien life and discovering there might be more to their mission than they thought. [COMPLETED]

[sepublic]

So the ending of The Puffle Kerfuffle goes with the running gag of Hailey and Scott having lookalikes all over town to foreshadow via parallels that, hey! They'll get together, right? But what if... What if we're being tricked with an option so obvious, we miss the other one right under our nose? What if Thatcher isn't meant to be a parallel to Scott... But rather his sister, Becker?!

Becker, Thatcher. Their names are more alike than Thatcher and Scott... Just as Hailey and Bailey are so similar! Not only that, but in Catching Felines, where Becker’s romantic connection to Hailey is teased, Hailey is mistakenly referred to as Bailey at one point! Just like the Bailey who married Thatcher… And if you combine Becker and Hailey’s names, Bailey is a potential outcome!

The similarities between Scott and Thatcher also technically apply to Becker, too; Growing up next door to Hailey, and Hailey unwittingly confessing her 'crush' to Becker, inspring Becker's to kiss Hailey in return! Becker and Thatcher have the same punk vibes and nearly identical spiked bracelets, have built birdhouses in the yard with their -ailey… And while Becker doesn't resemble Thatcher as much as Scott does, she's still his sister, and this may change when she gets older.

This possibility goes with the theory that the Professor is Hailey’s child from the future… There is a resemblance to Scott, but potentially an older Becker as well. And the Professor and Becker both share that hardcore “take charge” attitude and punk vibe. They’ve got the badassery to casually destroy things, being flippantly tough and sassy, AKA traits Hailey and Scott wouldn’t contribute to a hypothetical kid. Now Hailey and Becker are both girls, but this is the future so the Professor could be a test tube baby made from DNA samples.

Hailey and Becker both have a penchant for engineering and technological genius… And this last bit is a stretch, but the lighthouse made by Hailey’s ancestor, that features in various shots and promo materials? It’s Becker who inadvertently fixes it’s too-bright spotlight, contributing to Hailey being able to save her family heirloom; And in Becker’s debut, she’s responsible for manning the spotlight, which she makes too bright at Kristine’s request!

(Note Becker’s graffiti…)

Catching Felines even clarifies for us that Hailey and Becker are only a year apart in age... So there's more chance to it than just a precocious crush by a kid much younger! And we know from Along for the Slide’s synopsis (an episode coming out this week) that Becker has a rival named Kennedy… In other words, the Kiley to her Thatcher? Someone else she could be friends with, but not too close to?

[blackacre13]

can you please continue the teacher/student au?

Part 39 is here: Part FORTY below!

“Well,” a deep voice laughed on the line. “It’s not a date night so this isn’t about the best spot for a whiskey and you refuse to take my advice on women so what do I owe the pleasure?”

Lou raised an eyebrow, but she was grinning. The brunette swatted her, but Lou had already caught sight of her blushing cheeks.

“Danny,” she hissed, through gritted teeth. “I need your help.”

“So you’ve called the superior Ocean. I’m afraid I’ll need to hear you—“

“Cut the shit,” Debbie sighed, looking at Lou with eyes full of worry. “I need your help. I need my big brother.”

“I can be at your place in twenty.”

“I fucked up,” Debbie whispered, falling against the blonde as Lou cradled her, combing through her hair. “He can ruin my life, but I won’t let him ruin hers.”

Siblings were fascinating to Lou. Especially when you could observe them at once. And entertaining, when you only knew one of them and had to take that one’s word when they described the one who you didn’t know.

The only things that Lou knew about Danny Ocean included the fact that he was attached to the hip to someone she thought Debbie had called Rusty? But that couldn’t be correct for a grown ass man. She also knew that Debbie’s initial date with her, that allegedly hadn’t truly been a date at all, but a TA welcome dinner, and the drink recommendation had also come from the older sibling. And now as Debbie opened the front door to let him in, the older Ocean immediately scooping her into a bear hug, him shooting a wink over his sister’s head at Lou, she could see his hair and eyes matched Debbie’s.

She expected Debbie to push him off with an eye-roll and a mention of getting back to business, but she clung to her brother, savoring the embrace for a long time until he spoke over her head.

“She’s not usually much of a higher,” he smirked, but he kissed her forehead before he let her go, just in time for Debbie to smack his shoulder and call him an oaf. “So this is the famous Ms. Miller. Sorry Debs has you under her spell, kid.”

Lou wasn’t sure how to respond, but Debbie was closing the door and rushing to her side immediately as if she had to defend the blonde’s honor, her hand sliding into Lou’s.

“You can cut the big brother teasing shit. This is bad,” Debbie sighed. “And whatever cradle robbing, does she call you professor in bed shit you’re planning on spewing, you can just skip. I meant it. This is big. And Lou—Lou is—“

“I know, Strawdebby,” Danny smiled, ruffling her hair before he took a seat in Debbie’s arm chair, carefully moving the stack of graded papers that currently sat there in a heap and placing them on the coffee table.

Lou tucked the nickname away for later.

“And it really is a pleasure to meet you, Lou. Sorry you got dragged into all this Becker shit when you should be partying and having fun every night. Best years of your life, right?” Danny grinned.

Debbie was pulling Lou towards the couch, sorry evident on her face.

“You think Dr. Ocean lets her TA have fun every night?” Lou grinned. She immediately regretted calling her Dr. Ocean. It was just habit when it came to separating their professional and personal relationship. But Debbie had already hinted at the name/power dynamic jokes and she didn’t want Debbie to think she was giving Danny permission to crack jokes at either of their expenses.

Regardless, he didn’t take the bait. He knew the stakes were too high.

“Tell everything,” he said instead, his face sincere. Lou and Debbie went over their history over the past few months. From Lou’s first class to her interview to her welcome dinner and beyond. Thankfully, leaving out any details that a big brother would find unsavory and would absolutely make Lou turn purple.

Debbie was practically shaking by the time they were done, and wordlessly, Lou swept her closer, letting her rest her head on Lou’s shoulder as Lou traced circles with her finger on the brunette’s slacks.

“You love her,” Danny spoke softly. It wasn’t a tease. In fact, it looked like awe and pride.

“No shit, Sherlock,” Debbie rolled her eyes. But her guard was down. Especially with Lou cradling her for support.

“Hold onto this one, Deb,” Danny smiled, his eyes traveling over to Lou. She supposed he wasn’t used to seeing Debbie this vulnerable or soft. “She’s good for you.”

“That’s the plan, Danny,” she sighed. “That’s why I need you. All the Claude bullshit. I don’t give a fuck about tenure or career or my courseload—“

“Debs,” Lou protested softly, but she waved the thought away.

“This is about her. Protecting her future,” Debbie whispered. “I love her.”

“I love you,” Debbie spoke turning to the blonde. “I hope you know I do. But as much as I love you and I love us, nothing is worth jeopardizing your future.”

Lou wanted to say that Debbie was her future. Because she was. But she also knew that both of them wanted her to keep pursuing her dreams. She knew Debbie wanted the world for her.

“Don’t even get me started about this Becker prick,” Danny grumbled. “I knew he was trouble from the start.”

“Well, what’s done is done,” Debbie hissed. “I hate that he’s a part of my history and that there’s only so much I can control in the present. But I’ll be damned if he destroys Lou’s future.”

[tamelee]

Big fan of your arts!!!! 🤩 i wondered if you have a favorite youtube channels or which are watching most? I’m bored so they dont have to be art related 😊

Thankyou so much!! 💕 And ooh~ what I watch changes all the time, but a few that I've been binging lately;

MrBallen - strange dark and mysterious story time video's. This man is an AMAZING storyteller! (Careful if you already feel down, topics can be pretty graphic/heavy)

Luxeria - fun reality tv, beauty, makeup commentary + science

Cinema Therapy - movie analyses focussed on mental health

Dylan is in trouble - funny movie commentaries

3D Sound studio - the best 3D audio, even in story format!

Abbie Emmons - all about writing

8-BitRyan - Gameplays

Marion's Kitchen - recipe's to die for, m' not kidding

StudioBinder - video production and education

RoomieOfficial - Music (analyses)

Mohammed Agbadi - Art (community) commentary

Ethan Becker - good, brutally honest art advice

Whyt Manga - tips for manga

Blowout Professor - all about hair

Rijk Hofman - dutch YouTuber, mostly reality tv commentary/mockery

Cody Ko - awkward dating show commentary

ZZAVID - funny movie commentary

ur internet mom ash - funny movie commentary

Ryan Trahan - a guy trying out new stuff in a funny way

Zac Alsop - another guy trying out new stuff in a funny way

Max Fosh - and yet another guy trying out new stuff in a funny way

Mia Maples - fashion and lifestyle (her mom is adorable I can't)

And definitely some more but these should at least help you fight boredom 😆 (Oh! if anyone has recs for me, I'd love to know!)

[theculturedmarxist]

As with the South African case, according to court procedure the Israeli case was introduced on Friday by their “agent”, permanently accredited to the court, Tal Becker of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He opened with the standard formula “it is an honour to appear before you again on behalf of the state of Israel”, managing to imply purely through phrasing and tone of voice that the honour lay in representing Israel, not in appearing before the judges.

Becker opened by going straight to the Holocaust, saying that nobody knew more than Israel why the Genocide Convention existed. Six million Jewish people had been killed. The Convention was not to be used to cover the normal brutality of war.

The South African case aimed at the delegitimisation of the state of Israel, he said. On Oct. 7 Hamas had committed massacre, mutilation, rape and abduction. 1,200 had been killed and 5,500 maimed. He related several hideous individual atrocity stories and played a recording he stated to be a Hamas fighter boasting on WhatsApp to his parents about committing mass murder, rape and mutilation.

The only genocide in this case was being committed against Israel. Hamas continued to attack Israel, and for the court to take provisional measures would be to deny Israel the right to self-defence.

Provisional measures should rather be taken against South Africa and its attempt by legal means to further genocide by its relationship with Hamas. Gaza was not under occupation: Israel had left it with great potential to be a political and economic success. Instead Hamas had chosen to make it a terrorist base.

Hamas was embedded in the civilian population and therefore responsible for the civilian deaths. Hamas had tunnels under schools, hospitals, mosques and U.N. facilities and tunnel entrances within them. It commandeered medical vehicles for military use.

South Africa had talked of civilian buildings destroyed, but did not tell you they had been destroyed by Hamas booby traps and Hamas missile misfires.

The casualty figures South Africa gave were from Hamas sources and not reliable. They did not say how many were fighters? How many of the children were child soldiers? The application by South Africa was ill-founded and ill-motivated. It was a libel.

This certainly was a hardline and uncompromising start. The judges appeared to be paying very close attention when he opened with the Oct. 7 self-defence argument, but very definitely some of them started to fidget and become uncomfortable when he talked of Hamas operating from ambulances and U.N. facilities. In short, he went too far and I believe he lost his audience at that point.

Next up was Professor Malcolm Shaw KC. Shaw is regarded as an authority on the procedure of international law and is editor of the standard tome on the subject. This is an interesting facet of the legal profession, where standard reference books on particular topics are regularly updated to include key extracts from recent judges, and passages added or amended to explain the impact of these judgments. Being an editor in this field provides a route to prominence for the plodding and pedantic.

I had come across Shaw in his capacity as a co-founder of the Centre for Human Rights at Essex University. I had given a couple of talks there some twenty years ago on the attacks on human rights of the “War on Terror” and my own whistleblower experience over torture and extraordinary rendition. For an alleged human rights expert, Shaw seemed extraordinarily prone to support the national security interests of the state over individual liberty.

I do not pretend I gave it a great deal of thought. I did not know at that time of Shaw’s commitment as an extreme Zionist and in particular his long term interest in suppressing the rights of the Palestinian people.

After 139 states have recognised Palestine as a state, Shaw led for Israel the legal opposition to Palestine’s membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. Shaw’s rather uninspired reliance on the Montevideo Convention of 1933 is hardly a legal tour de force, and it didn’t work.

Every criminal deserves a defence, and nobody should hold it against a barrister that they defend a murderer or rapist, as it is important that guilt or innocence is tested by a court. But I think it is fair to state that defence lawyers do not in general defend those accused of murder because they agree with murder and want a murderer to go on murdering.

That however is the case here: Malcolm Shaw speaks for Israel because he actually wants Israel to be able to continue killing Palestinian women and children to improve the security of Israel, in his view.

That is the difference between this and other cases, including at the ICJ. Generally the lead lawyers would happily swap sides, if the other side had hired them first. But this is entirely different.

Here the lawyers (with the possible exception of Christopher Straker KC, an other attorney who represented Israel on Friday) believe profoundly in the case they are supporting and would never appear for the other side. That is just one more way that this is such an extraordinary case, with so much drama and such vital consequences, not least for the future of international law.

For the reason I have just explained, Shaw’s role here is not that of a simple barrister plying his trade. His attempt to extend the killing should see him viewed as a pariah by decent people everywhere, for the rest of his doubtless highly-paid existence.

Shaw opened up by saying that the South African case continually spoke of context. They talked of the 75 years of the existence of the state of Israel. Why stop there? Why not go back to the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate over Palestine?

No, the context of these events was the massacre of Oct. 7, and Israel’s subsequent right of self-defence. He produced and read a long quote from mid-October by European Commission President Ursula von Der Leyen, stating that Israel had suffered a terrorist atrocity and had the right of self-defence.

The truth is that this is not genocide but armed conflict, which state has existed since Oct. 7, he said. That was brutal, and urban warfare always involved terrible civilian casualties, but it was not genocide.

He then turned to the question of genocide. He argued that South Africa could not bring this case and the ICJ had no jurisdiction, because there was no dispute between Israel and South Africa on which the ICJ could rule, at the time the case was filed.

South Africa had communicated its views to Israel, but Israel had given no substantial reply. Therefore a dispute did not yet exist at time of filing. A dispute must involve interaction between parties and the argument had been on one side only.

This very much interested the judges. As I noted on day one, this got them more active than anything else when Professor John Dugard addressed the same point for South Africa. As I reported:

“The judges particularly enjoyed Dugard’s points, enthusiastically rustling through documents and underlining things. Dealing with thousands of dead children was a bit difficult for them, but give them a nice jurisdictional point and they were in their element.”

They were even more excited when Shaw tackled the same point. This gave them a way out! The case could be technically invalid, and then they would neither have to upset the major Western powers nor make fools of themselves by pretending that a genocide the whole world had seen was not happening. For a while, they looked visibly relieved.

Shaw should have given up while he was ahead, but he ploughed on for an hour, with some relief when he continually muddled his notes. A senior KC with zero ability to extemporise and recover was an interesting sight, as he kept stopping and shuffling paper.

Shaw argued that the bar for judging whether South Africa had a prima facie case must be significantly higher because of the high military and political cost to Israel if the court adopted provisional measures.

It was also necessary to show genocidal intent even at this stage. Otherwise the genocide was a “car without an engine”. If any illegal actions had taken place within Israel’s carefully targeted military action, Israel’s own military courts would investigate and act on them.

Random Israeli ministers and officials making emotional statements was not important. Official policy to protect civilians would be found in the minutes of the Israeli war cabinet and national security council. Israel’s strenuous attempts to move civilians out of harm’s way was an accepted measure in international human law and should not be viewed as mass displacement.

It was South Africa which was guilty of complicity in genocide in cooperation with Hamas. South Africa’s allegations against Israel “verge on the outrageous”.

Israel’s next lawyer was a lady called Galit Raguan from the Israeli Ministry of Justice. She said the reality on the ground was that Israel had done everything possible to minimise civilian deaths and to aid humanitarian relief. Urban warfare always resulted in civilian deaths. It was Hamas who were responsible for destruction of buildings and infrastructure.

There was overwhelming evidence of Hamas’ military use of hospitals. In every single hospital in Gaza the IDF had evidence of military use by Hamas. Mass evacuation of civilians was a humanitarian and legal measure. Israel had supplied food, water and medicine into Gaza but supplies had come under Hamas fire. Hamas steals the aid for its fighters.

Next up was lawyer Omri Sender. He stated that more food trucks per day now entered Gaza than before Oct. 7. The number had increased from 70 food trucks to 109 food trucks per day. Fuel, gas and electricity were all being supplied and Israel had repaired the sewage systems.

At this stage Israel had again lost the judges. One or two were looking at this man in a highly quizzical manner. A couple had definitely fallen asleep – there are only so many lies you can absorb, I suppose. Nobody was making notes about this guff.

The judges may find a way not to condemn Israel, but could not be expected to go along with this extraordinary nonsense. Sender continued that the scope and intensity of the fighting was now decreasing as the operation entered a new phase.

Perhaps noting that nobody believed him, Sender stated that the court could not institute provisional measures but rather was obliged to accept the word of Israel on its good intentions because of the Law of the Unilateral Declarations of States.

Now I have to confess that was a bit of international law I did not know existed. But it does, specifically in relation to ICJ proceedings. On first reading, it makes a unilateral declaration of intent to the ICJ binding on the state that makes it.

I cannot see that it forces the ICJ to accept it as sufficient or to believe in its sincerity. It seems rather a reach, and I wondered if Israel was running out of things to say.

That appeared to be true, because the next speaker, Christopher Straker, now took the floor and just ran through all the same Hamas stuff yet again, only with added theatrical indignation. Straker is the lawyer I suspect would happily have appeared for either side, because he was plainly just acting anyway. And not very well.

Straker said that it was astounding this case could be brought. It was intended to stop Israel from defending itself while Israel would still be subject to Hamas attacks. Hamas has said it will continue attacks.

If you look at the operation as a whole including relief efforts, it was plain there was no genocidal intent. Israel was in incredible danger. The proposed provisional measures were out of proportion to their effect.

Can you imagine if in the Second World War, a court had ordered the Allies to stop fighting because of civilian deaths, and allowed the Axis powers to keep on killing?

The final speaker was Gilad Noam, Israel’s deputy attorney-general. He said that the bulk of the proposed provisional measures should be refused because they exposed Israel to further Hamas attack. Three more should be refused because they referred to Palestine outside Gaza.

There was no genocidal intent in Israel. Ministerial and official statements made in the heat of the moment were rather examples of the tradition of democracy and freedom of speech. Prosecutions for incitement to genocide were under consideration.

The court must not conflate genocide and self-defence. The South African case devalues genocide and encourages terrorism. The Holocaust illustrated why Israel was always under existential threat. It was Hamas who were committing genocide.

And that was it. Israel had in the end not been allowed to show its contentious atrocity video, and it felt like their presentation had become repetitive and was padded to fill the time.

It is important to realise this. Israel is hoping to win on their procedural points about existence of dispute, unilateral assurances and jurisdiction. The obvious nonsense they spoke about the damage to homes and infrastructure being caused by Hamas, trucks entering Gaza and casualty figures, was not serious. They did not expect the judges to believe any of this. The procedural points were for the court. The rest was mass propaganda for the media.

In the U.K., the BBC and Sky both ran almost all the Israeli case live, having not run any of the South African case live. I believe something similar was true in the USA, Australia and Germany too.

While the court was in session, Germany has announced it will intervene in the substantial case to support Israel. They argue explicitly that, as the world’s greatest perpetrator of genocide, they are uniquely placed to judge. It is in effect a copyright claim. They are protecting Germany’s intellectual property in the art of genocide. Perhaps they might in future license genocide, or allow Israel to continue genocide on a franchise basis.

I am sure the judges want to get out of this and they may go for the procedural points. But there is a real problem with Israel’s “no dispute” argument. If accepted, it would mean that a country committing genocide can simply not reply to a challenge, and then legal action will not be possible because no reply means “no dispute”. I hope that absurdity is obvious to the judges. But they may of course wish not to notice it…

What do I think will happen? Some sort of “compromise”. The judges will issue provisional measures different to South Africa’s request, asking Israel to continue to take measures to protect the civilian population, or some such guff. Doubtless the State Department have drafted something like this for the president of the court, the American Joan Donoghue already.

I hope I am wrong. I would hate to give up on international law. One thing I do know for certain. These two days in The Hague were absolutely crucial for deciding if there is any meaning left in notions of international law and human rights.

I still believe action by the court could cause the U.S. and U.K. to back off and provide some measure of relief. For now, let us all pray or wish, each in our way, for the children of Gaza.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

[beardedmrbean]

The Left: "I'm pro choice. It's her body her choice. No uterus no opinion.

Also the Left: "Justin Timberlake forcing Britney Spears to have an abortion was actually a good thing, because it shows us how wonderful abortion is because it can benefit men and help them stop their girlfriends from ruining his career with her pregnancy. Remember this fellas next time you vote."

(please do not attempt to read an opinion on the subject of abortion in my response here, it's not something I discuss publicly on here, because I don't want to be accused of pissing on the poor)

Wait what?

In excerpts of her upcoming memoir, shared by People, Britney Spears wrote that she became pregnant with Justin Timberlake’s baby and had an abortion because he wasn’t ready to become a father. 

“Justin definitely wasn’t happy about the pregnancy. He said we weren’t ready to have a baby in our lives, that we were way too young,” Spears writes in her book, according to People. "If it had been left up to me alone, I never would have done it. And yet Justin was so sure that he didn’t want to be a father."

“To this day,” Spears continues, “it’s one of the most agonizing things I have ever experienced in my life."

Spears’ statements underscore the benefits that male partners receive from having access to abortion care ��� an often overlooked aspect of reproductive health in light of Roe v. Wade’s downfall last year that, if ignored in society and politics alike, perpetuates the idea that abortion is solely a women’s issue.

“Abortion is a highly stigmatized form of healthcare, and women almost always bear the brunt of the stigma and shame around abortion,” said Bethany Everett, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Utah. “Yet, there are likely many people, including male partners, who don’t want to become parents or have another child, who also benefit from abortion access — benefits that are rarely recognized by the broader public or policy makers.”

Everett, who studies the social and political implications of reproductive health, said Spears' claim that Timberlake did not want to become a parent suggests he was aware that a child could “derail his career,” a reality that “men rarely publicly acknowledge” but is critical to recognize in a post-Roe world. 

......

Spears’ statements underscore the benefits that male partners receive from having access to abortion care — an often overlooked aspect of reproductive health in light of Roe v. Wade’s downfall last year that, if ignored in society and politics alike, perpetuates the idea that abortion is solely a women’s issue.

No uterus no opinion,

I suppose the rules change depending on if the guy is for or against the abortion because why wouldn't they.

...................

Andréa Becker, a medical sociologist and postdoctoral research fellow with the University of California San Francisco’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program, said this example is “consistent with the literature,” in that “men don’t necessarily have to come forward and tell their abortion stories if they don’t want to, even though it would benefit them immensely.”

This pattern is due in part to a lack of research analyzing how access to abortion impacts male partners, a shortfall that Becker said “reinforces the way we talk about birth control, condom use and pregnancy avoidance as a woman’s responsibility and issue.”

**I usually see two to tango from the pro life side and man needs to control himself from the pro choice side so not sure where they get this from, they must know different people I guess**

“We just forget about the sperm involved in creating a pregnancy,” Becker said. 

As a result, stigmas associated with abortion disproportionately impact women.

“Men are rarely acknowledged as beneficiaries from abortion access so it is much easier for them to avoid the stigma and shame around abortion if they don’t think it’s something that impacts them personally,” Everett said. 

“When men don’t speak up, the burden of having to make decisions about unplanned pregnancies and access to abortion falls exclusively on women — and that’s an equity issue,” said Dr. Brian Nguyen, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine. Nguyen runs a research group called the EMERGE Lab that conducts studies aimed at ensuring men recognize their responsibility in women’s reproductive health and gender equity.

While questions still abound about what role male partners should have in the abortion landscape, it’s important to recognize the general lack of knowledge about abortion in the U.S., particularly among some men, Becker said. Consequently, research shows many policy decisions now in place threaten the lives of women and girls who would benefit from abortion care, especially for people of color, migrants, people with disabilities, and those living on low incomes or in rural areas.

"Men do have a place in advocating for reproductive rights,” Everett said. “They can donate to abortion funds and reproductive health care organizations, and, importantly, with the consent of their partners, acknowledge how abortion access has benefited them.”

There it is, which strangely doesn't cover JT pressuring Brittney into having an abortion at all,

I hate double standards, unless they benefit me......(joke)

Make up your mind people, do men have a say or not?

[edenxoconnell]

closed starter: @robbie-becker

where: aurora bay college library's study room

It was embarrassing enough that Eden was struggling in her Spanish class last semester, but it was even worse that she ended up failing it. Eden was a diligent student and she'd never failed a class her entire high school or college career, so to learn she'd failed the entire thing was a huge blow to her confidence. She took a lot of pride and found a lot of her worth in how well she did in school. Truthfully, the main reason Eden had done so poorly last semester was because she spent the first few months of her spring semester worried about her brother, but even knowing how awful of a headspace she was in after finding Arkin when he overdosed, she didn't allow herself any grace for how she was doing in school.

So to ensure she didn't fuck up again, she requested a tutor. When her professor told her it would be Robbie, she nearly backed out entirely, but she knew she needed this. Eden sucked it up and told him to meet her in a study room in the library and hoped he'd show up. Eden sat at the table with her textbooks open, hoping to go ahead and begin studying but she couldn't stop feeling anxious about seeing him again, which would be the first time since they hooked up a few months prior. That in itself was something that occupied Eden's mind more than it should have. She missed him and there was a part of her that still believed he was better off without her in his life, but there was another that wanted him back in it.

Eden heard the door to the study room open and she looked up to see him there, her breath catching in her throat as she quickly moved to stand. "H- hi. um.. thanks for coming."

[cafesascha]

Oh What a Web We Weave

tyler hoechlin, hay, male, he/they, fighter (rogue) «—◦—→ well met, sascha becker! the godling born child of despoina. it’s been 37 years and now they have answered the song in their veins. can he change the course of history with their adaptability, generosity, focus? or will their jealousy, impulsiveness, impatience hinder them? only time will tell before this godling’s name is sung into myth and legend!

name: Sascha Becker

nicknames: Sasch, Beck, Becks

date of birth: October 31st, 1986

age: 37

face claim: Tyler Hoechlin

godly parent: Despoina

height: 6’3”

dominant hand: Lefty

education level: Masters of Business Management

occupation: Runs his family’s coffee shop and has an indie true crime podcast on the side

parents: Tony Becker ( father ), Despoina ( mother ), Susan Becker ( step mother )

siblings: James Becker ( little brother ), Amelia Becker ( little sister ),  too many foster siblings to count.

pets: Puck and Titania ( pet cats)

astrological sign: Scorpio sun / Libra moon / Leo rising. 

positive traits: Adaptability / Generosity / Focus 

negative traits: Jealousy / Impulsiveness / Impatience 

habits: Bouncing his leg / Cracking his knuckles / Playing with pens / Being a cup goblin (always has at least four cups of different liquids at any given point)

quirks: Says goodbye three times / Refuses to wear matching socks / Always carries a pack of cloves even though he has never smoked / Sleeps with the AC on even in the middle of winter

pet peeves: Slow walkers / People who chew with their mouths open / People who play music on their phones in public without headphones / People making fun of anyone’s tastes in coffee

hobbies: Puzzles / Reading / Hiking / Swimming / Podcasting / VIdeo Games

sexual orientation: Homosexual

sexual position: Verse

clothing style: Typically Sascha dresses like a stuffy professor. He loves a chunky knit sweater and just general being cozy. That said, he does have plenty of outfits to scandalise the neighbors reserved for the rare occasion that he actually goes out to a bar which typically consists of a jock strap and one of his many harnesses. 

prominent features: Resting Bitch Face, but also a killer smile, thick hair that is always perfectly mussed, giant dick and perky butt.

what were they doing when they hear the song of their godling blood? He was editing his podcast in an absolute panic because it was nowhere near being ready to publish and was supposed to be released in a couple of hours.

class: fighter 

inspirations: Riz Gukgak, The MC from this delightful series of PI smut books whose name I am totally blanking on, Sherlock Holmes

Biography to come

[twisted-limbic]

OK bear with me here cause this might be a bit of a reach courtesy of shipping brain but for as blatant and on the nose as a lot of the Hailey × Scott stuff has been I also feel like the whole Puffle Kerfluffle thing also gives a lot of Hailey x Becker vibes.

There is no question that at the end Bailey is meant to represent Hailey herself, but I think that Hailey seeing Scott in Thatcher is just because at this point Becker hasn't even really entered the picture and Hailey is presently seeing Scott in a romantic light. Thatcher is clearly much more reminiscent of Becker, not just in name (Thatcher is closer to Becker than it is to Scott) but also in appearance and mannerisms.

Scott was scared to approach him after seeing him screaming and thrashing on stage but it turned out he was actually a nice guy, much like how Becker comes off as this violent troublemaker until Hailey really gets to know her and realizes she's actually very sweet. He also dresses more similarly to how Becker might. I mean, look at him.

He's even got a spiked bracelet almost if not identical to Becker's, just on the opposite wrist. He just gives way more Becker vibes than our lovable goofball Scott.

Now this part is the bigger reach with way more speculation. A lot of people are theorizing about how the Professor could be future Hailey. I doubt this because we hear future Hailey on a recording and it's the same voice actress as young Hailey, as opposed to the Professor's actress. Not only that but they don't look at all like the same person. They do look similar, however. Maybe even related. Maybe like future Hailey-- who would be in her 60s during the Professor's time-- could be her mother. It tracks given that the Professor looks like she's in her 30s, and holds a lot of reverence and respect for Hailey. She even has a bunch of Hailey's belongings in her room/workshop in the background during the episode Cos-played. Arguably more likely is that she's Scott and Hailey's kid.

I posit however that her personality, which is a little closer to Becker's chaos loving manners with Hailey's brains, might be because her parents are actually Hailey and Becker. She also seems remarkably unimpressed around Scott.

But that may well just be because in this scene he's more fixated on the backpack she brought with her than the insanely powerful supercomputer in her hand.

Hailey almost even seems to not actually have strong romantic feelings for Scott like she thinks. She comes off as relieved whenever their near kisses are interrupted, and if they aren't organically interrupted she'll come up with a reason to stop for herself. Thanks to Chibi Pride we also know that neither Scott nor Hailey are 100% straight, either.

For as much Scott x Hailey as there is it feels like there is just as much albeit super subtle nods towards Becker x Hailey and I will go down with this ship.