#and like I get that attitudes and social conventions about adoption were different in the early 1800s than they are today but I don’t get

[alliluyevas]

not to make a completely on brand post but I bought this graphic novel as a birthday gift to myself and overall I am super pleased with it! I think early Mormonism works really well as a graphic story and I like the artist’s style overall, I think it was artistically and dramatically compelling and pretty historically accurate/fair (a couple minor quibbles and one major issue I had with it but overall pretty good)

some of my favorite/particularly interesting/compelling/distinctive pages!

[crybabysunflower]

The song which reminds me of Princess Jellyfish's theme

I have recently watched Kuragehime (also known as Princess Jellyfish) and it had struck a chord in my heart, especially due to the fact that I see myself in both the protagonists Tsukimi Kurashita and Kuranosuke Koibuchi due to various reasons

Few days after I had watched this beautiful anime, I was listening to Stand Out Fit In by the Japanese rock band One Ok Rock from their 2019 album Eye Of The Storm

Lyrics

I know they don't like me that much

Guess that I dont dress how they want

I just want to be myself

I, can't be someone else

Tried to color inside their lines

Tried to live life by designs

I just want to be myself

I, can't be someone else

Someone else

The first lines of this verse reminds me of Kuranosuke's family members' attitude towards his crossdressing and his love for passion, his father and his half brother Shu despises his choice for dressing extravagantly and in a feminine way instead of donning suit and tie like them, but for Kuranosuke, cross dressing is a way to express his intense love towards fashion which he had inherited from his mother. It is also a way to express his rebellion, his desire to not get into politics much to his family's dismay.

Despite appearing different from each others He and the Amars members are similar in the fact that they are far from the conventional social standards, unlike Kuranosuke, the Amars members somewhat feel insecure about it which is one of the main reasons why they have developed an intense fear of people they deem as fashionable or hipster and rather look down on himself, this is proven from time to time by Tsukimi's distorted self image and Mayaya's reason to hide her eyes under her bangs.

They yell, they preach

Heard it all before

Be this, be that

I've heard it before

Heard it before

While referring to the lines of the pre-chorus above I relate them to how at times Kuranosuke's family tries to force him to "act normal" in several situations, they also often try to act him more conventionally masculine as they have a strong dislike for his cross-dressing. This also reminds me of times when Kuranosuke acts a bit like a hypocrite despite actually being well intentioned by overstepping the personal boundaries of the Amars members.

Big boys dont cry

Shoot low, aim high

Eat up, stay thin

Stand out fit in

Good girls dont fight

Be you, dress right

White face ,tan skin

Stand out fit in

In my opinion, the chorus tends to often reflect the central theme of a song. The central theme of this song is the conflict between desire to be one own self and conforming to the social norms (and feeling guilty about not doing so) and the chorus also reflects the gender norms of the society, how a particular gender should be.

This also happens to be one of the central themes of Kuragehime, both the main protagonists dont really live up to the conventional standards of their respective genders they belong to.

The chorus above particularly reflects Tsukimi's dilemma and guilt for not turning out to be the 'beautiful' princess, her late mother said she would grow out to be and instead became an otaku. Otakus in Japanese culture are usually looked down upon and are deemed to be 'unworthy' and 'undesirable'. However at the same time, she does not want to be the "beautiful princess" and remain as she is which she expresses in a monologue where she questions her mother why do girls have to be pretty, why they have to fall in love with someone and then says that she does not want to be "pretty".

Lately its been too much, all day

Words shot like cannon, at me

I just want to be myself

I, cant be someone else

Someone else

While the above verse does remind me of Kuranosuke's not-so-good relationship with his family members due to his own personal choices, this also reminds me of what the Amars members felt when Kuranosuke (despite being well intentioned) was overstepping their personal boundaries, at first he dragged Tsukimi to his mansion to dress her up into a "pretty" woman despite her protests, he later dragged the rest of the Amars members and made them dress well, to prepare them to face the landsharks because of whom they were gonna lose their home. No matter how well intentioned he was, he undoubtedly made the Amars women uncomfortable, which over the time became too much for them, especially when Kuranosuke was ready to sell Chieko's ichimatsu dolls without understanding the latter's personal attachment to them as she describes that her dolls are like a family to her.

I am, who I am no matter what

Never changing

No matter what

No matter what

Just like the chorus, the bridge above highlights another central meaning of the series which is, Self Love. Unlike most other "Unattractive Nerdy Girl to Pretty Chic" trope shows, Kuragehime does not try to downplay being a nerd and not being up to the standards, it instead celebrates that and teaches its viewers that, its valid to be nerdy, not being able to live up to idealized womanhood does not make anyone less lovable, womanhood is a social construct which anyone can adopt and no one inherits it.

Conclusion

Phew!... I finally wrote the blog of this month despite my initial (but usual) nervousness

I want to thank Youtubers Tyranno and The Pedantic Romantic, because their video essays on Kuragehime helped me to realise how much this song fits the anime series

Tyranno's Video

The Pedantic Romantic's Video

I would later upload a drawing if I get time

[queenofallwitches]

an update and primer:

so the last winter was weird. I had a complete breakdown, went into psychiatric hospital for 40 days in total. two seperate times.

learnt a heap of new things, met a tonne of cool people and had amazing conversations and few fights but overcome my own demons by that.

brain speaking-I have a scarred brain stem and neurological disorder is not a mental diagnosis, but a neurological disorder, proven by MRI scan, ADHD.

also damage to my basal ganglia, and prefrontal cortex.

neurological diagnosis means ADHD is not a "mental" health issue, as some believe, rather a neurodevelopment disorder caused by structural differences in the ADHD brain.

other neurodevelopment disorders include: Tourettes, Autism, Cerebal Palsy, Dyslexia and other Motor and Intellectual Disabilities. (Which recieve, in my view, a lot of insight, media information and stigma reduction by the advocacy networks surrounding these types of disability).

Over the last few years Autism has been over everything, I've seen mainstream media cover Tourettes and yet ADHD is still HUGELY misunderstood, misconceived and misrepresented in media, be in from the angle of documentaries, personal insight of a "typical" case, films, tv, and other media.

one of the first things my dr told me was "in females it rarely presents as hyperactive red-cordial OD child"

which is what my mother BELIEVES, that is because I have an adopted cousin with the ADHD dx who was that growing up, but the representation I'm told is also divergent for women with a higher IQ score than the average IQ. I come in around 142 and tested 123 at age 3 when I was unable to focus, pay attention and had severe trauma. I tested 142 in grade 8.

I'll share my experience as a female who is intellectually gifted, with higher IQ than average, and an adhd brain:

I've been told gifted and talented "genius" children are harder to diagnose because the symptoms present differently, we hide it better (camouflage) and our focusing can be "faked" by mediocre efforts of academic success.. this is true, I would do the assignment the Sunday night hours deadline, last minute, or have my parents half do it for me, plagiarise it (fuck I've killed my whole academic career now) copied but changed my words

from old 1970s encyclopaedias I KNEW they couldn't cross reference (I went through 15 years of school never studying doing homework or assignments and still had top grades).

I literally did not listen, and spent my classes planning the end of the world survival strategies with my GT friend who, basically helped me with my calculus and hard fucking maths, which was the ONLY 50 minutes of the day I put attention into my work.

now I'm going to be heading back to full-time study in the coming months, I get anxious as the pressure of a Bachelor level degree, and the pressure it takes me to perform, is enough to break me down. I've been advised it might be wise to start light (like a basic vet style diploma) and then build up, which is logical, but I keep thinking I'm meant to be doing my thesis by now. which is the kind of pressure one gets as a kid who is told repeatedly, "your intelligence is exceedingly the average and you can do ANYTHING you want"

I wanted to be an astronaut, a storm chaser, and an architect, a town planner and then a journalist. I always held to being a "FBI agent" or spy (I wonder why). so when I found psychology is really a blend of all these things, I kinda found a niche in a psych and social science double degree. but I'm thinking my academic career is LIFELONG, and due to the fact I also want to work in my field alongside my many written thesis coming, I'll be in academics for a long time. I may fail a few things, which I have to come to terms with. I do not fail easily, or readily, but I'm a perfectionist type-a academic who will put my whole life on the line to achieve "merit". I get exams, I get assessments, I read journals super-easy, I talk the talk and walk the walk so well psychologists who are at masters level compliment me on my "knowledge".

when it comes to mental health and trauma, I will always have the personal attachment, called lived experience, which will make failure and burnout, 100 percent realistic. I have to boundary up, bootstraps on, and prepare that yes, my personal "bias" will probably be entwined in this.

which is why I'm looking at the social science for the statistics and thesis writing side of things, and the counselling for the trained therapist side. either way, the degree of counselling requires so much self-insight, and then the social-science will back me away from personifying it. the other choice is criminology, which leads to forensic psychology, which is eternally fascinating. my main concern is the pro-pedophile content Ill be up against, which will look at the anatomy of a shoplifter akin to the devil, and leave the pedophile in the DSM-5 dx "paraphilia" box.

I'm not joining or jumping to anything.

either way I've got 2 year of credit, a heap of pathways and a lot of "academic momentum" from all my life being aimed to be "academic powerhouse". I went through my files and found a lot of awards I'd won in my high school, and top place in the competitions we would be entering in. I remember feeling so sad if I had a "credit" vs a distinction or high distinction, only to see now, a credit in university maths in year 9 is a skillset I don't have anymore so, good on me. or a credit in English, or Science at that age was pretty impressive, considering these tests were random and not studied for.

just a general skills assessment only the top 30 kids in the year were to take on a year by year basis and put out to vet from the top universities and taken by other kids in the same grade around the state.

it puts so much focus on my intelligence, because it's primed to be that way, I know that is true. I know I feel good being academically successful and it gives me a feeling of "achievement" but is it really for me?

I also found 2 letters from my local politicians offering me job placement, work experience and I was 1/4 kids in my 10th grade graduation tom get the letter, and due to my behaviour I pissed ALL the idiots who bullied me off. I was "too pretty to be a nerd" "too smart to be pOpUlAr".

so I made a group of misfits, who are all highly intelligent, creative and my group had the ONLY gay male in the school AND THIS IS BEFORE YOU FUCKING RETARDS MADE IT "COOL". he was bullied badly, so fuck you, you fucks claim "liberalism" but I bet you were the type of idiot who bullied guys like him in high school while you pretended to like my chemical romance and fake cut yourselves. I hate you all, forever.

my grade was full of idiots who were fake emo, who left the scene the moment the scene changed to dub-step and club music. I was there, watching you all, like sonny Moore, went from FFTL to that dubstep skrillex shit he started in 2009.

I dated you, hooked up with you and I went to your gigs. I know who was real and who was fake. I met some of you years later and realised the more emotive ones were the less "alternative appearing".

I can say 1/10000 emo guys from the 00s were genuinely Into the music and scene for the right reasons based on my dating history and this can and will be analysed statistically using SPSS one day to prove a lot. I've had too many relationships from each sub-culture and I have had 4-11 males at a time per public "output" of my energy pursue me over life.

I'm not being cocky when I say I have a long line of "suitors" and its banked back about 50 men. it's been a thing I've avoided as it seems to grow based on my body shape, attitude, appearance, so I am currently out of touch with dating scenes, no interest to try that ANYWAY, given the fact that I have had so many LONG TERM relationships ANYWAY. I can't see another one going well, and at this case, I'm living with an ex but we never went on conventional and now our families label this 3 things: "asexual", "polyamorous" and "open relationship". I'm also "bisexual" but this all to humans outside, looks ridiculous on paper. (wild orgies and lots of swinging or some stupid sex magick probably is what J brother literally thinks we do).

bc humans are intrinsically designed to need to label things they don't understand. we share a lease, not a relationship, and fucking polyamorous, I WISH. there are no girl-girl-guy 3 some, or orgies, or sex magic parties.

this has changed the attitude and perception of this "relation' which Is non-romantic, non-sexual. he can date and likely, will, as can I , and I likely won't date.

I would say 14/15 have had ADHD, or other mental illness and or trauma. which means to me, nothing at all.

I think this "open book" non romantic relationship style of "friends and roommates" not sexual.

attachment is misunderstood by others but works well fro my adhd, meaning I'm not expected to marry, or be a wife in any capacity. he is free to do what he wants, as I am, and open communication is a novel frontier I brought into this in the start, and stayed with for the duration. we fight, but I fight with a lot of people in my life over many petty things. also down to my adhd, I believe, I have rejection sensitive dysphoria, which makes me hypersensitive to rejection, perceived or real.

im not sure if this is trauma or adhd or both. but

I have used sexuality as a weapon in many relationships but it cannot or will not be used here, so I have had to resort to uncovering parts of myself which I never knew, which will stay with me even if he decided to marry and wife up in 5 years, which I'm okay and expecting him to do, and I would much rather that then be trapped in a situation where I cannot be that "wife/mother archetype" as I'm too "femme fatal/other-woman/sex-laced seductress and siren" a "FWB, unicorn, drug buddy, hook-up where im a therapist" or "intellectual and cognitive mind-bender work-study obsessed woman".

both at once and many types of human, including one who is a full-time ceremonial magician of 7 years. I will drink, drug, fuck, fight like males and still be more feminine and high maintenance than 89% of women. I grew up a tomboy and don't mind getting into fun, adventure based situations, like hiking, or anything adrenaline, I would only be reluctant to eat weird shit.

I also have many "neurological" issues including ADHD, and trauma which causes a rupture in the average human and I dating.

I'll tell you how many men have said "you are the unicorn" and then realised what that means, I went as far as canvasing the PUA world back in 2014 after reading the game, a book on PUA, which is essentially, pick up artistry, based on NLP and hypnosis. I did this after reading the copy my ex in 2008 handed me before we dated saying "I gave this up for you". it took me years to open the book, buy when I did I truly believed the only way I would fall in love again, was through PUA. that failed in so many ways but gave me a training foundation for men who were candidates for that, I have trained up J, and the way that sounds is BAD. I know, but I got a lot of value myself, I just don't see it how I wanted to see it.

but that was my original intent, and I achieved this he knows that, knew it was happening and evolved for the best self.

I am thinking we can modulate this into a business model for how I was operating in the BDSM world was mainly psychological, not physical.

I get told all of is incredibly intimidating (I am told) to women and men.

I don't really care anymore, because people have always seen this part of me in the wrong way ANYWAY, but I own who I am NOW. which is what I needed ANYWAY. so it cannot be stolen again, and sexual healing has come from abstinence ironically.

I also don't care what or who is trying to tear up my relations, toxic or not toxic, all people around me will be on a healing journey by default, or cut out of my life, for I am radiating that energy so brightly its impossible NOT to feel that pull.

I will drag your shadows into the light, and make your secrets spin from your lips into my consciousness. its not what I do but its what is design.

I make your weaknesses mountains to climb over. you cannot hide from these in my presence, I won't be this controlling or obsessive female who wants 24-7 attention as I have a life full of meaning without love or sex. I don't want to be wined, dined or expensively gifted, unless specially requested.

I don't want love letters or romantic declarations, this isn't some femnazi bullshit, but it triggers me. I appreciate the efforts and won't make you feel bad about your insecurities, for mine are probably 30 x more pronounced.

I appreciate small things, that most males won't or don't know how to do. like remembering things I've said and being thoughtful. or knowing my silence isn't personal, or a game, but a protective wall. I've had songs sung too me, guitars played, songs written, or things made in ways that are heartfelt. but I've always had them used against me too. so it is the context. I value time, energy, conversations of depth and reciprocal exchange. I also value trauma understanding, my alters and fragments being accepted and valued as me as a whole and a person who is not afraid, or scared of stupid stuff like sensitivity, emotions, feelings as raw as my own. men feel intensely too, lol.

but will only give oral sex 100 times before I don't recieve it, I can communicate now so that wouldn't happen.

but I won't be a bitch about this stuff. I am extremely feminine and care in ways other people, do not, I forget nothing people tell me, so it can be a reward or reverse uno card pull in a fight, but I am not evil or deviant in my relations. I react, depending on how you treat me. I don't need your money, or providing source of income to be okay as I am my own queen, however sharing resources is okay to build something. I don't need to be seduced, but will need to be shown a person is trustworthy.

few cross that.

that will always be time-endurance and testing. there are ground rules I don't play with, or play games. or like being forced or forged into something I'm not. I know abusive and I know safe, and I am a psychology expert, trained psychotherapist and study humans for fun, so I'll always be analysing things.

and I know red flags and I know ego, I know how to placate and please and pleasure, but will only do so, for a bigger and better reason than the mere act of seduction. which is without value and transactional to someone like me, I won't lie.

and I know every tactic in the book, for the book was written by someone like me, many lives ago, and my karma is being burnt for that book.

in terms of walls, I have many, may it be called a maze. or labrnyth.

I will teach you things you never thought you'd know, and change your life in ways you won't ever be able to go back to before. I will blow your mind, sexually, emotionally, intellectually, on all levels, and I'll make your friends and family love me.

I'll bring your walls down and you won't be able to understand this, because you don't understand me, and thats ok.

but I'll always understanding you and make your life better because thats what I do anyway, and people talk to me about things I will never share, as I keep secrets. I am jealous, of everything but, only because I am attached in a disorganised way, and working on that.(I won't even mention how man women or men don't know basic psychology of themselves). I also am a therapist , for my friends and family too.i should not be , but I am. I care, I listen, If you think I'm not listening, I'm still listening. sometimes I interrupt, because I have ADHD and I am horrible at resolute planning, or being "normal". but I don't want to be normal anyway. I need you to recognise and understand my shit, for that is what I do for everyone in my life, and I have helped more than I receive.

I'll probably accidentally give you therapy, but thats fine, because you will uncover your depths and find meaning in this. it's not something that goes bad unless you are fundamentally, evil, even the most abusive relationship I was in, was benefited from this process. yes he's still narcissistic, but he is self-aware. and did I benefit, never, just know the anatomy of self-proclaimed narc and I still can't hate him. will get my civil claim one day.

I will fuck your mind without meaning too. but thats because I fuck my own mind. but the meaning is made in the man- some find this highly offensive or personal (its not). I fuck minds by my own overthinking, or over perception on many levels of reality. so join the ride, or don't come along at all. because once the rollercoaster is in motion, I have no control of what may or may not happen. it's purely experimental.

I am experimental.

and the women who are judging me, are not any better.

look within, and shut the fuck up. self-improve and quit this jealous divide and conquer bitchiness. I HATE gossip, bitches, snitches and fakers.

I look to other women who are intellectually, physically and spiritually "individual". and find value in superior status to my own, which is something my narcissistic ex taught me.

I look for mentors, and teachers and people who will teach me how to improve myself, which I am fearful to reconnect after something is amazing and I can't give anything back of positive value. I am sorry I am working on that.

I won't devalue those below me, but I also need to be mutually benefiting from a relationship.

I dont drag people down, I may disappear if I feel I am doing this by mistake. I am flakey as fuck, and sorry for that. its anxiety and lack of perfectionism, so I am wrong and bad for this. I can change. will change.

if you can find value with my relation, personal professional or romantic, we can move into a symbiotic beneficial agreement based on mutual "terms". but many won't or cannot see this, nor do I impose my bullshit into the lives of randoms at this age.

I don't care if this is cruel, it's real.

I value loyalty, compassion, self-insight/awareness, someone who understands all parts-spirituality, metaphysics while still having intellectual & logical & analytical brain-sight.

I enjoy music, magick and learning new things.

I do not care about appearances I dont think ive dated based on one time. I do value connections and chemistry which is far-few between, I hate fakers. I smell insincerity miles away. but I do respect women who are well-presented, or beautiful, with hair beauty and makeup, I can't do this shit well, so I look up to those who are in professions who do it like art. I find them to be genius level queens who scare me.

I call out bad behaviour and make people uncomfortable if they are repressed. I will change you without even meaning too, I don't even need to date you. its just my presence, over time, amplified by the intensity of the dynamics.

I don't want simplicity, but I also don't need over complexity.

I value passion, independence, creativity, curiosity, problem-solving, deep-disscussions, shared adventures and some occasional risk-taking (lol), sensuality and sexuality for a common cause beyond physical pleasure. I like being taught but not micromanaged. I need my own independence, and need to be trusted with that. I hate being scolded for that like a child, or being pushed to change my ways to conform to societal values. which I will push back and refuse to do. which is not healthy. I don't adult like many others do, but I try to proceed in other ways. and learn to adult like normal people, accept me.

I also value myself, and how I can be celebrated, enhanced and improved vs. the opposite.

I give space, and have boundaries, and understand human psychology, sexuality and relationships in ways few others unless they are trained, can do.

I value MY time. so you can have space to value YOURS. I dont need to be in anyones pocket for a long time. I love being alone, and being around people who are stimulating, but draining people will be drained out of my life quicker than I intend. I am sorry for the people who felt I disappeared, when I was only trying to be 'fair', if I feel I'm a bad influence, I will work on myself until I'm not. I'm still working on it.

I also use this psychology awareness, to enhance communication, connection. you may or may not become an accidental guinea pig. I will be upfront that I am experimental, but that is part of the buy ticket and take the ride. lets work together. not apart.

I am coming from a place of love, and love is what I feel for my animals, which you will be adopting as children.which I want to stop experiments being done on. I love love, in all ways, but hate cruelty of animals and children, violence and suffering. I dont advocate justice, because I find life is fucking cruel, unfair and unjust. by default, so I focus on myself. what can be changed, and what I am able to do in my own locus on control. I will always find myself drawn to the outsiders, the misfits, the vagabonds, the misunderstood. I want to help people who are society, or socially, disadvantaged by trauma and mental illness, but only when I have ability to help myself.

it's a journey.

I will not date anyone who is cruel to animals, outside of specify magical sacrifice, there is not any place for that. nor will I date or fraternise with anything or anyone linked or associated with pedophilia. I won't judge anyone on anything that are outside animal cruelty and pedophilia. I don't and haven't. I keep on good terms with every ex, bar 1 whom I only apologised too this year. it felt good to do that. I change my behaviour.

I am open, but also highly attuned to both logical, factual, empirical , scientific worlds, and spiritual, intuitive, psychic and the "collective unconscious". I walk in both these realms, and I am "conventionally attractive". which puts a lot of pressure on me, to be "stupid". I am always dumbing myself down to fit into normality, but I look ridiculous if I do that so I peacock my intellect.

only to be misconceived.

I give up because I no longer care how anyone but MYSELF can see ME. I won't dumb myself down , but I can enhance you UP. prepare yourself for graded education, evolution and self-growth on mass scales.sorry not sorry.

that sucks for the people who want to be living vicariously through me, for making up to lost trauma years, for family who sold me out for the success I'd bring home, or fake trauma enmeshed friends, or whatever they want or need from me. I value my time and energy, and have given that in abundance, and if you want to be with nut only "one part of me that is alters". I can't provide that now. not sorry.

I have to work on something or not be in a dynamic at all.

I no longer can switch on demand to adapt for you, it will not be effective and that upsets a lot of people. especially now I'm sober. harder to handle this, as I see the world for its ways and why it is, more vividly. I haven't had alcohol for almost 2 months, although, I could drink, I haven't.

I can't do it, anymore. it, being, faking, my selves fronting to impress. I can't. I have no more left to give, and I'm expected by everyone to be a way I can't do it in the way they want.

I will go to another year long outpatient DBT, followed by 10 weeks of A-C-T therapy, and however many ECT OR TMS may or may not help. I'm told it won't (ect) work. but TMS, is something I am open too. but I am telling you, none of this psychotherapy, that will be based on dbt skills, day therapy, intensive skills training, recommencing my studying, and resuming "life worth living" will or can wipe the traumas I've "recovered" memories for.

I will also shut the fuck up, and tell nobody about this if you leave me alone, I told that to my family, and this is open letter to the watchers, stalkers and perps who read this openly as I track the hits on here and have 200+ visits a day every day for the last month. globally. no idea how or who you are but I think its the same people who called the police for the "ayreon song lyrics" seen to be a suicide not last October.

thanks for that wake up call, I have shut the fuck up, since December, more so now. I will burn the journals, or lock them up.

my recovery is not linear, not yet fully integrated and I trust nobody so I don't think my psychotherapy will be deep, I focus on things like ADHD AND my EDNOS. and dbt skills. I won't be talking about sexual traumas.

enjoy the update, and thanks for the "attention".

I have my goals, my work, my meaning and what my life should and could and will look like, but I will not share that with anyone. that means everyone right now.

I've been tested, traumatised and terrorised to the point of not-tolerant of anyone who may bring that back, and banish the fuck out of my sphere every moment I need.

take me as I am, or watch me as I go, which I will go, where I am not wanted I will remove myself, but I will find where I am celebrated because I create that.

I will rise up against all adversity every time but that is survival and that created a resilient and brave woman, in me. who will not be destroyed or decomposed by humans who are fundamentally fucking evil.

I gift you my truth, in progression, and give up the pain of the past.

[theastromancer]

Sun in Aquarius

“The symbol for Aquarius, ♒️, represents waves of air, or electricity. The ancients saw the image of air as showing the nature of Aquarius. In modern times we see an association with electric current. People born with the Sun in Aquarius possess the qualities of the air and electricity.

Aquarius is the water- bearer pouring water from a jug representing the quality of air to carry and distribute all things that renew and refresh. The water-bearer epitomizes the ideal of human friendship, the quencher of thirst and the reliever of suffering. Electric current sparks, energizes, and makes possible the technology that can relieve human need and suffering.

Air creates the space where all can be and exist in relative freedom, yet all must share.The air serves all equally, without prejudice or exception, for the common good. Aquarian’s are learning that being a good friend is not an easy idea to uphold, and that it requires a discipline and compassion that seems almost superhuman. Aquarius represents a very evolved state of consciousness, it is the second to last sign in the zodiac, and asks us to do something extraordinary. Aquarius represents the Divine potential of human idealism, not easily realized, but nonetheless ultimately what is needed.

We all depend on one another for survival and companionship. The water-bearer represents the altruistic ideals that human existence is dependent on and that cannot be forsaken. No one can be denied air or water and survive for very long. Without water, a plant or animal can only live a few days, nothing grows, and food would not be available. Without air, though, no living thing lasts more than a few minutes. The water-bearer shows us that the ideal of friendship, community and coexistence cannot exist. The water-bearer is not a warrior, but rather a humanitarian, and does not react to or deny anyone, but rather delivers the help and relief wherever it is needed. The water-bearer is the true friend who is there when you need him or her.

For Aquarius, friendship is paramount. They will do anything for their friends. They are idealistic and are attracted to causes affecting the greater community. They bond with others who have like ideals and can be avant-garde or unconventional. Aquarians spontaneously perceive the way to improve conditions and solve puzzles, and even when they are conventional, their idealism is still part of whatever they get involved in. They are principled, innovative, devoted, and loyal.

Aquarians are very idealistic, and because of this they can be judgmental and reactionary. They will look at the attitudes and politics of another or a community and judge according to their Aquarian ideals. They can be attracted to organizations that work toward the betterment of humanity, or they can be attracted to counterculture groups that react to the contradictions they see in society or in their social conditions. Aquarius can be creative, inventive, original, and progressive but can also be destructive, reactionary, unconventional, eccentric, or deviant, and it is up to Aquarius to learn the difference.

Aquarians just want to be a friend and be helpful. Sometimes their tendency to bond so strongly with another or a group causes them to adopt the impassioned sentiments of the other or the group. They take up philosophies, lifestyles, fashions, social attitudes, and such and derive their identity from their associations. They just want to be a friend and so go along with the movement of the collective pulse. They are principled but sometimes let their impassioned identification with what is to them popular override their individual sense of what is right and wrong. They can commit or support acts that, if they were to step back and look, would be seen as reactionary, confrontational, dissociative, or unfriendly toward certain others. They may not see the contradiction this is to their ideals.

Aquarians can be detached. Their idealism tends to cause them to intellectualize relationships. Their identification with their own ideals can cause them to be intensely independent. Even though they do bond with others, their ideals keep them separate and real intimacy and receptivity may be resisted. They have more of a friendship than a romantic attitude toward relationships. They can be eccentric and try to establish relationships that are unorthodox or experimental with mixed results. Their ideals about how a community should be can separate them from the community they are concerned for and really want to be a part of.

Life is mostly about the people we spend time with. This is so important that we tend to depend on others for our strength or to tell us what is right or wrong. We are exclusive in our friendships. We are friends with this person and not with that. We identify with this group and disassociate with another. We are loyal to one faction and therefore the other becomes our rival. The most important lesson Aquarius is here to learn is to see its own contradictions.

The task for Aquarians is to examine what is in their heart and be brave enough to stand up for it. Sometimes it is necessary for Aquarians to stand alone when their friends or group have a thought or want to do something that goes against what Aquarians know in their heart, but, if they don’t forsake the convictions of friendship, eventually, when others finally see the wisdom of Aquarians’ choice and example, they will not only be invited back, but probably will be asked to lead. Aquarians are natural born community builders and the goal is unity, not separation.

The best strategy for Aquarians is to stay the course, to listen to what their heart is telling them, not to disassociate from others, but rather to promote the ideals of friendship in their attitude and in their actions, and, by doing so, help to break down the barriers of exclusivity and nationalism and encourage an ever-expanding unity of brother/sisterhood.

Selfishness causes Aquarians to disassociate from others and be concerned mostly with their own independence, and the exclusively selected groups with mutually shared causes that determine their friendships and associations. Aquarians’ desire is that others recognize their special uniqueness and acknowledge their genius. It is difficult for Aquarians to see their own selfishness, because, in their dealings within the community, they see a world that does not live up to the common ideals of freedom, friendship, and community and feel like they are just being innovative. And the confusion comes because they are right that everyone must be ingenious and creative in helping to cause social change yet at the same time remember inter-dependency. Selfishness causes Aquarians to rationalize what is right and wrong and confuse the lines of righteousness by justifying being reactionary toward what they perceive as unrighteous. Aquarians are here to learn and discover that their ability to unite people rests in the ability to be an example that never compromises the ideals of friendship and community.

The discovery and use of electricity has revolutionized the world. Through its humanitarian application, the world’s problems can be alleviated. Aquarius’s message to the world is that we are all part of an interconnected, interdependent family. Aquarius says that the sense of friendship must be our guide in all our interactions. Aquarius must clarify and purify it’s heart to view with compassion the mistakes of others and wish only to help. Aquarians must not allow a reactionary view of the world to cause them to be self-serving or to use their creative genius to support exclusivity. It is only through identifying with being human oneself that one is able to understand how to be truly humanitarian.

Only the Divine knows truly the way to unite all people. By focusing their meditation on the opening of the Heart Chakra, Aquarians learn to be guided by the will of the Divine, to love one another, and to become the solution they wish to see in the world, the innovative, pioneering, resourceful example and inspiration the world needs.

When the Sun is in Aquarius, the Earth is in Leo. Aquarius focuses on the ideals, while Leo focuses on the personal expression of the ideals. Aquarius finds balance and harmony within itself when it focuses on developing a Leo perspective. Aquarius’s nature is to focus on the issues and causes of righteousness in the world; therefore focusing instead on one’s own inner righteousness brings balance to the Aquarius expression.

Earth in Leo

Earth in Leo, when the Sun is in Aquarius, indicates that Aquarians find completion when they focus on their inner honesty and developing genuine compassion in themselves. When Earth is in Leo, the social being that is Aquarius learns how to be a true friend through making sure to not compromise what one knows to be good i one’s efforts to bring about change. This friendly personality finds a way to connect and form alliances when it focuses on Leo goodheartness. Leo teaches Aquarius that it is a good heart that can see a good heart in others. This gives revolutionary Aquarius inner strength and a measure for truth, and facilitates and satisfies Aquarius’s need to serve the just cause. When Aquarius Sun becomes balanced with a Leo Earth, the Divinely inspired vision of community meets its most beloved citizen and the holy communion manifests.”

—Divine Love Astrology

[opalsiren]

W.I.T.C.H. Reboot! W.I.T.C.H. Reboot! W.I.T.C.H. Reboot!

hi love! so, with the plethora of reboots kicking around mainstream media these days, its no surprise that the question of a w.i.t.c.h reboot has been broached by its fans. i have so, so, so many thoughts and this, but ill divide them into three categories for the purpose of brevity: firstly, general thoughts on what i would like to see if a w.i.t.c.h reboot is on the cards; secondly, what i would like to see in a live-action w.i.t.c.h reboot; and finally, what a decent animated reboot of w.i.t.c.h might entail. this is not an exhaustive list so please feel free to add onto this if youve any more thoughts! without further ado because jesus, we might be here a while….

general thoughts:

a w.i.t.c.h live action reboot should largely use the comics are source material. while the cartoons are beloved by many including myself, i reckon the good parts of each should be combined to be thematically consistent, fix plot holes etc. but the comics should be the bible here

the target demographic of younger women and girls would need to be established early on by the producers (personally i would love to see a slightly more mature, w.i.t.c.h college AU where the target demographic could be teens/young adult women and girls, but more on that later). this isnt to say that young men and boys would be absolutely excluded as an audience, but misogyny is alive and well in 2019, and our voices as women need to be uplifted. this is exemplified by the fact that caleb was given far, far, far too much screentime in the cartoon so that the show could reach a young, male audience, and his characters was mangled by chauvinistic tendencies. thank u, next.

i have my own preferences wrt to ships, but i think we can all agree that introducing male characters as mere plot devices for drama/conflict only to put them ‘on a bus’ when theyre no longer useful is just plain bad writing. this is a critique levelled both at the cartoon and comics, but largely the comics (see: Eric)(rip in peace).

i also believe that sticking to the conventions of a particular genre, or hybrid genre, would be preferable if a w.i.t.c.h reboot were to take place. some shows get it right, but I’ve seen a ton of shows go off the rails when they try to be a fantasy/comedy/crime/drama/horror/sci-fi/occult/soap-opera extravaganza all in one. i reckon a YA fantasy drama with comedic moments, something with a similar vibe to Shadowhunters or The Shannara Chronicles, could work really well. if we’re talking animated reboot, something with a similar tonal atmosphere to The Dragon Prince or Into the Spiderverse, would also be great

this shouldnt even need to be said but please, for the love of god, no musical episodes (heres looking at you, Riverdale).

i think i speak on everyones behalf when i say that, irrespective of the age demographic of the show, LGBT rep in w.i.t.c.h would be amazing. irma/cornelia have always been a practically canon fan favourite, but cassidy and nerissa’s relationship is definitely more than strictly platonic, so that could be developed upon too. trans/nonbinary!will is also a popular headcanon that could work. once there are lgbt heroes, and not just lgbt villains, i think we’ll all be happy.

similarly, seeing some neurodivergency in the characters could also be great: elyon dealing with pts after the fallout with phobos; irma struggling with adhd in school or college; hay lin and taranee also exhibit some traits of anxiety in canon. autistic!will would also work, and someone else in the squad is bound to be affected by depression given its pervasive nature these days.

much and all as i adore the guardian outfits, i think there would need to be a few changes made. the midriff-and-leg-baring get-ups, though very cute, become very jarring when you realise the characters are meant to range in age from 12 to 14. i dont have any specific thoughts on how improvements could be made, but lengthening hemlines could be a start. if anyone has any more thoughts, i’d love to hear them!

of course, there needs to be women in the writers room, lgbt people in the writers room, poc in the writers room, people with neurodivergencies in the writers room, etc. we all know what happens when writers rooms lack diversity, and it sure as hell aint pretty.

body diversity was something that was tentatively approached in the comics (irma is curvier than the others, at least in her mundane form), but eschewed almost entirely in the cartoon, with all the girls maintaining similar heights and waifish proportions. it would be worthwhile, not to mention realistic, for the girls to go through some body-image hang ups. maybe will is insecure about her ‘underdeveloped’ body, or maybe taranee longs to have the same curvaceous figures as other dancers her age. i think if they were to go for a message of body positivity, irma, loud and brash with no fucks to give, should love every inch of her fat body and encourage the girls to adopt her 'devil-may-care’ attitude. the patriarchy be damned.

one flaw with the comics AND the cartoons are that they dont really explore the worldbuilding a lot. we do spend some time on meridian in the comics and the cartoon, but largely from the perspective of either elyon, or caleb and the rebels. i wonder what a day on meridian would look like for the average meridianite peasant? what do meridianites do for fun? what language(s) do they speak? what are their religious/spiritual belief(s)? what are the styles of dress dictated by? meridian is based on medieval societies, and a caste system is suggested, but i would have loved to see the social hierarchies expanded on a little more. does the matriarchal nature of meridian rule value women and their labour? what about LGBT people on meridian? people with disabilities and neurodivergencies? is there any discrimination against the different species on meridian? in fact, i dont know if it was ever explicitly outlined to us the different species of peoples on meridian, in the cartoon or the comics. honestly id be happy to see a filler, AtLA Tales of Ba Sing Se-esque episode on meridian to cover all of these bases

one thing i loved from the comics that didnt translate as well in the cartoon were the girls’ passions and interests. will is obsessed with frogs, she rides her bike to her job at pet store, she swims, stresses over math homework. irma loves music and talking to her pet turtle, leafy; i could totally see her doing a stint at the college radio station or working part time at a record store. cornelia loves ice skating and has received tons of awards and accolades for her achievements on the ice. taranee is an avid photographer and dancer, but i could totally see her spending her spare time at rallies and protests too. hay lin is a proficient artist, making her own clothes and poring over paintings between shifts at the silver dragon. all of these things and more are what make these characters so well-rounded, relatable, likeable. their hobbies need to be weaved into the fabric of the show (not just brought up once for a silly plot device in cornelia’s case, or never brought up at all in taranee’s, as seen in the cartoon) in order for it to work

live action reboot thoughts:

this should go out without saying, but a live action w.i.t.c.h reboot should cast actors of colour to play characters of colour. hay lin, and by extension her family, need to be played by Chinese actors, while taranee needs to be played by a black actor, preferably one of east asian descent, etc. if they add a little more diversity to the cast i would be totally pleased. latina!irma is a popular headcanon that i ascribe to, and will has always been kinda ambiguously brown, so adding less ambiguous representation for poc to the cast would really be excellent

of course, age-appropriate casting is a must. more specifically, there should not be any 25-30 year olds playing characters in their mid-late teens, unless ofc they could actually pass for the age they are trying to play. shows like The OA and The End of the Fucking World really get this right (most other teen/YA dramas, not so much. less of the chiseled abs and rock hard pecs on teens, please)

this one might be tricky to get right, particularly with budget constraints, but i think a really good CGI/visual effects team is necessary for a w.i.t.c.h reboot to work. unless an adequate amount of the budget is spent on making sure the magic looks realistic, almost plausible, it will make everything else look cheap by comparison

also, this is more of a personal preference, but i’d love to see someone with a really beautiful visual aesthetic and scope of cinematography. i’m talking Sense8-esque levels of cinematographic beauty

i’m really rambling now but, similarly, it’d be so cool to see someone who could use lighting/colour theory in very particular ways. in Marvel’s Netflix Originals, each character has their own theme colour; in Jessica Jones, for example, all of the scenes are very blue and almost leeched of warmth, while in Luke Cage there seems to be a warm yellow filter over everything. how cool would it be if all Taranee-centric scenes had a slight gold hue? or if all of cornelia’s scenes were lit with green? maybe all of the colours could combine in the a subtle yet effective way when all of the guardians are together to show their unity and combined strength.

thoughts on an animated reboot:

i know very little about animation so these thoughts will be brief, but an art and animation style something like that of Into the Spiderverse would be really gorgeous. it is fluid, dynamic, beautiful to look at and, most importantly, reflects the comic format in a moving image perfectly. alternatively, the animation studio behind The Legend of Korra could also be wonderful. the visual effects used for magic would look absolutely incredible

one thing i have to praise the Jetix cartoon for is their choice of voice actors, which were, in many cases, spot on. while cornelia’s VA was annoying and shrill, the actors playing characters of colour were themselves people of colour. if an animated reboot was on the cards, i think it could be a great opportunity to once again include some diversity to the cast, namely hiring actors of colour to play characters of colour

please let no one who worked on voltron near a w.i.t.c.h animated reboot with a ten foot pole. no i will not elaborate

tl;dr at the risk of sounding like an entitled millennial, a w.i.t.c.h reboot should be less about creating something entirely new for a brand new audience, and more about building on what the longtime fans of w.i.t.c.h already love and bringing it forward for the older generation. all on all, we grew up with w.i.t.c.h, so it’s time for us to have our reboot. thanks for coming to my TED talk!

[fuckthegovfucklove]

My *current*Relating Framework

“The widespread assumption that ethical behaviour takes the fun out of life is false. In actuality, living ethically ensures that relationships in our lives, including encounters with strangers, nurture our spiritual growth.” 

― Bell Hooks

As a result of my disapproval of societal depictions of what good relationships look like and represent, I’ve decided to rip up the script and play an active role in the process of meaning construction. In my solitary moments, I jotted down some of the principles I believe are essential to relating with others in a way that is fruitful, just and consistent with my own personal politics. I will most likely update the list with time but for now, these are the tenet’s that form the Nonconformist Lover Relating Framework:

Individual Autonomy - You are you, I am I.

“Because to take away a man's freedom of choice, even his freedom to make the wrong choice, is to manipulate him as though he were a puppet and not a person.” ― Madeline L'Engle

Autonomy is a complex construct that concerns the regulation of behaviour by the self, or the authorship of one’s behaviour, as opposed to behaviour being controlled by forces perceived as outside the self. When individuals are autonomous, their behaviour is self-organised and self-endorsed, and their actions are experienced as fully voluntary and authentic. The opposite of autonomy is feeling pressured, coerced, or compelled to act by forces or pressures perceived as external to the self.

When navigating interpersonal relationships, it is crucial that as an individual you do not attempt to coerce or control the actions of another. To do that is to disrespect their autonomy, assert ones dominance and sow seeds of inequality. You only has complete control over one’s own actions, that includes deciding not to continue relationships that are not conducive to one’s wellbeing. Rules are coercive, personal boundaries are a necessity.

Reject the desire to pressure or influence others to suit your needs, but experience them and appreciate their individuality, only offering solicited advice that may aid their individual growth. Encourage others to exercise their personal freedom and act authentically, so long as their actions don’t harm others. Do the same and watch how you attract others who share a similar disposition or value yours.

Mutuality - We do, what WE want.

“In contexts of massively unbalanced power, love seeks dispersed and accountable power. Mutuality recognizes common power to give to, receive from, learn from, and challenge. And it aims at common well-being.” ― Cynthia Moe-Lobeda

In this context, mutuality is the degree of correspondence between two individuals perceptions of their commitment to each other and to their relationship, as well as the state of having mutual desires, interests and values. It’s voluntary cooperation. Often times what occurs in relationships are assumed mutualities from both individuals, that is an unspoken belief that the other person has the same desire, interest, values or intention to commit as you. The unspoken nature of assumed mutualities often times becomes a bone of contention.

There are many conventional assumed mutualities, such as communication frequency, co-habitation plans or leisure time. Things that people who like each other “should“ do. Aim for a more intentional, organic mutuality, that is doing things out of a clear shared desire for it instead of out of duty/obligation. This allows a genuine appreciation for each others time or commitment as it comes out of sheer desire - no arm twisting involved.  When individuals perform relationships off of societal scripts, they’re given the power to coerce and reprimand individuals for not acting the part i.e being “a good partner“ or “a good friend”. Such actions strip individuals of their individuality and attempt to box them with the power invested by societal norms.

No assumptions should be made about the nature of a relationship. Making explicit, conscious agreements can be useful or even mandatory for relationships that involve actual outside responsibilities, minors or dependencies, otherwise they are almost always unnecessary and burdensome. If an individual does something for you that you enjoy once or a couple times and is no longer consistent, remember that their actions or consent are not ongoing rights. You can speak to them about your concerns but at the end of the day you aren’t entitled to their time or commitment. If they are interested in doing the things you’d like to do with them, then you are on the same pages which is great. If they do not have the desire to do certain things they are well within their right not to and it is up to you to either respect that and fulfil your desires by other means. It is wise practice, allowing you to infer the qualities of an individual off of their voluntary actions vs actions they do out of duty.

Intersubjectivity - I try to see what you see.

“Walk with me for a while, my friend—you in my shoes, I in yours—and then let us talk.” ― Richelle E. Goodrich,

In this context, having an intersubjective attitude involves having an interest in, attunement to and responsiveness to the subjective, inner experience of another individual, both at a cognitive and affective level. While empathy is generally the ability to understand and share feelings with another, intersubjectivity attempts to understand reality from that persons point of view. To do this involves paying attention to how another interprets reality and responds to situations, although your analysis will always be to some extent skewed by your own subjective reality. The aim is an appreciation of the wholeness of the other person with a special awareness of the other’s subjective experience, allowing you to better understand, empathise with and be considerate of another - widening your personal worldview.

Intersubjectivity is key to really understanding how you’re actions may affect an individual and ways you can accommodate them. Adopting this practice protects the marginalised and the individuality of others. The best way to develop an intersubjective attitude is to ask another questions about how they emotionally, intellectually and factually perceive different situations, to learn about their background and what impinges upon them, to imagine the world that they exist in and how it affects them. Speak to them about it and show nonjudgemental responsiveness to encourage emotional safety and intimacy.

Self-awareness and emotional self-disclosure is crucial too. You must also be aware of your own subjective nature and have the willingness and ability to reveal your own inner states to the other person, make your needs known,  share your thoughts and feelings, giving the other access to your subjective world.

The key is to not assume you know an individual, but to be intentional in getting to know them. You can never fully know why another person does what they do. When you only see others and how they act through your own subjective lens, how their actions affect you and without empathy, you are prone to project onto them and develop narcissistic traits that can become psychologically abusive.

Humanise - I perceive you as human.

“I define connection as the energy that exists between people when they feel seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgment; and when they derive sustenance and strength from the relationship.” ―Brené Brown

To humanise, as a weak antonym for objectifying, describes a behaviour or process that appreciates the individuality of and in others. It is the viewing and treatment of other persons as if they possess the same mental, emotional and physical capacities, and agency that we enjoy as human beings. We recognise others as three-dimensional individuals, and therefore have regard for their feelings, rights, needs, boundaries, well-being and lives. To humanise someone is also to refuse objectifying and categorising them based off of their differences be it religion, race, culture, nationality, disability, beliefs, lifestyle, sex, gender identity, socioeconomic status.

To humanise others you have to recognise them autonomous individuals, develop intersubjectivity and emotional empathy in order to perceive them as complex thinking-feeling human beings. Another human being is not a replaceable tool that exists merely to take care of your needs, you do not own them, they are not an object of discharge of instinctual impulses, you are not in the best position to make decisions/speak for them or deny them of their autonomy, their boundaries are not something you can dance around or break into. To do this is to oppress another by unjustly exercising power or authority over them.

Through dealing with others with empathy, concern for their experiences and feelings, and an active interest in what makes them a different, complex person you develop the capacity to allow the differences in others and ultimately to value and encourage those qualities which make that person different and unique. You suppress the knee-jerk reaction to judge others according to your or societal ideals and develop the ability to aid those in need.  

Solitariness - I enjoy my own company.

“But many of us seek community solely to escape the fear of being alone. Knowing how to be solitary is central to the art of loving. When we can be alone, we can be with others without using them as a means of escape.” ― bell hooks

Solitariness refers to the quality of being apart from others. One that is desired and sought for, as opposed to loneliness that is isolation accompanied by the longing for company. Solitariness a positive state, it is a type of chosen aloneness, during which personality development and creativity may arise. In this state, the individual is not avoiding social interaction due to social anxiety or preference. They enjoy the experience of alone time and can use it to explore themselves.

Recognising that time alone is not only okay but necessary and fruitful, is it step towards ensuring that you are in control of your own well-being. Solitariness goes hand in hand with autonomy and both are essential to developing self-sufficiency. Being committed to your own care and equipping yourself with the material necessities, emotional tools and affirmation are essential to creativity and engaging with others in totality. When the important people in your life have their own things going on, you aren’t overcome with loneliness or resentful because you also have your own life to live. It’s about cultivating your own living compass.

There is a wild difference between interacting with others out of perpetual need and needing the support of others when in trouble. The former indicates that you use those interactions, as bell hooks puts it, “as a means of escape”, while the latter is sign of the ability to ask for help from a good support system. It may come easier to others but experiencing wholeness alone over relying on others to either constantly affirm you or complete you is something you should strive for.  It is the only way you can protect yourself from the inevitable side effects of interacting with people who are human.

Compersion - Your joy brings me joy.

“Jealousy is not a barometer by which the depth of love can be read, it merely records the degree of the lover’s insecurity.” – Margaret Mead

Compersion is a relatively new word that’s yet to make an appearance in mainstream dictionaries, but it describes a feeling that many of us experience. Compersion describes an “empathetic state of happiness and joy brought about by knowing or witnessing the happiness and joy of another individual”, specifically when the source of their pleasure does not come from you. It’s most common usage is in the nonmonogamous community when describing the positive feelings an individual can experience when a lover is enjoying another relationship. An antidote to jealousy some say.

Compersion operates on a foundation of emotional security and altruism. As an aromantic and someone who can’t really recall experiencing jealousy, compersion comes to me relatively easily. Through conversations with others who have rather opposite inclinations, I noticed a stark difference in our subjective perception of reality and interpersonal relationships:

The Comparison/Competitive – Curious/Connective Mode Polarity: This is a quasi-theory I conjured up to attempt to understand disparities between individuals and their experience of compersion. An individual who is primarily on comparison/competitive mode struggles to feel true happiness for others because they fall in the trap of comparing themselves to and creating competition between them and the source of another’s pleasure. On the other hand, an individual who is primarily on curious/connective mode is more excited at the prospect of learning about this new source of pleasure and how it pleases the other, as well as the potential opportunity to also connect with this source of pleasure. While one worries needlessly about being replaced or not “measuring up” as though they were an object, the other lives vicariously through the another knowing that every relationship exists between humans who are unique and incomparable.

Treating relationships as zero-sum game where if one is winning, the other is losing is another way surefire way to ice out compersion. If your knee jerk reaction to seeing another experience joy is to think “this isn’t fair, I want that too“ then developing a sense of selflessness is in order. In addition, examining your abundance-scarcity mindset is helpful. By believing that there is an abundance of people that you too can form fruitful relationships with, seeing others enjoy theirs shouldn’t trigger a scarcity panic.

While compersion does present as a positive feeling, this can only ring true in situations that are not riddled with injustices and don’t contribute to the oppression of an individual or another group. This brings me to the next tenet.

Indignation - I see injustice and I address it.

“Anyone can get angry, but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy.”

― Aristotle

Indignation is a trickier one to navigate. Indignation is a reactive emotion to anger over perceived mistreatment, insult, or malice. It is related to a sense of injustice. It may also refer to a morally right or justifiable decision or action or to an action which arises from an outraged sense of justice or morality. How legitimate or fair your indignation is is dependent on whether your concern is for the genuine welfare of others or if your outrage is rooted in your own subjective beliefs.

To demonstrate, from "Ethics According to Aristotle & Kant" : "If I see a bigger boy beating up on a small child, I feel indignant; I think what he is doing is wrong. It would be wrong for me and it is wrong for him. On the other hand, if another person is merely ill-mannered or foolish, I might be annoyed or even angry, but I don't feel indignation. The word indignation implies a sense of right and wrong." Theres a "sharp distinction between the moral and the merely prudential. What is moral is what I am strictly obliged to do, whether I like it or not. It has nothing to do with my inclinations and desires, but is simply my duty. The prudential, he says, is based on my own inclinations and desires." When are we fighting for collective welfare and freedom or just our own?

A sense of injustice is necessary because what we often find in interpersonal relationships is we’re faced with situations where we see maltreatment, not just happening to ourselves but being carried out by others to others and, being carried out by ourselves. Situations where someone is being wronged, exploited or oppressed. In order to create the just world we all (I assume) want to exist in, we have to be prepare to identify and address the injustice we see around us and perpetuated by us. Sometimes this requires compassion. It requires reflexion and a desire for restorative justice. *unfinished*

[doomednarrative]

2018: A (Personal) Year in Review

I put off writing in general so much, but I’ve put off this particular post long enough. 

And no, this isn’t about the general world or the country. It’s about my personal life, and it’s mainly a vent/personal rambling post, so I’ll put under a read more. If you don’t care to read it, that’s totally fine. 

But anyways. Here we go: 

2018 was...a fuckin ride, to put it in simplest terms. 

For those who are new and unaware, lemme briefly bring you up to speed about the end of 2017 for me, cause it’s important to the context of this entire thing:

December 17th of 2017, when I was on my third day home for Christmas break from college, I packed a backpack, and I left my dad and stepmom’s house for good. 

Their house had been abusive for years, and my mental health was in the absolute tank in college. I was feeling casually suicidal and had a full on breakdown about having to come home for winter break. After a fight I got into that night with my stepmom after she found me texting some friends on Discord (which I wasn’t supposed to have, even tho I was almost 19 and an adult at the time,) she got Pissed, and so did I. I had finally had a group of friends who supported me and helped me out so much, and I didn’t want to loose them. And I couldn’t stand the abuse, the treatment of me like I was a child with no privacy or personal autonomy, the constant pushing for me to date my one long time friend and to be straight, or my parent’s inability to accept me as their son and not their daughter any longer. 

I was given a choice, and told if I decided to leave, I wasn’t welcome back. A few months before, my best friend had said that their parents had a safe space for me to go if I ever needed it. They had been aware of how bad some things had been with my parents and feared for the worst, so they offered me a home if it came down to that. And that night, it came down to that choice. 

I packed one backpack of stuff I was allowed to bring (solely because it was stuff I bought) and I walked to my friends mom’s house, and by the next morning, I was at her dad’s house, safe and sound. 

2018 became the year of learning how to be an adult in a house that treated me as one, and in a house that didn’t put my personal safety and mental health in danger. 

2018 was...well, it was simultaneously the worst and best year of my life. 

Early on, I could tell my parents weren’t going to let my off easy for leaving. My mom wasn’t a problem, she had been out of my life for almost two years at that point, and hadn’t attempted to make contact with me for a long time. 

But my dad and my stepmom? Oh, they were determined to make my life as bas as they could while not being physically around me. 

First thing they did? They tried to take all of my possessions from my dorm at college without my knowledge, because they thought that They owned that stuff. I only found this out because I called the college to formally drop out and ask when I could pick up my stuff, and they informed me my parents were already planning on picking up my stuff for me. 

Me and my now adoptive parents ended up making an impromptu trip, four hours up and four hours back, that night to my college campus to make sure that I could get my possessions before they could. And we were successful.

Next thing my dad did to screw me over after moving out? 

That bastard stole about 700$ from a joint bank account I had with him to use for college. That was money I earned from about 7 months of work at my summer food truck job. And he took it because he legally could since it was a joint account, and didn’t tell me. i found out when I went into the bank to withdraw that money and open a separate account. 

So I was starting off the year with already some setbacks. 

Thankfully, I Was able to replace my birth certificate and social security card relatively easily, so that was in my favor at least. 

Then, come my birthday on January 26 last year, I got a letter. Two letters to be specific. One from my stepmom, and one from my dad. 

Both were full of manipulation and guilt tripping language and just. Gaslighting and more emotional abuse. They had somehow gotten my address from when I had set up my separate bank account and changed my information in the bank system.  And they decided to send me abusive shit as a birthday present. 

I’m not gonna lie, it hurt a lot. 

They continued to try to do stuff like that. They called me multiple times from different numbers, they called police on my adoptive family to say that I was crazy and that my parents were like. concerned for my safety because i had blocked their phone numbers after the first two phone calls. They texted me from different numbers, just. A lot of different bullshit. 

February was the first time I saw my dad since leaving. I had gone to a screening of Love Simon, as it was really important to me, and somehow thru some stalkery methods, he knew i was there and he confronted me in the theater lobby after the film. (When I asked how he found me there, his answer was ‘I have my ways.’ I never posted about this encounter when it originally happened.)

He proceeded to be transphobic to me in public, demeaning me and humiliating me in front of everyone in the theater, told me I was the reason my siblings were now in therapy (which is a lie, my brother was already in therapy for anxiety long before I left), calling me crazy, telling my adoptive mother that I “needed help” and that “she’ll outstay her welcome.” He said a lot of awful things, and eventually I left the theatre in tears after screaming at him that I was his son and that this shit was why I left in the first place, and that he should go fuck himself.

Thankfully, I didn’t see him for months afterword, not til october, right before I left my retail job that he and my stepmom found out I worked at. I saw my stepmom three times at that job, once with my siblings (which is the only time I’ve seen them since leaving and that was. Very hard to deal with and a very emotional time), and twice without my siblings. The times she came without them, she was an absolute fucking asshole to me, still spewing her abusive rhetoric about how I was in the wrong for leaving, and how my father did nothing wrong when he saw me in February. 

She and my father only left me alone after I told them that I would not get into an argument while I was on the clock, and that if they didn’t leave I’d call the store security guard. 

After that, they haven’t done anything else. Yet. We’ll see what 2019 holds. 

But, aside from the bullshit with my parents, 2018 had its other ups and downs. More ups than downs, but it still had it’s rough moments. 

I got a job in early May as a sales associate/cashier/fitting room attendant for a well known Coat Factory chain store. 

That job was pure fuckin hell, and I’m glad I don’t work there anymore. The last week that I was supposed to work there before leaving for my new job, I got pulled into the side office by the manager on duty (she wasn’t an actual manager, she just had closing priviledges) and she Screamed at me about how a customer complained about me, she hated me, my coworkers all hated me, all three of my managers hated me, and how she was tired of my attitude and how she couldn’t wait til I was fuckin gone. The whole issue that night had started because of her and how she couldn’t properly communicate to me where she wanted me to be that night and what duties she wanted me handling. She took out her frusteration at her own mistakes on me, and I had had enough. I stood my ground with her and didn’t let her walk all over me, but I went home that night, bawled for about two hours because being yelled at is a trigger for me, and she had been all in my personal space like she was going to hit me, and then I emailed my general manager the next day and told her she could replace me for my last two shifts and I wouldn’t be coming in for them. 

I haven’t stepped foot in that goddamned store since I left that night. 

I have a different job now. I work as an overnight personal care assistant at a nursing home, but it’s a higher end one, and it’s not bad. It can be stressful and super draining at times, but enviornmentally its a better job than the retail one ever was, so it’s good. 

My mental health has been a wild ride as well. I won’t get into the full details here, but let just say that uh. I’m 99% sure that I’m both ADHD and autistic, and I’m thinking I have some form of ptsd as well from years of trauma shit. I’m not suicidal anymore, but I have bouts of depression and anxiety and sometimes anger that last for days to weeks at a time. It’s...rough, to say the least. And dysphoria doesn’t help any of that. 

But I’m alive and fighting, and that’s the important part. 

Not everything this year has been bad tho. There’s been a fair amount of good too, and I’m greatful for it. 

December 23rd I celebrated my first year aniversary with @curious-corvids, and i couldn’t be happier about that. He’s been there thru this Entire ride, and he’s been such a positive force in my life, and I hope to keep him around for years to come. 

Similarly, March 18th this year will be my one year aniversary with @sinclair-solutions, and that I’m immensely happy about as well. They’re such a wonderful person and just. i’m very lucky to have them, I really am. they’ve also been here thru everything, and I could never thank then enough for that. 

I made some friends in the past few months that I can’t imagine what my days would be like without them in it. Kathy, Jay, Fi, and Evan are such great people, and I’m lucky to have them around. 

I got the chance to meet Ren, Lu and Erin in person for the first time at DragonCon, and went to both my first comic convention and my first out of state trip alone with them, and it was honestly the best five days of my life. I can’t wait to do that again with them this year. 

I’ve been steadily improving at art this year and took commissions for the first time, and that’s been a very fun thing to do. 

I’m actually able to like. Afford to buy things for myself and spend my money without interferance, and thats such a change from how my parents used to control my finances. 

Overall 2018 was just..a wild ride. 

2019 is sure to bring better things. With luck this month, I should be starting the process of legally changing my name, and that will be a very freeing thing to do. 

I turn 20 on January 26th, and just. 

I didn’t think I’d actually make it to 20. That’s a personal milestone for me, to have made it this far. 

Whatever this new year brings tho, here’s to hoping it goes better than 2018. 

Here’s to hoping I’m better this year than I was last year. 

[panswaywardmuses]

new AD charas

until I get my muse page updated lol. 

Beatrice “Bea” Colvin.  Vampire. Around 500 years old. Nathan’s progeny, turned when she was 15 to save her from the plague. Traveled under Nathan’s protection for centuries, was hesitant to be out on her own because of her young looks. Spent some time as a nun in a convent until her not aging would give her away. Is basically a ball of sunshine, but will snap if provoked and remind people that she is old and powerful. Is extremely loyal to Nathan and loves him dearly, would do anything for him. She likes to travel, but considers Awosting her home. 

Josiah Manning.  32. Witch. Older brother to Kit Manning, born into the Circle of the Silver Thread coven, his parents were two of the founding members. This makes his bloodline very powerful, and he was exposed to magic at a young age and took to it very quickly and easily. When their parents were killed--supposedly by hunters, but the siblings suspect some kind of magic accident--Josiah raised his little sister from that point on, and he is still extremely protective of her. He is also her mentor in all things magic, and works with her to hone her skills. Josiah is a trusted and reliable member of the coven, and acts as Mercy’s second in command. He often has a no-nonsense attitude towards the rest of his coven-mates, and does not suffer being lied to. Beneath the exterior though, Josiah can be warm and loving, and he is loyal to a fault. He possesses a very deep and powerful well of magic, and is particularly gifted with flames. Josiah has a familiar in the form of an orange corn snake who goes by Hephaestus, though Josiah typically calls him Heph. He works as a metal craftsman/modern day blacksmith, using his affinity for flames towards a creative outlet. His workshop is called The Forge, and is behind the house he inherited from his parents. 

Freya McCall. 18. Witch. Biological daughter of Mercy Sibley, conceived and later born in the midst of very old and powerful rituals. However, Mercy gave the child to a trusted couple of witches within the coven, Mark and Elizabeth McCall. The McCalls come from a long line of witches, however were never able to conceive a child of their own. At the time, Mercy had been on the run and taking care of other business overseas, and thought it best to let her child be adopted by her coven-mates. Freya has gone her whole life not knowing she is adopted, believing the McCalls to be her biological family. She was raised in Awosting with the support of the coven around her, and took to magic like a duck takes to water. However, the last few years as she grew from a child to a teenager, Freya’s magic has become powerful and unpredictable. Her adopted parents do their best to teach her and reign her powers in, but they are tied to her moods and outbursts happen. Once she accidentally called down a lightning bolt in broad daylight, which struck a tree next to their house and caused a fire and the tree to collapse onto their roof. After that, the McCalls went to Mercy to plead with her to take a role in helping them help Freya. Since then, Freya has been meeting with Mercy, who she still believes to be her coven leader and not connected to her in any other way, for lessons and training. The other young witches of the coven see this as favoritism, and it has caused Freya to become something of an outcast. 

Cecil Sinclair. Witch-ish. 26. Cecil was born in Awosting to two members of the Coven, though he has no memory of it. When he was one year old, his parents took him along with them to New York City on a mission from Mercy, though no one was told where they want or what they were up to. Whatever it was they were messing with caused their deaths, disguised as a hit and run with Cecil as the only survivor. No identification was left on them, and the city police were not able to track down any relatives. It was all very mysterious and went unexplained in the files, and Cecil was left in the care of an orphanage since no blood relatives could be found. The only reason they even had a name for him was because it was written on his diaper bag--but when the police tried to track down people with that last name, whoever answered claimed no relation, so Cecil was left on his own. He was wickedly smart as a child, though socially awkward, a side-effect of the magic within him that was going un-trained. Psychic abilities run in his family, and for Cecil it manifests in a “vibe” he gets from reading people’s auras. As he grew older, his abilities also grew even though he didn’t understand it--he was drawn to cemeteries and crypts, led by something he referred to as a “tingly feeling,” which was his power as a medium coming forth. It made him intensely curious about the past, as this “feeling” often led to him uncovering cool things and stories. By the time he was ready to graduate high school--having lived his entire life in New York City in the group home--he received a full ride to NYU to study in their Archaeology and Anthropology programs. He immediately loved it, delving into his studies, learning ancient languages, and blending his ease with modern technology with his love for uncovering the past. During his Master’s program, which sent him overseas on digs, Cecil met his first vampire. Remy DuPont was a fellow traveler and researcher, a professional in the field Cecil had thrown himself into, the difference being that Remy had lived through the past that so called to Cecil. Cecil started following him around like a lost puppy, trying to soak up every bit of knowledge Remy could give him. After a few run-ins with him, Cecil proved himself useful by helping Remy understand the modern world and getting him into places where he’d stand out on his own. As soon as Cecil graduated, the two became a “dynamic duo,” as Cecil puts it. He was hired as Remy’s research assistant, and they spent basically every waking moment together as they travel the world uncovering ancient secrets, bringing their finds back to Awosting to either Lex’s vault or Remy’s personal library. The more Cecil learns about magic and the supernatural, the more his interest is piqued, and he is still endlessly curious. Lucky for him, he has a very old vampire, who associates with other very old vampires, at his side to protect him when he ends up digging too deep. Recently, Cecil has discovered that he has family ties in Awosting and one blood relative remaining, a cousin named Luna. Though, he is reluctant to meet her or start any kind of relationship and keeps putting it off. Despite his quirks and his blunt-awkwardness around people, Cecil is naturally friendly and finds that he gets along with most people who have the patience for him. He particularly loves talking to vampires and picking their brains about their pasts, and he’s a little nervous around witches because he doesn’t know what to expect from his own latent magic.

[derkastellan]

Old School vs Truth

The “Old School Revolution” (OSR for short) is a niche within the wider role-playing ecosystem that has attracted my attention over the years. By now, it has diversified into people experimenting more with rules, but right now I want to look at the origins because frankly that is so much easier and is also something I have the most beef with.

Without mincing too many words the OSR seems to be about emulating the play experience of the versions of Dungeons & Dragons that were around during the Gygax era, so mostly Classic D&D (Original Edition or Oe, 0e), Basic D&D (Basic/Expert mostly), and Advanced D&D (AD&D 1st Edition or 1e). Most of this was done by writing retro-clones which either emulated the original rules, stream-lined and cleaned up the original rules, or versions that added popular house rules. The strongest contenders were Swords & Wizardry (based off of Oe mostly), Labyrinth Lord (based off of Basic mostly), and OSRIC (based of 1e). 

It’s interesting that OSRIC basically became the least used of these systems. This doesn’t mean there are no people playing 1e, though. For example Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea is a 1e-based ruleset that seems to go strong. Also Labyrinth Lord incorporated the Advanced Edition Companion. 

All of these games benefit from the basic compatibility provided by the D&D stat block. While details may differ on how to do such things as saving throws or attack rolls, in general monsters and other trappings can be shared with these games with minimal hassle - or used from the original game materials from the 70s and 80s. After all, the purpose of a retro-clone was in part to play a game that is out-of-print. (And to clean up rough edges of which there were plenty.)

“Virtues”

Having spent a few years browsing or participating on OSR boards, groups, forums - whatever was at the time an appropriate social medium - I came across various arguments in favor of old school play.

There were claims that old school gaming is...

Fostering emergent story.

More creativity-driven on the GM side because it is less defined. “Rulings not rules.”

More problem-solving-driven on the player side.

Inviting GMs to tinker with the system and getting into a do-it-yourself culture.

Overall more challenging than later games (mostly iterations of D&D).

I think it’s also perfectly fair to say that a lot of people are attracted to OSR because either of nostalgia, like I was. I see an old adventure book with black line art and I can get giddy. But somehow the OSR always wanted to rationalize an emotional response into something that is of presumably higher virtue. You may like or dislike various editions of D&D for various reasons. The question is whether you make a high horse of it to talk down from.

The list above is basically the “best of” of rationalized boasting about why older is better. The amount of claims that “D&D used to be more challenging” or “D&D has been dumbed down” and the endless amount of “war stories” from playing classic modules were truly legion. 

One could easily rephrase this list to a critique of something else and not be far off, I think:

Modern-day D&D...

Is more story-oriented or “railroady.”

Defined the GM’s job very narrowly and the rules claim to cover everything.

Diminished problem-solving on the player side.

Encouraged GMs more to be consumers than producers.

Is less challenging.

And in fact, this is the variation you will find more often expressed in the player base. It has a bit of “old man shaking his cane” at all those people playing mostly 4e or 5e D&D. 

It is also, if you ask me, partially true. It depends on how you select your data. 

You may find decades-old grudges against Dragonlance as the TSR setting that introduced rail-roady gameplay into D&D more heavily. And with the advent of unified rules the mindset of “I roll a die to succeed” has become more prevalent in both many GMs and players heads. In fact, many players come from very different backgrounds now, having cut their teeth on video games and MMORPGs.

But here’s the thing. Nothing requires you to run a 5e game as rail-roady, roll-driven, or less challenging. And while I can see how it encourages a certain mindset, style of play, and attitude, there’s plenty of systems around that one might chose instead. The world is larger than D&D, even though it ends up cornering so much of the US market for itself.

Wild times

I have no doubt that uninspired modern modules exist aplenty, providing unchallenging diversion to players. (The deluge of material for 5e is mind-boggling even when considering 3e flooding the market with 3rd party product.) 

But this already started from the days of AD&D 1e, with people clamoring for TSR to release stuff to run. And in fact, people in the OSR cite such modules also as their influences, with a very few standing out. And in fact a lot don’t stand out so much! The Greyhawk setting has probably around a hundred modules associated with it (though some or many may be set anywhere).

B2: Keep on the Borderlands was released in 1979. Tomb of Horrors in 1978. Within 4 years after the original game’s first release the idea of a game module as consumable product takes shape for TSR. Before that it took TSR about 2 years to publish “supplements” which added rules and general game stuff - as opposed to “adventures.”

The very first players had nothing to guide them by - no true introduction to running the game, for example. The first introduction as to how to play and run the game would be left to later products, like Basic D&D. So the first players pieced together what they could from a jamble of rules, thing they had heard, etc. 

How vague are we talking about? If my index search doesn’t betray me, only one of the three books contained in the original boxed set contains the concept of “caller” (without explaining it) and an example of an actual gameplay conversation between caller (on behalf of players) and referee. From this and the rules you had to deduce how the game is played. (The role of caller appears in other products but the Players Handbook of 1e finally casts it as the leader of a party, requiring “obedience” or the party is penalized for their confused actions.)

So, for many years people basically had only the vaguest hunch of how to play the game at all. It would be a bold claim to say people had a strong idea of how D&D was meant to play unless they made it to a convention and played with people who had in turn played with original players. Or read about that in a zine.

Gygax tried to make the game more uniform and defined in AD&D 1e, which in turn also curbs the most free-flowing aspects of the game and drives it towards “weapon speed factors” and a detailed list of armaments. 

The “advanced” in AD&D certainly stands for more detailed. It also stands for the end of a free-wheeling era and aims to be definitive and unifying. It goes from “you could do it like this” (even suggesting other games as part of the game) to “this is how it is done”.

“Rulings not rules” was necessary during this time as the rules were incomplete, haphazardly organized, lacked uniformity (yes, this includes AD&D 1e), and relied on the GM to fill the gap. AD&D 1e partially fills this gap but in my opinion is lacking a coherent design. It is more like an “opinionated, polished, and edited” version of the original game. It is one possible thing that could have evolved from the original soup and canonizing Gygax vision of the game.

So within a few years of the first D&D release into the wild we move from “rulings not rules” to “my rules, not your rulings.” Except for the areas like social interaction where D&D left it vague, probably for its benefit in the longer run.

It was a creative time... a time of problem-solving and challenge!

But what did players do before that? Now here we have mostly accounts of people chosing to involve themselves with the OSR in the sense of a wider audience, shaping a legend of how play was, leading to the claims I listed above.

I have heard numerous claims, in one case in person, of how this was a time where smart people devised ways to assure winning by avoiding combat or dice-rolling altogether because it was so damn risky. And this is how it was meant to be played. One played carefully, probing floors for traps with 10 foot poles, always on the lookout what GM (and module) might throw at you, and this is how you won the infamous Tomb of Horrors. 

It has a sense of e-sports athletes, doesn’t it? Because Tomb of Horrors was a tournament module you could test your gaming mettle against. Depending on who you ask it is a great challenge or a screwjob. 

Now, there are good examples of disabling traps that I do like from these accounts. Freezing traps or pouring concrete into a mechanism - good stuff. Some solutions were decidedly cool. This is certainly the response some players had to the game. They adopted a gameplay driven by cautiousness, avoiding rolls, bringing hirelings and henchmen, and otherwise minimizing risk and optimizing chances.

Reading around the internet I found other accounts - like people saying that characters used to die a lot and having a 2nd level elf was special. Running away is also mentioned as a valuable reaction to encounters. Of course, breaking the enemy’s morale also played a role, not running all encounters to the very end.

My bet is, however, that many people house-ruled D&D to be more heroic before D&D canonized step by step with 2e and later editions. My bet would be that people not only awarded more hit points, they might also fiddle with tables, the rules for dying, etc. And why shouldn’t they? If it was desirable to modify the game, why not modify that? If D&D was a means of having fun, people probably modified it to have more fun which was probably not had by dying a lot, no matter what certain GMs or Bill Webb or whoever claim.

My suspicion is that most experimenting and problem-solving went into puzzles and tricks, and occasionally traps, especially if they resembled puzzles and tricks more. And I see no true difference here today - if you provide players with something complex that they have to figure out, a lot of them will pool their problem-solving skills and try to reason it out and some will mash buttons or smash it. What has changed is that detecting traps became a lot more passive. (And traps have always been a divisive topic - how to run them well, what makes a good trap, and what outcomes are appropriate traps vs death traps, considerations of fairness, etc.)

In general, the challenge argument hinges on very few things. Part of it is that players had so few hit points on the lower levels, their survival was constantly at stake even from small challenges. On higher levels, save-or-die effects could easily kill the PC just the same. Sudden death was certainly possible enough. In other words, being vulnerable, often crazily and unrealistically vulnerable, was part of the game. A level 1 wizard might have less hit points than a cat and might be killed by one.

These don’t stem however from design, and came about at best unconsciously. If these are virtues they were at best acquired at random, not planned or designed for. They were at best happy - or depending on whom you ask, unhappy - accidents.

Dungeons & Dungeons

Looking at the material published for the OSR you notice a lot of dungeon crawls. Draw a dungeon, run a dungeon. I wonder what real story is supposed to “emerge” here? How I tricked that troll out of a magic sword? How we snatched the dragon hoard without fighting the damn thing?

The whole thing about “we evaded combat” and “not everything is scaled to your level” or “we did some pretty inventive things to disarm traps” tells a story of its own. The game itself was mostly about monsters, traps, and dungeons. Beyond that, any degree of freedom you might feel you had can frankly be had in most other RPGs with a willing and capable GM.

I have no doubt that a lot of interesting things went down in Dave Arneson’s games when everything was new and he had to adjudicate the game on the fly, stuff ideas in, make up systems, etc. It was less of a game in a codified sense and more of an experience. That must have also been born from this new sense of freedom of discovering the story angle of your avatars, and since they had all their own interests and turfs and stakes their adventures likely often had some ingrained motivation D&D often lacked. 

Evaporating marketplace

This aversion to “stories” is interesting. When you see what is published inthe OSR ecosystem, it quickly went away from plain dungeon modules to more exotic affairs. Weird set-pieces, playing to a heavy metal vibe, gonzo adventuring - I know several series of publications that thrive on that. And how about Sword & Wizardry? Half of the stuff published for it is also published for 5e. I think you will find nothing in there upsetting to “modern” sensibilities and yet it comes also for an old school system. Are we more alike than “they” think?

None of the actual retro-clones are truly thriving. They are multiplying, but who is publishing adventure modules for them? Fewer than you think. Labyrinth Lord had a pretty humdrum Kickstarter to get a new edition out, OSRIC is probably best considered dead,  Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea is selling as much a setting as a system, and Swords & Wizardry is also not brimming with new stuff. Look at the DriveThruRPG page of stuff for the S&W rules and you find that the section ordered by “Popularity” has barely seen any change - because no new major stuff got published for it. Labyrinth Lord in turn sees mostly publications for the compatible Dark Places & Demogorgons. Settings sell, retro-clones fail. Funny that. Games like the Black Hack stole most of the OSR’s thunder depending on how you want to see it, all these games like Polyhedral Dungeon that want to innovate the rules a bit, and encourage actual “hacking” instead of polishing slightly the “same ol’.”

So, unless we assume all of these happy OSR GMs homebrew, the OSR has largely failed as a marketplace. The ones succeeding to attract attention are the more gimmicky ones, the weird of LotFP, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and various module and adventure series heading into more gonzo, weird, and surreal directions. And some of the weird and surreal authors are leaving the OSR behind, like Ultraviolet Grasslands and the Black City or Electric Bastionland, having clear old school roots but playing them out their own way. Even seemingly successful publishers like Hydra Cooperative branch out into also providing their material to DCC. Both the Troll Lords and Frog God Games cater to the 5e crowd. Material palatable to more flexible old schoolers seeps into Dungeon World, the Year Zero engine, and other lightweight or even narrative systems. The OSR might not be dead, but it is not really expanding, nor is it getting stuff into stores unless you count the weird, gonzo offshoots.

Or let’s say, it’s not expanding the original OSR sphere. The old school’s influence is felt everywhere, including 5e itself. An old school vibe has reached far and wide in the RPG community, but left the OSR community behind. Unless you think that the Black Hack and other new systems are the inheritors of the OSR, that this next generation OSR will actually continue to thrive. I actually hope so. It might end up being less preachy. 

[oxfamontour-blog]

‘You can’t close your eyes’.

Oxfam Volunteer Kristine tells us about her experience as an Oxfam On Tour crew member.

Last week Coldplay played a show in Omaha, a city based in the Mid-West of the USA on the edge of the State of Nebraska. At the show we had the pleasure of meeting Kristine, an inspiring mum of 3 boys and a daughter who was determined to open people’s eyes to the world. We spent some time with Kristine during the show as she shared with us a little more about her journey with Oxfam and Coldplay. 

So Kristine, can you tell us a little bit about yourself? 

My name is Kristine.  I am 47 years old, born and raised in Nebraska, although I have lived a spell in California and also in Boston I’ve always ended up back here.  I am a single mother by choice to three adopted boys ages 16, 16, and 15.  I also have one biological daughter aged 10.  I work for a leading Dialysis Clinic in Omaha and I adore my job.  My goal in life has always been to do something that makes a real difference for people.  Pushing papers is just one small portion of what I do.  

How did you hear about Oxfam?

To be honest, I am a huge fan of an actor named Daniel Gillies from the CW show The Originals.  As he was doing his travelling for the summer attending conventions around the world I caught a live stream interview he did in France with Allocine.  He began talking about Oxfam and his intentions to visit Uganda.  I was shocked that anyone would want to travel to a war-torn country just for the purpose of observing the refugee situation.  As he got closer to his trip, he continued doing live feeds and I just decided I wanted to understand why he was making this decision.

Can you tell us a little about the journey you took to find out everything you know about Oxfam?

After watching Daniel Gilles’ social media posts I began to research more about Oxfam.  First I checked their website, then the social media accounts of Oxfam.  I signed up for daily notifications and began to read the articles they would share regarding the horrific living conditions of the displaced people all over the world.  I learned about the organization, what it stood for and began to yearn to do something to help in some way other than making a monthly pledge which, while it might help, would give me no sense of fulfilment to truly assist those in need.

Living in Omaha, there is no local Oxfam chapter, so following, sharing and talking about what was happening within my small world seemed to be the best option. When Daniel went to Uganda, he began to live stream with staff members from Oxfam who went in to detail about how they provide the water, housing and sanitation needed in the camps. He also bonded with the people who were living in Imvepi and Bidi Bidi and it was eye opening to realize that I am spoiled beyond compare when placed beside these humans who are battling for basic daily needs.

He forged a campaign with "Represent" to sell t-shirts with all money going to support Oxfam.  For me, that was the actual first step, getting the shirts.  I also continued to voraciously read, listen and try to learn as much as I could. Really feeling inside that I had found a calling for a way to make a difference in the world.  One thing he said really resonated with me, he said that years from now when his own son and daughter ask him if he knew about this world crisis and what he did about it he wanted to be able to tell them he stood up and did something, he started a movement and initiated conversations all over the world.

It was at this time I saw the tweet asking for volunteers with @Oxfamontour and I signed up immediately.  I shared the news via all my limited social media trying to encourage others to do the same.

Do you think the knowledge you now have has changed you in any way?

It has opened my eyes to a situation that is buried under political headlines and daily drama.  We in the US don't pay attention to these huge issues that are ongoing and NOT getting any better.  I'm as guilty as anyone of doing this.  I think it's a feeling of overwhelm, just a "what can I do?" attitude, but it can be as simple as spreading the word and keeping the situation alive and in the public eye.  When enough people protest, things change. 

I will never unlearn or un-see what I now know.  I will not be able to just push it to the back of my mind and forget about it.  If it means I will need to travel further from Omaha to continue to be involved, then that is what I will do.  I want my children to say, my mom helped, she did something.  Maybe it will spur them on to do humanitarian work as well.

You volunteered at the Coldplay show in Omaha, can you tell us what volunteering with Oxfam entails? 

Well, I responded to the recruitment tweet sent by @OxfamAmerica.  Confirmed via several emails that I would be there, and then showed up at the venue.  I met the other volunteers and sat with the team leader to learn what was expected.  Prior to arriving at the venue I received a packet of information and expectations which really prepared me for what was going to happen.  I appreciated that. 

Meeting other people who felt the same passion as I do was truly rewarding and everyone was so amazing.  I worked for about three hours, just approaching concert goers and asking them to sign our petition, not for money or time commitment but rather just as a name, a VOICE to send to world leaders that our priority is to keep the protections for refugees all in place.  Learning what the band has done by having Oxfam on tour only fuelled my drive to do well.

Was the volunteering hard work?

Not at all!  I was a little nervous about approaching strangers, but let's face it, everyone loves freebies and pictures, so it was a great opportunity to offer the exclusive wrist band and then tell them about Oxfam and why we were there.  Surprisingly, many people knew about Coldplay's commitment to refugees and I met so many amazing people from all over who had travelled for the concert.  Everyone there is aiming to have fun and I felt like we were giving them an opportunity to help a great cause and get a memory with a photo and a keepsake in the Stand As One wristband.  It was a win-win evening!  Honestly, out of all the folks I approached and spoke to, only one set of people declined and walked away.

Was there anything that surprised you about your evening? 

I was surprised at how much fun I had.  It was emotionally exhausting because I was truly invested in getting a message out.  I wanted people to be more aware and maybe think about it or research it after they left the concert so I put my whole heart into my message and it was incredibly fulfilling and also exhausting.  I would do it again anytime!

What was the best part of the evening? 

Truly, the best part for me was making new friends with the other volunteers, meeting Rachel (the staff lead) and feeling like I was part of larger movement that is focused on building a world that is fulfilling for everyone regardless of nationality and colour.  I guess that sounds corny, but when it comes down to it, all we really want is to live a satisfying life with friends and family and safety.  I wish that for ALL the humans on this planet.

How was Coldplay’s show? 

I am a Coldplay fan.  Not a super fan I guess but the concert was like a massive rave!  It was so much fun!  The light show, the confetti, the singing and dancing, the oneness of the crowd, it truly is in the top five of the best concerts I have ever been to.  They put their whole heart and soul into their performance even though it was the 96th on this tour!!!  Their message of love is undeniable.

What was your favourite part of the show?

It was just a sensory experience all around.  The lights, the flashing wrist bands, the confetti and balloons made Coldplay’s music the cherry on top.  Chris Martin was charming and funny and so amazing. I would say I am a different level of fan than I was before this entire experience. 

What would you tell people about Oxfam to someone who knew nothing about the organisation? 

Oxfam is under-acknowledged in the US.  We [US citizens] consider ourselves untouchable and have a way of turning the other cheek on issues affecting third world countries.  Oxfam is not about collecting massive funds for their own gain, they are on scene, in the heart of the darkness figuring out how to get water and sanitation for all the folks being driven forcibly from their home.  They are about keeping a degree of dignity for people who have fled, leaving everything behind them.  Giving them clothing, shelter, a feeling of community and support even after they have lost their homes and often times family members.  These are people just like you and me in that they want to go home.  We need to work on ending the crisis that pushed them out in the first place, but Oxfam is there at the forefront making sure they survive and thrive day to day until that peace eventually arrives.

If you can share one piece of wisdom, what would it be? 

You can't close your eyes and make things go away.  Ignoring things does not change them.  If there is ANYTHING you can do you have a responsibility to the other humans on this planet to make the effort.  Talk about it, keep it at the forefront of the news and headlines.  Donate if that is how you can best help.  Life is too precious to just let it pass you by living with rose coloured glasses on.  This is in no way a lecture; this is what I have told myself, what I have pledged to myself.  It is important to me and it is now a drive in my life to be better, to try harder, to reach out in any way I can and improve life for everyone.  I finally understand what it means to be the change you want to see in the world. 

Thank you for allowing me to share my story, and for giving me the opportunity to participate with #oxfamontour. 

You can find out more and sign up at Oxfamontour.org

[theoveldsman]

DESIGNING FUTURE-PROOF, FIT-FOR-PURPOSE ORGANISATIONS (2) Demarcating Organisational Design as mission-critical Organisational Discipline

As was elucidated in my previous article, Organisational Design (OD) refers to the Operating Model of the organisation. It pertains to the delivery logic required by the organisation to define, unlock and deliver ongoing value for stakeholders within its strategically chosen Operating Arena.  It is about ensuring that the right things get done in the right places at the right times by the right persons, teams and units with the commensurate checks and balances.

In the previous article five reasons were elucidated for Organisational Design becoming an even more mission-critical organisational discipline. Five reasons were offered for this shift: OD has always been a key leadership task; The world is changing, which requires a radical rethink of the Design  of organisations; Many organisations are preconceiving their Identities because of the emerging, new order, in turn significantly affecting their Designs; People have moved centre stage in the future success of organisations, which demands a better Design -People fit; and OD affects significantly the ability of the organisation to compete.  

The purpose of this second article in this series of articles - entitled Designing Future-Proof, Fit-for-Purpose Organisations - is to demarcate Organisational Design as mission-critical organisational discipline. What is the territory called ’Organisational Design’ all about? The correct demarcation is essential in order to equip one with the right set of lenses to engage with OD in the right manner.

Delivery Logic Modes

In the Introduction the Design of the organisation was equated to its Operating Model, its delivery logic. Delivery logic refers to how the organisation is organised to get its work done. 

Like the strands of a rope, the organisation’s delivery logic is made up of three, interdependent delivery modes (=strands) forming an indivisible, holistic whole (=rope) that have to be jointly optimised:

Technical: the Core Operating Technology and Enablers used by the organisation with its people requirements to identify and satisfy customer needs

Social:  how people must be organised around the work of organisation in utilising the Core Operating Technology and Enablers to deliver 

Virtuous: delivering in a humane way, with stewardship, for the greater good. ‘Humane’ refers to ensuring people’s dignity and well-being through the Design; ‘stewardship’, to a leaving the world a better place for future generations; and ‘greater good’ to considering the interests/ needs of all stakeholders, and not only the self-serving, parochial interests of the organisation and its shareholders.   I.e., going forward the delivery logic of fit-for-purpose organisations will need to be value-based and –referenced.

The first two strands are representative of the socio-technical perspective of OD that have been an inherent part of conventional OD for many years.  I would like to argue that the third strand is a new, critical strand to be added to the delivery logic. 

This addition is necessitated by the growing expectation elucidated in the previous article that organisations must become, and demonstrate true, genuine citizenship within society. This they must achieve by transforming themselves in social enterprises, driven by the core value orientation of sustainability through stewardship. The Operating Model of the organisation therefore must be in support of, and reflective of true, genuine citizenship in terms of real stewardship.   

Going forward, hence it will imperative to view the delivery logic of the organisation from a Technical-Social-Virtuous, design logic perspective. This perspective will frame the explication in this series of Organisational Design as mission-critical organisational discipline. It will be indicated as the TSV design logic in what follows.

What is Organisational Design Not

Given the above description of OD, it should be apparent that the Design of the organisation:  

does not equate to the organogram (or organisational chart) of the organisation.  The organogram only gives jobs (or positions), functional areas (or departments, divisions, units) and reporting lines. It does not reflect at all the delivery logic of the organisation, contained in its Design. As will be seen later, the organogram is virtually one of the last outputs of the OD process. Not the first, nor the only output. 

is not synonymous with re-engineering.  OD is aimed at the right persons doing the right things in the right place with clearly designated responsibility, accountability, authority and autonomy. I.e., OD deals with the effectiveness of the organisation: doing the right things for the right reasons in the right locations at the right time by the right persons. Re-engineering presupposes the Design. It aims to enhance the efficiency of doing the right things – established through the Design - right in the organisation. It is about doing tasks and activities quicker, better, and even smarter. 

is a separate exercise to the specific people necessary to staff up and operate the Design. OD looks at architecting the work to be done within the organisation. Only once, after the Design has been architected, does the question arise regarding the number and type of people required by the Design  on the one hand, and on the other hand who is available and suitable at present in the organisation to staff up the Design . However, the Design must be able to attract, engage and retain the worker of tomorrow (as in the previous article), but not a specific employee(s) by name.   

is different to Organisational Development. Organisational Development aims to get the people of the organisation to work productively and constructively together within a given Design. 

Overall purpose and objectives of Organisational Design

The overall purpose of OD is to architect a fit-for-purpose organisation. Around the overall purpose, four OD objectives can be distinguished. Individually and severally, these objectives result in a total mandate for OD in the organisation in terms of the difference it must make. The figure below depicts the respective objectives of OD.

                        According to the above figure, the four specific OD objectives relative to its overall purpose are:  

Conventional OD focusing primarily on Organisational Outcomes: Objectives 1 and 2. However, in recent times the relative weight has shifted to Objective 2, particularly in the recent significantly growing emphasis on “Business by Design”: the creation of memorable customer and employee experiences through an Outside-In Design approach.

Emerging OD focusing in a complementarily fashion on Social Outcomes: Objectives 3 and 4 because of the growing adoption of the core value orientation of sustainability through stewardship and genuine citizenship: leaving the world a better place for current and upcoming generations (discussed in the previous article).  

I would like to argue that in going forward, the overall purpose of OD will have to include all four objectives as given in the above figure, though weighted differently dependent on the Identity of the organisation.

Dispelling the common myths about Organisational Design

An essential pre-condition to establish OD as a proper organisational discipline, is to debunk upfront the prevalent myths regarding OD as mission-critical organizational discipline in order to make OD as organizational discipline fit-for-purpose. In other words, adopting the right frame of reference (or mind set) with respect to OD. Ten myths are debunked below.

Myth 1: OD Design is common sense or a dark art of dubious reputation for which no or at most a restricted, unproven body of knowledge exists. Reality: A vast body of OD knowledge and research exists. Though, in the final instance OD remains both science and an art. It requires both rational-logical, expert based thinking and intuitive thinking salted with solid, practical wisdom.   

Myth 2: OD does not require the shifting of mind sets, frames of reference, attitudes and behaviour. Going through the motions of rehashing the existing is good enough.  Reality: The emerging, new world, and the need for finding reformulated Identities and strategic positions for organisations in this world as discussed in Article 1, necessitate a fundamental rethink of an organisation’s Design: how to deliver better and differently in this fundamentally, different world.  

Myth 3: OD can be done on the back of a cigarette box or a serviette, preferably over a good bottle of wine, at the speed of lightning. Reality: A proper, well thought through and coherent OD requires an integrated, systematic Design process addressing all of the building blocks making up a fit-for-purpose Design. The process must be premised on the view of the organization as a dynamic, system and organic whole (see Myth 5 below). 

Myth 4: OD involves merely rearranging boxes, titles, reporting lines. I.e., redrawing organograms. Reality: OD as the Operating Model of the organisation deals with the delivery logic of an organisation. An organogram does not at all equate to a true, complete picture of an organisation’s delivery logic. It is but one piece thereof. The drafting of the organogram is but one of the very last steps in the OD process.   

Myth 5: OD (=structure) can be looked at in isolation.  The greater Organisational Landscape - made up of ingredients like leadership, technology and culture - need not be considered. Reality: The Design of an organisation is an inherent part of the overall Organisational Landscape that forms a systemic, holistic whole, an ecosystem. In touching the Design as a component of the Organisational Landscape, one touches the whole Landscape. A Design therefore needs to be supported and re-inforced by all the other parts of the Organisational Landscape. 

Myth 6: One must build one’s Design - however illogical that Design may be - around the people and the expertise they have. Or, to eliminate destructive interpersonal and team dynamics. Reality: Designing the delivery logic of the organisation as manifested in the Operating Model of an organisation exists apart from the people who must staff up the Design.   

Myth 7: By imitating what others are doing Design wise, one can be relieved from asking tough questions about the Design of one’s own organisation. Reality: One can learn from other organisations’ Design s but in the end has to go through the discipline imposed by the OD process in order to arrive at one’s own fit-for-purpose Design. Only then, can the organisation use its Design as a means of gaining a competitive edge. 

Myth 8: OD offers a quick fix solution if things are not going well. Restructure is the name of the game when the going gets tough. Reality: If done properly, a Design must have the same lifespan as the Identity (including its Strategic Intent), of an organisation because a fit-for-purpose OD solution provides one of the strongest ways to successfully roll out of an organisation’s Strategy Intent.   

Myth 9:   A new OD can merely be announced and imposed. People will readily and willingly accept and adopt the new delivery logic.  Reality: Any new Design requires a carefully crafted change navigation strategy and plan to counter the insecurity, politics, turf wars, personal conflicts, and resistance invoked by an OD intervention, and to build buy-in and ownership of the new Design. The more the new Design is different from the existing Design, the greater the need for sound change navigation. 

Myth 10: The aim of OD is to ‘panel beat’ the pains and wrongs out of the organisation. It is a band aid for the ‘structural’ pains torturing the organisation, and putting it in distress.  Reality: Proper OD is not about short term, quick fixes but thinking through in a systematic and fundamental way the organisation’s delivery logic, aligned to its Identity, and relative to its Operating Arena.   

Only by dispelling the myths regarding OD upfront, and hence embracing the true nature of OD as a mission-critical organisational discipline and key leadership task, will an organisation be able to compete successfully through its Design.

Expected benefits of a fit-for-purpose Organisational Design  

One must have realistic expectations regarding what OD can deliver: nothing more and nothing less. Given the above outlined overall purpose of OD with its associated objectives, a fit-for-purpose Design  can capacitate the organisation to compete effectively through its Design  because it would serve to:

ensure a best fit between the organisation and its context, now and going into the future. 

mobilise the organisation in a focused manner to meet market/customer needs in a value-adding manner and more responsive way, in this way creating a memorable customer and employee experiences. 

translate the organisation’s Strategic Intent, business goals and plans into focused work units; effective day-to-day work flows and modes of working; the requisite Levels of Work; well-defined work roles with a clear distribution of responsibilities, accountabilities and authority; and sound governance. 

mould the organisation’s Identity, leadership, people, culture, resources and performance into a coherent, synergetic whole. 

integrate activities seamlessly between organisational units, teams and individuals, resulting in an overall, integrated strategic thrust and response by the organisation. 

create greater economies of scale, and cost efficiencies. 

enable optimal resource allocation and deployment. 

build, enhance and protect in-depth core competencies, organisation and people-wise, putting the organisation on a sustainable, strategic trajectory. 

direct, shape and channel people effort and performance in the appropriate direction. 

retain customers and employees 

impact sustainability positively

 From the above listed benefits of a fit-for-purpose OD, its pervasive impact on organisational functioning, performance and success can be readily seen.

TAKE-AWAYS

The delivery logic of the organisation – its Operating Model as manifested in its Design - is made up of three, interdependent modes (=strands) forming an indivisible, holistic whole (=rope) that have to be jointly optimised: 

          -  Technical: the Core Operating Technology and Enablers used by the 

              organisation with its people requirements to identify and satisfy 

              customer needs

         -   Social:  how people must be organised around the work of organisation 

              in utilising the Core Operating Technology and Enablers to deliver

         -   Virtuous: delivering in a humane way, with stewardship, for the 

              greater good.

OD does not does not equate to the organogram (or organisational chart) of the organisation; is not synonymous with the re-engineering of organisational processes; is a separate exercise to the specific people necessary to staff up and operate the Design; and, is different to Organisational Development. 

The overall purpose of OD is to architect fit-for-purpose organisations. Four OD objectives related to this overall purpose were distinguished:  1: Design for the more productive deployment and use of resources; 2: Design for enhanced organisational effectiveness; 3: Design  for minimal social impact and/ or enhanced sustainability; and 4: Design  for enabling  greater value unlocking and wealth creation for all stakeholders   

 An essential pre-conditions to establish and practice OD as a proper organisational discipline demands debunking upfront the prevalent myths regarding OD as organizational discipline in order to make OD fit-for-purpose. Ten myths were debunked. From Myth 1: OD Design is common sense or a dark art of dubious reputation for which no or at most a restricted, unproven body of knowledge exists to Myth 10: The aim of OD is ‘panel beat’ the pains and wrongs out of the organisation. 

The ultimate, expected benefit of a fit-for-purpose organisational Design is to capacitate the organisation to compete effectively through its Design by enabling it to get the right things done in the right places at the right times by the right persons, teams and units with the commensurate checks and balances

NEXT TOPIC:  Basic Vocabulary and Language of Organisational Design  

Source

The article is extracted from my upcoming book, entitled Design ing Fit-for-Purpose Organisations. A comprehensive, integrated route map. The book will be published mid 2019 by Knowledge Resources. Go to www.kr.co.za  

[joshspaghettitime]

I was thinking a lot about this at work today and I wanted to try and write out my feelings on mental health and wellness. This is all pretty off the cuff and I can only speak from my own experience, so keep that in mind. This is where I’m at, at this moment in time. My feelings are subject to change, and often do as I get older and learn more about myself and psychology. 

I’m a bit hesitant to list my own diagnoses here, not because I’m ashamed of them (people who know me in real life know I am very, very open talking about my experiences, and do so frequently!), but because in recent years I’ve been trying to move away from identifying with them in an unproductive way. But for the sake of context, during my life I have been treated for ADHD, OCD, and GAD. I cope with the thoughts, feelings and behaviors I am prone to through a combination of medication, therapy, and social support. I’m kind of getting away from the point though, which is that I definitely don’t think diagnoses are bad, but they are only as good as they are useful. 

People are extreeeeemely complex, and diagnoses can be a very useful way to group certain symptoms and behaviors into a concrete category so people can find the treatment and support they need to cope with these symptoms. But of course, nothing in life is as rigid or neat as we’d like to think, and mental illness is certainly no exception. When my mom was a social worker she had a lot of clients who just.... didn’t really fit anywhere in the DSM. There was no denying these people needed services and treatment and resources, but their symptoms were such a unique cocktail of different issues stemming from so many different biological, personal, and environmental factors that most conventional labels didn’t really fit. 

I don’t want to give the impression that I like, pretend I don’t have the diagnoses I listed above, but I’ve found it helpful not to think of them as separate, discrete Bad entities anymore. I guess what I mean is I’ve come to view my mind as a gestalt, and distinguishing between different disorders feels arbitrary now. The symptoms I experience do such a complex little neuro-dance and there is so much weird overlap between them that it feels silly to view these as distinct disorders. It’s just the way my noggin’s wired, it isn’t wrong or right; it just is!

Recently I looked through the ADHD tag on here to try to find a helpful community for people who have tendencies similar to mine. There were a few good resources here and there, but it was really discouraging to see people (especially young people) just wallowing and letting their symptoms dominate their life. I really do feel like most if not all of this is due to people like, crafting an identity around their diagnosis. It really disturbs me how much this is almost encouraged, like it’s some sort of badge of honor or something. Not to say that it’s shameful to have a diagnosis like ADHD or even that it can’t be a part of your identity (for instance if you want to become an advocate and raise awareness), but I cringe thinking about how much adopting these self defeating, helpless attitudes as a teenager would have seriously hindered my long term growth and happiness.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and that’s perfectly fine. This is just how I’ve chosen to interpret these things because it feels most natural to me. I don’t begrudge anyone for strongly identifying with their diagnoses, it just really bums me out when it’s in a way that prolongs their misery. What’s important is what helps YOU get through the day, and I encourage everyone to try and figure that out! Hell, it’s a life long project and a lot of times you’re gonna need help from friends, therapists, family members, etc. But as time goes on you get the hang of it. If you approach mental wellness with determination and an earnest desire to feel better, you gain insight and resilience with every relapse, episode, and flare up. It’s a matter of finding out how YOUR brain works (and as I said, diagnoses can be a very helpful point of reference, especially early on, but always remember that they aren’t You), and using that insight and perspective to pave your own path to mental wellness (whatever that may mean to you).

[nicholemhearn]

How Americans’ Politics Drives Their Religious Views

Republicans are now a lot more religious than Democrats, but they may not mean our religious views drive our politics. Instead, people may be choosing their religious or secular affiliations, communities, and beliefs on the basis of their partisanship. Michele Margolis finds that young adults tend to move away from religion, but only Republicans and Black Democrats come back when they start a family—leading to a big over-time decline in religion among White Democrats. But what is replacing religion for Democrats? David Campbell finds that an aversion to the religious right makes Democrats adopt secular identities and principles. Both say we should expect continued religious and political polarization, as secular and Democratic identities become more closely aligned.

Transcript

Grossmann: This week on Political Research Digest, how politics is changing our religious views. For the Niskanen Center, I’m Matt Grossmann.

Republicans are now a lot more religious than Democrats, but that may not mean our religious views drive our politics. Instead, people may be choosing their religious or secular affiliations, communities and beliefs on the basis of their partisanship. I talked to Michele Margolis of the University of Pennsylvania about her new University of Chicago Press book, From Politics to the Pews.  She finds that young adults tend to move away from religion, but only Republicans and black Democrats come back when they start a family. Leading to a big over time decline in religion among white Democrats. But what is replacing religion for Democrats?

I also talked to David Campbell of the University of Notre Dame about his new American Journal of Political Science article, with Geoffrey Layman, John Green and Nathanael Sumaktoyo, “Putting Politics First.” They find that an aversion to the religious right, makes Democrats adopt secular identities and principles. Margolis reverses the traditional notion that religion affects politics.

Margolis: The single biggest takeaway is that your partisanship or your political outlooks can actually affect religious decisions that individuals make. So rather than thinking about religion affecting politics, how you view the political world and what party you align with can shape religious decisions and how active you want to be in a religious community and which community you want to be involved in.

Grossmann: And Campbell takes away the same message from his research.

Campbell: Contrary to the conventional wisdom (that it’s religion that drives people’s political views), we find evidence that the arrow also goes the other way. That people’s politics can drive their religious views and their religious identity. So much so that you can even find Americans pulling away from their own religious identity as a allergic reaction to the religious right. And we’re able to show that experimentally which we think is a pretty compelling way to make that case.

Grossmann: The conventional wisdom according to both is more of an assumption than a theory.

Campbell: Every time you utter a sentence along the lines of “the percentage of Catholics who voted for Donald Trump was x,” or “the percentage of Evangelical Protestants who voted for George W. Bush is x,” you are implicitly putting religion before the politics. We don’t usually flip those sentences around. We don’t usually suggest that voting for George W. Bush makes you an Evangelical Protestant; we think it goes the other way. And that’s certainly true. But we find is evidence that at least among some pockets of the population, it can go the other way. That’s especially true for people who are on the political left who are driven away from religion and into either the short-term form of secularism where they walk away from a religious identity. Or over, maybe we’ll call it the medium-term that can even be pushed into what we call “active secularism.” So they’re not just not religious, they’re actually actively secular. They think of themselves as secular. They act in a secular way. They think in a secular way.

Margolis: Right. So the conventional wisdom is that, as I just said, is that religion affects politics. Whether that’s your religious beliefs, whether it’s your levels of religiosity, how frequently you go to church. Whether it’s your religious affiliation, that those things drive your political attitudes, your political identification, and your vote choice. And so that’s sort of the conventional wisdom when we talk about the God gap where more religious people are Republicans and less religious people are Democrats. The assumption is that gap exists because religious people have become or are Republicans and less religious have become or are Democrats. As opposed to what I’m arguing which is that Republicans in fact are become more religious by virtue of being Republican and that Democrats are less religious by virtue of being Democrats.

Grossmann: Margolis says there’s good reason to think that parties should come first.

Margolis: Party identification is really strong and it’s very powerful. And we think a party identification as something that’s a driver of vote choice, but now we have this growing amount of literature that shows how important party ideas for how we evaluate things like the economy and elected officials, but also other people, whether we like someone or don’t like someone. Whether we want to be generous toward them or not. How we view political leaders. It all gets wrapped up how we evaluate the same external events, whether we think it’s a good thing or a bad thing. Our partisanship is this lens through which we the world, and we’re interpreting the world around us through politics or through these political lenses. And so in that sense, interpreting religion through this political lens is maybe not so surprising.

Grossmann: Today’s religious gap in partisanship was not pre-ordained. It developed after the 1960’s.

Margolis: It was only in the 60’s or early 70’s that there was basically no relationship between levels of religiosity that is how religious you are, how often you go to church, and these political variables. There were denominational differences right? Catholics used to be Democrats and Southern Protestants used to be Democrats and Northern Protestants were Republicans, but over time that gap has changed from being about denominations to being about religiosity. That religious people regardless of whether you are a Protestant, a Catholic, an undifferentiated Christian, the more you go to church, the more likely you are to a Republican. The less you go to church, the less likely you are.

And what we see over time is this relationship between religion and politics changing over time. Where as there wasn’t a religiosity gap whether you measured it by church attendance, whether it’s about religious non-identification. So when I say a religious none, I mean a n-o-n-e. A non-identifier, not a habitwearing nun. And also rates a biblical literalism, while those variables used to be uncorrelated with party ID, now they’ve become strongly correlated and specifically that Republicans are more likely to be more religious on any dimension than Democrats and that Democrats are becoming less religious over time.

Grossmann: The aggregate pattern shows Democrats losing faith and Republicans steady. But it’s Republican stability that stands out more across the secularizing world.

Margolis: There are other people who have been working in this kind of politics affecting religion and the emphasis has been on this rise of religious non-identification and this kind of lack of religiosity among Democrats. But we also know there’s evidence in other countries of a general secularization idea. That everyone in the country is becoming more secular. That is the U.S., we’ve actually been this unique nation that has an advanced Western democracy that we’re still a very devout country. And so while Republicans have not become more or less religious over time, I actually think it’s important to think about … We don’t want to take their stability as evidence of non-movement, right? This presents an opportunity of well, what would have happened without politics? Is it possible that Republicans would be less religious today if it weren’t for politics and religion being linked in the way that it is.

Grossmann: From Politics to the Pews draws on the usual life cycle of religiosity and partisanship. It turns out religion usually wanes just as we’re developing our partisan identities.

Margolis: The religious socialization literature comes largely out of the sociology of religion. The old, where they talk about religion and religiosity not being a stable identity right? It’s not this kind of static thing that never changes, which is how we as political scientists largely think about it. But instead, you can think about it as waxing and waning, let’s use that phrase, over time. So when you’re young, you have no agency, your parents choose whether you go to church, whether you go to Sunday school, you just kind of do what your parents do. Then upon reaching adolescence and young adulthood, a lot of people move away from religion and importantly, this isn’t a time when … I’m not saying everyone becomes an avowed atheist during this time. But it’s a time during which people are more likely to move themselves away from religion and distance themselves from the organized practices in which they were raised.

And there’s a lot of reasons for this. And a lot of it has nothing to do with hostility toward religion. Some of it has to do with asserting independence from your parents and some of it has to do with this, this is just a crazy time in your life where you may be leaving home to go to college. You may be leaving home and starting work, your social circles are changing, your communities ties from once you came are weakening as you’re kind of going off into the world. Your graduating high school and you’re either entering the workforce or some sort of higher education, or both.

And during this time, religion just gets pushed to the back burner. And there’s been some great sociology work noting that this is the time when religiosity decreases. So being a religious non-identifier increases. And we see this across religious faiths. So no one faith is immune from this, even if you were raised in a very devout religious community. This trend holds. So what we see is that people are just kind of on the outskirts of religion during this time.

But when people get married and have children, this represents a time where they have to start making decisions about whether or not to come back to religion. Because they start thinking about how they want to raise their children? It doesn’t mean that everyone comes back to religion at this point, although sociologists do note that it’s having school-aged children that religious participation peaks. And a lot of this has to do with wanting to give one’s child a religious upbringing. But, we also know that we’re not … We don’t practice religion in the same way as adults that raised us. That we pick and choose. Especially in America where we have so many options when it comes to religion. We’re going to pick and choose beliefs and practices and we’re going to find communities that fit our pre-existing needs and identities and outlooks.

And so it’s during this time that I make the argument that our political identities, which the political scientists know form in adolescence and young adulthood. That represents a time in which our politics can affect our religious decision making. That there’s this critical juncture when you’re making decisions, when your religious identity is still influx, but your political identity already exists. And once you’ve made that decision about religion, then we’re in a world where religion is more stable. It’s never completely stable, but your levels of religiosity do stabilize. And so politics affecting religion at a specific point in your life can have long standing consequences because the decisions you make at that time can follow you for many years to come. So that’s sort of a theoretical underpinning of when and why we might expect to see this reverse relationship occurring.

Grossmann: She finds a stark pattern: only Republican politics makes it easy for people to come back to religion.

Margolis: Some evidence that we see Democrats at a particular point in their life leaving religion, but what I also find evidence of is that at this time period, Republicans are more likely to return to religion than Democrats. So now we’re kind of seeing it on both fronts, so that religion can in fact push Democrats away and push Republicans toward religion. But in this case, we also see that it’s not just Democrats leaving religion, it’s that Republicans are saying, “I’m married, I have children. How do I want to raise my child? What kind of religions upbringing do I want to give him or her?” And they say, “Well, I’m a Republican” and they look around and they see Republicans are known as the party of religion, I’m going to go back to religion, or I feel no cognitive dissonance.

And so that makes it easier for them to return to the pews, whereas Democrats on the other hand might feel this tension, particularly white Democrats might feel this tension when they look around and see a political landscape that links conservative religion and conservative politics together and say, maybe this isn’t for me.

Grossmann: Margolis looks at three different measures that all show similar trends. Whether you go to church, whether you identify with a religion and whether you take the Bible literally.

Margolis: Using church attendance or religious service attendance is a key indicator in order to understand if this “God gap” or “Religiosity gap” that we see is American politics is being driven by church attendance affecting people’s political outlooks or whether political outlooks are actually affecting to what extent people go to church. So that’s the church attendance.

And then the second one that I do is religious non-identification. And I choose to go with non-identification rather than try to measure are you an Evangelical or are you not because that measurement is very tricky and highly problematic.

And what I really care about is your willingness to signal that yes, I’m part of a religious community. I’m part of a faith as opposed to saying, you know what? I’m not. I’m not into organization religion. I’m nothing.

In certain places in the book where I’m collecting my own data, I actually create a measure a little bit like partisanship where after saying okay yes, you say you’re a Christian, do you identify strongly or not strongly as a Christian? And then if you say you’re actually nothing, I ask if you feel if you feel closer to one religion or another. So it creates this kind of four-point scale that differentiates between strong and weak religious identifiers and then kind of pure non-identifiers and then these kind of leaning religious people. And so for me, part of this distinction is understanding people’s willingness to sign on and say yes, I’m part of this religious faith.

And then Biblical literalism I use whenever possible. I want to put a caveat around that, I don’t necessarily think politics directly affects people’s religious beliefs. I don’t think that being a Republican makes you more likely to be a biblical literalist, it’s possible. But I think what’s more likely going on is that politics is affecting the religious communities you join and how involved you are in those religious communities. And that in turn, might shape your religious beliefs.

Grossmann: But African-American Democrats do not fit the same tends because they are embedded in a very different set of relations between politics and religion.

Margolis: Black Protestants are the most religious group in the United States, whether you’re measuring it by frequency of prayer, frequency of church attendance, saying that religion is important to you. Black Protestants even more so than white Evangelicals are the most religious group in the United States. They are also the most loyal Democratic group in the United States and so that obviously everything that we’ve been talking about up until this point about the God gap and more religious people being Republicans, less religious people being Democrats, that doesn’t apply when African-Americans are both single-handedly the most religious and the most Democratic.

And so what I do show is that over time, they do engage in sort of this religious life cycle affect. They fall away from religion in young adulthood, but they actually return similarly and similar rates to white Republicans. So they don’t have this … They are returning in a way that white Democrats aren’t. And so I spend part of a chapter exploring why we think that’s the case. And it really builds on great literature in political science but also sociology and also just the religion literature that’s unique to the U.S. context, which is that churches in the U.S. are still incredibly racial segregated.

And that has really important implications because it means that most people who are African-American are going to churches with other African-Americans and people who are white are going to churches with people who are white. And so this dissonance that a white Democrat might feel in church whether it’s talking to other folks or hearing messages from the pews or watching things on the news that make it sound like Republicans are in fact the religious party and Democrats are the secular party. That doesn’t apply as much in African-American community and American Grace and David Campbell and Bob Putnam’s book, they show that the most religiously active churches are actually black Protestant churches. So it’s not white Evangelical churches that are getting up and doing all this mobilizing, it’s black churches. And it’s doing this mobilization on the left.

African-Americans when they think about religion and politics mixing together, they’re actually thinking about it mixing on the political left. They’re thinking about religion and politics on the left mixing, whereas white Americans, especially white Democrats are not. They’re thinking about religion and politics mixing on the political right and so that’s giving rise to why a white Democrat might feel uncomfortable going to church or might seek out a very specific kind of church. Whereas a black Democrat that dissonance isn’t there for them.

Grossmann: Margolis relies on a long term panel study that followed different generations as they aged.

Margolis: What’s great about panels is that rather than interviewing the different individuals over time, you’re interviewing the same individual at multiple points in time and so things that we think we might not be able to account for in a statistical model, that some people for instance might just be more religious than others, we can’t just control for this underlying level of religiosity, that’s kind of unobservable. We can get around that a little bit by looking at the same people over time. Because we’re comparing the same individual at the same points in time, and so as long as those underlying, unobservable variables don’t change and their relationship to other variables don’t change, we can have a better sense that the changes we see may actually be driven by politics or their actually driven by religion. As opposed to something that we can’t measure.

So they use parent socialization panels, this spectacular data set that’s incredibly special that interviewed an entire cohort of about 1500 respondents who were all the graduating class of 1965. They were all graduating from high school and then they were all re-interviewed when they were 25, which was in 1973. When they were 35, in 1980 and then again in 1997 when they were 50. And in addition to that one cohort, they also interviewed their parents. So we have kind of two generations over from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/how-americans-politics-drives-their-religious-views/

[elizabethleslie7654]

The Death of Principled Conservatism

check out this awesome jewelry I got hot with free shipping

Tweet

In 2016, Donald Trump was running just as much against the Republican Party as he was Hillary Clinton. Throughout the electoral cycle, Trump’s most vocal opposition continually came from his own party, with the Republican Party establishment proving to be one of his biggest obstacles to winning the presidency

In a 2017 tweet, Michael Tracey aptly wrote:

“For all the (fair) complaints about the various unseemly ideological elements which have glommed onto Trump, the most powerful and destructive one has always been the standard-fare GOP. . . In an alternate universe where a more politically-astute Trump didn’t outsource his legislative agenda to the congressional GOP, he might be ‘chiding’ ambivalent conservative senators today to back his promised infrastructure bill. Instead, he brought on establishment chieftains like Priebus and through him deferred almost entirely to Ryan/McConnell in terms of agenda-setting.”

There is a clear-cut schism between the party establishment and the grassroots base. Even the voters recognize this — a 2017 Rasmussen Reports poll indicates that 43% of voters believe the Republican Party is a bigger roadblock for Trump than the Democrats. The poll also found that while 33% of Republican voters felt more aligned with Trump, only 12% felt more aligned to congressional Republicans.

Principled Conservatism

Dogmatic fiscal conservatism first came to prominence during the Reagan presidency. Later, these policies were adopted by some moderate Democrats during the centrist Clinton presidency. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, neoliberalism eventually became the mainstream foundation of both parties. Characteristic of fiscal conservatism are supply-side economics tax cuts for the wealthy, free trade deals, economic deregulation, and faith in markets as exemplified by privatization of government services.

The shortcomings of neoliberalism have been ignored, with the burden falling upon the poor, especially poor Whites. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements were the first major outcries against this status quo, but the movements did not fully come to fruition until the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders respectively. One movement decries government as too corrupt, while the other decries corporations as too corrupt, but perhaps they are both correct—neoliberalism has led to the intertwining of business and government, each working for the other with the single goal of economic growth, no matter who gets left behind.

While the fiscal conservatism of mainstream Republicans has been consistently rejected by voters on the national level, Trump’s protectionist message is far more popular with voters. In order to maintain relevance and continue winning elections, Republicans must explore different avenues. Trump offered them an alternative.

The “America First” Doctrine

Trump breathed new life into the GOP with his “America First” doctrine. This message of economic protectionism is one that resonates with voters beyond the traditional Republican voter base. Republicans have a vital opportunity to expand their electoral coalition and maintain governing power. Winning working-class voters—especially White working-class voters—is crucial to maintaining a majority coalition over the Democrat’s “coalition of the ascendant,” and Trump’s “America First” message is a surefire strategy to secure this voting bloc.

In his inauguration speech, Trump stated, “From this moment on, it’s going to be America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families,” a line that resounded with voters. According to Morning Consult, 65% of voters supported that message, including 64% of independents and nearly half of Democrats. Additionally, “About 6 in 10 voters, including 48 percent of Democrats, also said the federal government should be required to follow Trump’s mantra: Buy American and hire American.” Pollsters also found that “Roughly three-fourths (74 percent) of voters with blue-collar jobs had a positive reaction to the ‘America first’ argument, and 87 percent said they thought the federal government should conduct business with those rules.” Furthermore, the poll revealed that during this speech, Trump’s approval rating hit an all-time high of 49%.

Trump’s “America First” slogan is significant because it set him apart from the bland Republicans he ran against. The slogan is also a useful tool because it acts as an ideological lens through which all policies can be scrutinized. For instance, in his Inauguration speech Trump stated that “…a nation exists to serve its citizens”. Later in the speech, Trump said: “Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”

The Post-Reagan Era

This “America First” view on the role of government deviates from conventional conservatism, which holds the limited government and free market dogma above all else, even when it could cause legislative gridlock or lose elections. Exemplary of this self-defeating mindset are the previous budgetary priorities of Republicans. In past budget plans, Paul Ryan has made the privatization of Social Security a primary objective. Despite his fixation on this goal, Social Security is favored by 85% of Americans according to a 2013 poll conducted by the National Association of Social Insurance.

A new attitude is developing among the collective American ethos. The previous national character, which took hold during the Reagan era, was that of standard conservatism: government gets in the way of solving problems. In recent years, this attitude has seen a sharp decline, as more people begin to believe that maybe the free market isn’t as reliable for solving problems as was previously thought.

The two most significant events contributing to this new attitude among the electorate are the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the financial crisis a decade later. With both of these events, we saw the public overwhelmingly favor government action to solve the problems, in the form of increased surveillance and financial regulations, respectively. People now believe that government is, in fact, necessary for national security and economic regulation.

Trump embodies this change in attitude by offering an alternative to the same old stale policies proposals voters have heard for decades. Fellow Republican primary candidates who ran on hardline laissez-faire economics just did not receive the degree of popularity as Donald Trump and his populist message. Looking at 2012, when Reaganism culminated into a free market Republican presidential ticket personified by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, voters on a national level soundly rejected the option. The truth is that public opinion has shifted so far from the attitude of Reaganism that a free market conservative may never be able to win the presidency again.

Rather than opposing bigger government, voters simply want a government that works for them, instead of for a few at the top. More evidence of this fact is revealed in a 2016 FiveThirtyEight/Survey Monkey poll, which found that “more Republicans than Democrats, the survey found, were against free trade, with 47 percent of GOP voters saying it was a bad thing for the economy compared with 28 percent of Democrats who felt the same way.”

Some of the Republicans in Washington opposing Trump seem all too ready to sacrifice their constituents at the altar of unfettered capitalism. The Republican Party needs to make choices: police the world or rebuild at home? The free market or the voters? Israel first or America first?

Conclusion

Donald Trump may be the first non-conservative candidate elected in the modern Republican Party, which is why it is no surprise he also set the record for most Republican primary votes in history. Under President Reagan, the GOP became a definitively conservative party, home to business-minded fiscal conservatives and libertarians. But Reagan is dead. In the post-Reagan era, voters no longer place the same trust in the free market. Reagan once said, “Government is the problem,” and Trump responded, “America First.”

Donald Trump won the presidency precisely because he was not a conservative, and none of the principled conservative candidates running against him would have stood a chance against Hillary Clinton. Fiscal conservatism is a niche ideology; mostly wealthy voters identify as very conservative and fiscal conservatism is difficult to market, especially when trying to expand a party coalition. A principled conservative has not — and will not — win a national election because these neoliberal policies do not have a path to victory in a national election. If American voters had wanted a fiscally conservative president, they would have elected Romney in 2012, or picked Rubio in 2016. But they did not; instead they voted for the billionaire populist and great White savior, Donald J. Trump.

Tweet

MY FAVORITE ACCESSORIES

from LIZ FASHION FEED https://ift.tt/2C2TKUn via IFTTT

[democratsunited-blog]

Don't Believe the Media Hype. Progressives Are Struggling in New York Races. – InsideSources

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=7603

Don't Believe the Media Hype. Progressives Are Struggling in New York Races. – InsideSources

There’s a fierce battle being waged nationwide for the soul of the Democratic Party. Is it the the party of Andrea Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders; self-styled Democratic Socialists fighting to reverse income inequality, proliferate the tenets of social justice, and empower workers? Or is it the party of Hillary Clinton and, say, Dianne Feinstein: pragmatic moderates and liberals tacking to the center–business friendly, socially liberal but inoffensive–in an effort to create a big tent party and attract moderates and independents to their cause?

This dynamic was on full display in June, when Rep. Joe Crowley, the fourth ranking Democrat in the House, was unseated by Andrea Ocasio-Cortez. Cortez, a Democratic Socialist and a political neophyte, alleged that Crowley failed to adequately represent his constituents as an establishment liberal and a party power broker. The voters agreed, handing Ocasio-Cortez the nomination with a surprisingly strong 15-point margin of victory, though in a low turnout primary.

Now, a slate of progressive candidates are trying to recreate Ocasio-Cortez’s success on the state level in the primary on September 13th. But, despite how it may appear, and despite how progressives may frame it, that same ideological clash just doesn’t seem to have materialized in the state primary.

In the gubernatorial primary, Cynthia Nixon, an actress of Sex and the City fame is, like Ocasio-Cortez, making her first run at public office. She is challenging two-term incumbent Andrew Cuomo. Nixon is trying to flank Cuomo from the left and, in somewhat similar form to Ocasio-Cortez, making the race a referendum on what she claims is his relatively moderate governing style as she also points to the corruption scandals surrounding his administration. “The Nixon campaign has been arguing that Cuomo has been johnny come-lately on a lot of issues,” says SUNY New Paltz government professor Gerald Benjamin. One prominent example of this is Cuomo’s opposition to Donald Trump.

In 2017, Cuomo was seen as something of a relative soft-liner on opposing the Trump administration. But as election season has heated up, so to have Cuomo’s excoriations of the president. Now he is widely seen as one of Trump’s fiercest critics. But that, it seems, was more a product of opportunism than ideology.

Benjamin posits that, at first, Cuomo may have seen Trump as something of a political asset, if not an outright ally. “A Governor [of New York] might think, even though they’re from different parties, ‘it might be useful to have a President from New York,” he says. This is in line with the attitudes of many who saw Trump as something of a moderate in the 2016 election. But like those voters, Cuomo sees that Trump is governing hyper-conservatively. Now, Benjamin says, “It’s almost as if he’s running against the president for governor.”

Jim Battista, a professor of political science at SUNY Buffalo and an expert on New York State politics, notes that while resistance to Trump could explain a lot of Cuomo’s recent policy shifts, it could also be attributed to Nixon’s influence. “The past year or so has seen Cuomo adopting some more liberal positions on a raft of issues,” he says, but “it’s more-or-less impossible to know how much of that is to counterpressure Nixon and how much is just that he’s been taking a more combative and clearly liberal or progressive attitude since Trump’s election.”

Nixon has taken firmly progressive stances on everything from education to housing to drug laws. She has made transportation a cornerstone of her campaign, hammering Cuomo on recent MTA calamities such as 2017’s “summer of hell,” a period fraught with delays, track fires and complete apathy towards New York’s transportation system. She has even gone so far as to align herself with the emerging Democratic Socialist movement. Put simply, she is doing everything she can to make herself the left-wing alternative to Cuomo.

But Cuomo was already widely seen as not only one of the most liberal governors in the United States, but also a pretty good ideological representative of New York voters. The New York electorate is liberal, no doubt, but they’re not quite Vermont liberal. Progressivism in the vein of Bernie Sanders doesn’t tend to play well in New York City, the heart of New York’s Democratic population. Many of those voters are black and hispanic: demographic groups which tend to be more moderate than progressive. Battista points out that “Democratic Socialists seem to be a substantially whiter party than the Democrats overall.” For that reason, Sanders-style progressivism and Democratic Socialism only really plays in the sparsely populated rural, and predominantly white, areas of upstate New York.

Nixon is also a pretty weak candidate, and probably isn’t the best standard-bearer for progressivism in New York. She has been bashed for a lack of substantial experience in government or management of any kind. Those criticisms, the ideological makeup of New York and the difficulty of unseating an incumbent, especially one as powerful as Cuomo, have made it difficult for her to make a dent in the polls.

According to a recent poll by Siena Research Institute, an Albany research firm, Cuomo leads Nixon by a factor of two-to-one, 60 percent to 29 percent–meaning the election could be more media hype than a genuinely close race. Unsurprisingly, Cuomo’s strongest numbers come from self-identified “moderates,” while Nixon is strongest with liberals. Cuomo also holds a resounding lead in NYC and the NYC suburbs, which tend to favor establishment candidates, and Black and Latino voters. Nixon’s strength is among white voters and those in the more rural upstate areas. At the end of the day, however, Cuomo still holds healthy leads in every category.

The story doesn’t change much when you look down-ballot.

Several candidates have lined up to replace acting Attorney General Barbara Underwood. Underwood stepped into the top job after the resignation of her predecessor, Eric Schneiderman, following a New Yorker report of his alleged sexual abuse of several women. Three of the four major candidates running to are women. This race, though somewhat more competitive than the gubernatorial race, is still pretty much decided against the candidate furthest to the left.

The leader of the pack is New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, a black woman who was handpicked by Cuomo and has garnered the endorsements of powerful politicians and public officials across the state. She is facing Sean Patrick Maloney, the first openly gay Congressman from the New York and a Hudson Valley moderate who ran for Attorney General back in 2006 (full disclosure: I interned for Maloney several years ago); Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham Law Professor who previously challenged Cuomo in the 2014 gubernatorial primary and who ran for Congress in 2016; and Leecia Eve, an attorney and ex-aide to Cuomo and Senator Hillary Clinton, from Buffalo.

The Siena poll shows James leading with 25 percent, followed by Maloney with 16 percent, Teachout with 13 percent and Eve with just 4 percent. James, like Cuomo, is strongest amongst moderates and conservatives, NYC residents, and voters of color. Maloney leads narrowly among suburban, upstate and white voters, while Teachout is nearly tied with James among liberals and with Maloney among white voters. 42 percent are still undecided.

Teachout is clearly the most progressive of the three candidates. She is running the most heavily anti-Trump campaign, while advocating strongly for campaign finance reform. She is cross-campaigning with Nixon and Ocasio-Cortez. She is hampered a bit by the fact that a significant portion of her donations have come from outside New York State, as well as the fact that she has run for so many offices in so short a time. As Benjamin puts it: “She seems to want to run for anything that’s available.”

Like Nixon, Teachout suffers from a lack of support outside rural, upstate communities. “You can’t have a win as a Democrat with an upstate-based strategy,” says Benjamin, “You got to hunt where the ducks are.” In this case, the ducks, Democratic voters, are heavily clustered in New York City.

Maloney has run into a similar demographic problem. His moderate reputation and a massive $3 million war chest have allowed him to make inroads with the affluent communities of Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley, but that’s about as far as a moderate–who has voted with Trump 34% of the time–can get in New York. Maloney has also failed to get significant in-state endorsements due to the fact that he’s been working on the federal level. Both he and Teachout seem to be shut out of the New York City game.

Contrast that with James, who, thanks to Cuomo’s backing, has racked up endorsements from of a wide network of powerful politicians, unions, and party organizations across the state. Both she and Cuomo were easily nominated to get on the primary ballot at the state Democratic convention back in May, winning 85% and 95% of delegates respectively. Also like Cuomo, James has higher name recognition than her opponents and is popular in New York City thanks to her work as a solidly liberal Public Advocate. With pretty solid polling leads, it seems that, barring any unforeseen events, she and Cuomo will cruise to victory on primary day.

While this race could be looked upon with an ideological lens, the takeaway would ultimately be that progressivism isn’t ready for prime time in urban states. Perhaps New Yorkers just aren’t ready for Vermont-style politics.

Read full story here

[rothleycommunitylibrary-blog]

October newsletter

Rothley Community Library has been placed as one of the finalists for the Rural Community Council’s Leicestershire Best Community Library Award. We’ll hear if we won at the awards dinner on October 26, but just being placed is a huge accolade for everyone involved in the library, and for the village. Thanks for making it happen!

This year’s Race Night wasn’t quite as well-attended, but £420 was raised to help keep the library open, and it was certainly good fun. Many thanks to all the local businesses who sponsored races and gave generous raffle prizes.

The Summer Reading Challenge was a huge success - for those of you who like the figures, here they are: 127 children signed up to the challenge, 61 boys and 66 girls.The children came from 12 different schools including 2 children from USA who were staying with their granny in Rothley for the summer. 21 completed stage 1 only -  (8 boys and 13 girls with the majority being in the 5-8 age range and 7 in the 9-12 age range). 8 completed Stage 2 only (3 boys and 5 girls). 98 children have finished the full challenge, representing 77% completion. This is made up of 48 girls & 50 boys. 13 were under 4.  Thanks to everyone who took part and everyone who provided activities, milk shakes and cookies to help it all along.

October highlights: Saturday 21st is the library’s second birthday! There’ll be cake, singing, teas, produce sales, a puppet show, and lots of books and cards for sale. 10-1 at the library. Be there! Friday 20 October, 2pm at the Rothley Centre, The Film Club is presenting Lion - a fabulous, heart-warming film. And the AGM is on Friday 3 November, 6.30 for 7 at the library. Read on for all the details.

Requests: Lego, books in good condition, cakes and produce for Saturday 21st, and people - who’ll volunteer, become a trustee, help out or support…

October events

Second birthday book sale: Saturday 21 October, 10-1. Donations of good quality books welcome. This time we're raising money for the new LEGO club, starting soon. LEGO donations and people to help also welcome! Produce sale - if you have crafts, chutneys etc to sell, let us know. Could you help set up, clear up, make teas etc? Let us know at info@rothleycommunitylibrary.co.uk Storytime for Under 5s:  Tuesday 3 and Friday 20 October 9.30-10.15. Everyone’s welcome to come along and enjoy some stories, songs and craft activities with their children. We are always interested to hear from anyone who would like to help with the sessions. Computer support: Thursday 5 and 19 October, 10-12. All welcome.  Bring your tablet or laptop, or use the library’s computers. Film Talk Wednesday 11 October 7pm -  Their Finest (2016). Using Their Finest as a starting point to looking at the position of women working behind the camera. Chess club: Thursdays 12, 19 and 25 October, 2, 9  and Wednesday 15 November, 2-5pm. Play or learn - bring a set if you have one. Library Association AGM: Friday 3 November at the library, 6.30 for 7. Careers advice still available - contact careers@rothleycommunitylibrary.co.uk to make an appointment. Lego Club: lots of people have said they’re interested in the Lego Club, and we’re collecting Lego (new and old) and donations towards kitting it out. If anyone would like to help by sewing Lego bags, let us know. If you could help in other ways, get in touch. Would you like to  find out about being a library trustee? Get in touch: volunteers@rothleycommunitylibrary.co.uk Would you like to volunteer at the library? We're looking for more people to join our team! volunteers@rothleycommunitylibrary.co.uk Film Talk Fascinating, thought-provoking evenings talking about films. 7pm at the library. 11th October -  Their Finest (2016). Using Their Finest as a starting point to look at the position of women working behind the camera. The Film Club shows films mainly on the third Friday of the month at 2pm at the Rothley Centre. Come and join us for a friendly atmosphere and free refreshments. Over 60s £4.50, others £5. Tickets available at the library, or on the door. Lion (2016)  Friday 20 October at 2pm.  Five year old Saroo gets lost on a train which takes him thousands of miles across India, away from home and family. Saroo must learn to survive alone in Kolkata, before ultimately being adopted by an Australian couple.               25 years later, with only a handful of memories, his unwavering determination, and a revolutionary technology known as Google Earth, he sets out to find his lost family and finally return to his first home. Stars Dev Patel, Rooney Mara, Nicole Kidman. Live & Local: Your Bard. Friday November 10, 7pm, the Rothley Centre. Professor Nother is giving a talk about Shakespeare authorship in the function room at the Shakespeare pub – but he doesn’t believe the man from Stratford wrote those plays. That’s Will’s cue to kick the door off the hinges and defend his reputation. Come and meet the man himself and take the lid off a legend in your local. He’ll tell you all about his family, what it’s like on tour and the glory days at the Globe.  Queen Elizabeth I, Christopher Marlowe and Ned Alleyn – you’ll meet them too.  Intermingled with a few of his greatest hits - and maybe a sonnet or a song. Booking available at the library, and shortly online at https://rothleycommunitylibrary.co.uk/Live-shows.php

Community Book group: Wednesday 1 November at 7.15 - 8.15pm at the library. All welcome, whether or not you’ve read the book! Vintage by Maxine Linnell. Holly and Marilyn would rather be anywhere but here, on this normal Friday afternoon. Then something very weird happens, and they change places. There's only one problem. Holly lives in 2010. Marilyn lives in 1962. 'What is most interesting is the contrast in the social conventions and attitudes towards sex, family, and authority. Both girls find their new worlds both strange and oddly appealing. For Marilyn from the 1960s, the new freedoms of 2010 are exhilarating. For her counterpart Holly now living in 1962, despite initial feelings of claustrophobia, she finds she enjoys the close family ties, the valued friendships and the romance that are not so certain in her own time. A very compelling and thought-provoking read.' The School Librarian. If you receive this newsletter, you’re welcome to our second Annual General Meeting, open to all association members of Rothley Community Library. It will take place at the library on Friday November 3rd starting at 6.30pm. There will be refreshments from 6.30pm and an opportunity for you to see what we have achieved this year.  The AGM will open at 7pm.  We look forward to seeing as many of you as possible there. Two board members will be stepping down in accordance with our constitution and are eligible for re-election. In addition we have three additional vacancies and  invite any members who might be interested to contact us at info@rothleycommunitylibrary.co.uk for further information about the role and responsibilities.  If you don't have time yourself, perhaps you know someone else who might be interested. National Libraries Week 9-14 October Remember your library this week - we’re celebrating still being here, nearly two years after the library opened as a community venture! Pop in and see everyone. New Library Walking group. A small number of people have suggested the idea of a library walking group. Alan, who  is an experienced walk leader, has offered to lead a walk The arrangements being suggested are the second and fourth Fridays in the month, meeting at the library or somewhere nearby, at 10am and doing a local walk of about 3 miles or an hour to an hour and a half. If you are interested in joining us, (it will be come along when you can), please contact Sue on: volunteers@rothleycommunitylibrary.co.uk or call into the library to let us have your contact details so that we can get in touch. If there is enough interest we would like to start on Friday November10th at 10am.