#despite many technical issues I have. Prevailed

[the-iron-orchid]

Requested by: @fullyfunctionalapprentice

Turel effortlessly lifting this tiny binch for a birthday neck-smooch!

[scotianostra]

September 2nd 1724 Maggie Dickson climbed the gallows in Edinburgh's Grassmarket, ready to take “The last drop”

Her downfall came when she got pregnant and tried to conceal the fact. Maggie’s husband had deserted her to work in the Fisheries in Newcastle in Northern England.

Consequently she had to leave Edinburgh and moved to Kelso in the south of Scotland. Whilst there she had an affair with an innkeepers son.

As the Innkeeper was her employer she felt compelled to keep the pregnancy quiet as she would lose her job. Tragically the baby died after being born prematurely and she decided to dispose of the body. She intended to cast it into the River Tweed but instead left it on the riverbank. It was soon found and the authorities quickly determined that Maggie was the mother. At that time such an action in Scotland contravened the 'Concealment of Pregnancy Act' of 1690 which made it tantamount to murder.

"Her reason for concealing the birth of the child was for fear of being made a public example in the church, and a laughing-stock to all her neighbours The legal and religious institutions were severe on women concerning matters of their pregnancy. Even the natural occurrences of miscarriage or still-born infants could incur the wrath of the law.

And so it was, Maggie was tried, convicted and sentenced to hang. The execution took place on the 2nd September 1724 in the Grassmarket area of Edinburgh. This was the favoured location for hangings at that time and normally took place on market day to ensure a sizeable crowd.

Her body was then taken in a coffin for burial to the town of Musselburgh which was east of Edinburgh. Apparently this was only after an unseemly scuffle between her family and local medical students keen for a young body to dissect. The corpses of the condemned were regularly passed to the Schools of Anatomy in the name of science in the 18th century.

The family had their way and took possession of Maggie's remains for burial. They set off on the journey and on the way stopped off at a pub for some refreshments in the Peffer Mill area. All of a sudden there came a knocking and banging on the coffin lid from the inside. Astonished, they opened up the coffin to discover that she was not dead.

Miraculously it seemed that Maggie Dickson had not succumbed to the gallows but had cheated death at the hands of the law. She was alive and well as confirmed by a local gardener on the scene who cut a vein to check for a flow of blood. After spending a night to recover Maggie actually walked back to Musselburgh the next day.

But what would happen next? As the death certificate had already been issued it was impossible to re-execute Maggie. This was because Scots Law is based on Roman Pandects and in this case it prohibited further action. Therefore the King's Advocate could not pursue the matter any further.

Instead he filed against the Edinburgh Sheriff in the High Court of Justiciary for not efficiently conducting the public execution. The ruling also meant that as Maggie was technically dead then her marriage was dissolved.

Furthermore, the prevailing opinion amongst people in Edinburgh considered her survival to be the result of divine intervention. Local people believed it had been 'God's will' that had spared her from an early grave.

Rumours persist that she actually seduced the ropemaker and convinced him to make the noose weak enough not to kill her. We will never know if that's the truth.

Whatever the facts of her hanging Maggie lived for another 40 years and had many children. Her husband remarried her despite that fact that she now sported rope burns and her neck was permanently crooked for the rest of her life. She is said to have ran an alehouse in Musselburgh for the rest of her life.

If you have ever visited Edinburgh’s Grassmarket you will have no doubt seen the names of the bars have a historical connection, The White Hart connects with King David I and his encounter with a White Stag, The Last Drop is of course a nod to the execution place and Maggie Dickson is for our erstwhile subject today, who the people of Edinburgh remember as “ Half-hangit Maggie “

[bills-bible-basics]

Discrimination on the Social Networks -- a commentary by Bill Kochman Let's be honest here. Despite how much we enjoy using them, some social networks are really becoming unbearable. They continuously plaster us with ads we really don't want to see. They are constantly pushing us and pressuring us to spend money on advertising which we cannot afford on our meager incomes. And besides, if the truth be told -- I speak from personal experience -- most paid advertising does NOT garner us a lot of new, long-term friends or subscribers, or even a large number of new likes or comments for that matter. My own experience is that, at best, in many cases, paid advertising may provide us with a temporary increase in the number of views, but that is about it. There is no long-term commitment, so what is the point? At the same time, our advertising expenses makes the social network richer. Of course, as many of us already know, the way that they do this is by purposely exploiting our desire to be seen and heard by the world. This is particularly true in the case of evangelically-minded Christians who strongly believe in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We can be such suckers. But to continue, some social networks are also filled with disgusting, ungodly things -- and people -- which are an affront to our Christian faith. Sadly, as many of us have already learned, there is very little that we can do about it. Even when the social networks do respond to our complaints -- which is rare -- it is usually just to inform us that a particular post falls within the parameters of their Terms of Service, and their sharing/posting guidelines, even if we are personally offended by said material. Now we come to the gist of the matter. Perhaps the thing which irks many Christians the most, is the fact that there seems to be an intentional campaign of discrimination against people who embrace conservative, Christian values. It has become such a huge issue, that it has even been discussed and examined in Washington, D.C. Such was the case with Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Speaking again from my personal observations, on a number of occasions now, I have seen my brothers and sisters in the Lord complain that some of their posts, images or comments have mysteriously disappeared, oft times without any explanation whatsoever. Was it due to the inexpertise of the user; or due to a technical glitch in the social network's system; or was it due to something else? Some Christians have arrived at the conclusion that these strange disappearances are due to "something else". They base this conclusion on the fact that when an explanation is offered by the social network, they are usually informed that their post, image or comment was removed because it was contrary to social network policies -- or "Community Standards" -- in some way. This explanation has been interpreted by some Christians to mean that someone -- sometimes a liberal-minded social network staff member -- apparently found the post offensive, hateful or discriminatory in some way. If this is indeed what is really going on, then clearly, a double standard is being practiced by some social networks. In other words, it doesn't matter that as Christians, we are offended by -- and sometimes report -- some objectionable things that we see on the social networks. Because some social networks are so liberal, our opinions are of little value to them. Who knows, perhaps they even view us as a nuisance. Thus, they will write off our complaints, and claim that the originator of the post -- which we find offensive -- is simply exercising their right to free speech. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that if we dare to strongly express our Christian views, values and beliefs -- which are often in opposition to the politically correct social attitudes which prevail on the social networks today -- we are given a slap on the wrist, and our content sometimes removed. In short, if we are offended by a particular post, it doesn't matter.

But if someone takes issue with one of our Christian-oriented posts, it requires the attention of the social network, often resulting in us suffering some type of negative consequence. Given what seems to be going on, it comes as no surprise to me, that more and more, I come across posts where my Christian brethren are becoming quite discouraged, and announcing that they are permanently leaving a particular social network. Why? Because they just can't handle the unfair bias and discrimination against them. Some of them feel isolated and alone, as if they have been purposely cut off from the rest of the social network, due to their Christian beliefs. While they are given the impression that no one cares about what they think, believe or say -- which is what some assume when no one comments on or shares their posts -- is it possible that this is by design, and precisely what certain liberal social networks want them to feel, so that they will become discouraged and leave? Good question. If you find yourself in this position, allow me to ask you something. Are you going to give up the fight so easily? Are you just going to throw in the towel and surrender? Are you going to let them win the battle? Hoping not to seem too cliché, WWJD? Of course, there is ANOTHER solution: You can join another social network where your Christian views are not only welcomed, they are encouraged and not suppressed. That network is the Christian Social Network, and you are welcome to join it today at the following URL. Forget the antichrist social networks. Come and fellowship with your like-minded Christian brethren on CSNet! https://www.csnet.live/index.php Or, if you are an iPhone® user, you can download the CSNet app for your phone from the App Store®. Simply launch the App Store app on your iPhone, and then search for "csnet". The app icon with the Bible and Cross with the blue background is it! You can likewise download our CSNet app for your Android phone as well by visiting Google's Play Store on your phone. iPhone® and App Store® are trademarks of Apple Inc. https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/discrimination-on-the-social-networks-a-commentary-by-bill-kochman/?feed_id=43406&_unique_id=642f704f44d9e&Discrimination%20on%20the%20Social%20Networks%20--%20a%20commentary%20by%20Bill%20Kochman

[antique-ro-man]

Ableism in Articles about Autism and Profound Giftedness

This was initially going to be a general post, but it turned into a callout/break down of the writing of Danielle Voit. So, let’s just jump in.

“This, in turn, presents as behavioral problems – temper tantrums, physical violence, oppositional defiance, etc.  An inability to, or reduced ability to, understand other people’s emotions and feelings only makes the issue worse. Unlike the typical child, these children often do not understand that these behaviors upset bystanders which makes these behaviors difficult to correct or change.” 

What’s wrong with this paragraph from Danielle Voit’s article “Autism –vs- Giftedness: A Neurobiological Perspective”? Listen to the language:

“makes the issue worse”

“the typical child”

“which makes these behaviors difficult to correct”

Whilst the information is technically true, the language used is subtly degrading to autistic individuals, othering them and treating them as inherently burdens, which is already a prevailing stereotype.

Now, from context, I believe this article was written for neurotypical parents and/or teachers of autistic and profoundly gifted children.* Whilst this could explain the othering of autistic people as the article was not written for them, it is also very harmful to enforce these beliefs in adults in direct power positions over autistic children.

*Voit opens the article by talking about being a teacher:

“Each one of my students holds a special place in my heart – ten years, thousands of students and parents – it’s been a long journey towards understanding in an effort to provide the resources that these children need so desperately.  Yet, it’s been those profoundly gifted students who present with social and communicative inadequacies – often deemed as “quirky behaviors,” and in extreme situations, autism spectrum disorder(ASD), that invoke a sense of urgency in my own professional ambitions.”

(Again, listen to the subtle egotism and positioning herself as a neurotypical “savior” to her students.)

Moreover, Voit doesn’t cite her sources in this article, which deals with neurobiology. After looking through her linkedin, her blog (where I got the article from), and her school’s website, Voit is not a doctor of psychology, as she does not hold a Ph.D or MD (or, at least, does not openly talk about this despite her work surrounding neurobiology). She does, however, vaguely reference her sources:

​Some studies suggest somewhat similar findings...

What studies, Danielle?

This article was recommended to me by a reputable, Ph.D-holding psychologist (who, I should point out, is also neurotypical), so I am inclined to believe the information in it, as it also fits logically with my knowledge of neurodiversity. I will be fact-checking, though, because Voit provides reason after reason to doubt her writing.

Danielle Voit does not cite sources, does not have the proper qualifications to write this article, (she is a language arts teacher), is neurotypical, and uses subtly degrading language towards neurodivergent people. She is a director and teacher at a school for neurodivergent children. The alarm bells are ringing! This is a clear example of how little our society cares about neurodivergent children. Voit must do better. We must do better.

So, there’s my two-sense on something I noticed whilst doing some research. Links to the works and websites I reference are scattered throughout the post. To my knowledge, this seems to be simply an over-inflated ego combined with ignorance, not a purposeful attack on autistic people, but it does exemplify a large problem in writings about autistic people. Mainly that they are not written for autistic people.

Thank you for your time.

---

TL;DR Danielle Vout’s article uses language that subtly degrades and ostracizes neurodivergent, especially autistic, people. Voit does not cite sources and does not have qualifications to make her work trustworthy, as she is a languages arts teacher and does not have a Ph.D or MD. As Voit is in a direct power position to many neurodivergent children, I see this as an example of how ableism is deeply engrained in our society and how little we, as a collective, care about nearodivergent people and children.

[aion-rsa]

Why Turner Classic Movies is Reframing Problematic Hollywood Favorites

https://ift.tt/3rnt3hu

Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a movie Alicia Malone fell head over heels in love with during childhood. Seeing it more times than she can remember in her native Australia, the future author and Turner Classic Movies host still recalls failed attempts to launch a high school film club with Audrey Hepburn’s Holly Golightly as the star attraction.

“I thought for sure people were going to get excited about classic movies if they watched Breakfast at Tiffany’s because it has so much life to it!” Malone says today. How could they not fall for Hepburn’s iconic performance, which Malone still describes as luminous? “Holly Golightly is a complex female character, and for the times it was quite sexually progressive.”  Yet there was always another element, even in those halcyon days, which Malone recognized as uncomfortable—that discomfort has only grown to modern eyes.

Beyond the movie’s bittersweet romance between a pseudo-call girl and the kept man living in the apartment upstairs, there’s a grossly racist caricature of Japanese Americans in the movie’s margins, and it’s portrayed no less than by Mickey Rooney in yellowface makeup. It’s technically a small part of the movie, only appearing briefly and sporadically, but each time the character arrives, it’s like a sledgehammer swung across the screen. For decades the performance has been rightly criticized by Asian American advocacy groups, and even Rooney acknowledged late in life that if he knew people would become offended, he “wouldn’t have done it.” Nevertheless, the shadow that character casts over the movie has only loomed larger with time.

“I just kind of hold my breath and half shut my eyes every time Mickey Rooney shows up,” fellow TCM host Dave Karger says during a Zoom conversation with Malone and myself. “Mercifully, he’s gone pretty soon, and I’ve chosen actively not to let that performance ruin the movie for me, because ‘Moon River’ and the party scene, and George Peppard looking so great—there’s just so much to love and appreciate, so I actively choose to focus on that.”

Despite those personal struggles with the movie, Karger and Malone are both unafraid to examine the full implications of Rooney’s Mr. Yunioshi head-on. It’s why they hosted, alongside Ben Mankiewicz, a lengthy discussion of the character’s legacy last week during a special Turner Classic Movies presentation. That conversation was part of TCM’s Reframed series, a new season of content from the network which looks at some of the most beloved Hollywood classics of the 20th century—the crème de la crème, as Karger describes them—and studies why they can also be problematic and, in some cases, stunningly offensive. In the case of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, that can even lead to larger discussions about prevailing anti-Japanese attitudes and stereotypes in American society that persisted in the immediate decades after World War II… and can still be found as echoes in the anti-Asian stereotypes of today.

For Karger and Malone, these are the types of discussions TCM hosts have been having off-screen for years. So bringing those dimensions to the forefront for new generations of viewers felt only natural with Reframed.

Says Malone, “We often talk to each other about how we approach certain films when it comes to writing our scripts for our intros and outros for each individual film. We also talk with the producers about what we should bring up, what we shouldn’t bring up; if we should talk about an actor or director’s problematic past during that particular film, or if it doesn’t go with the content of the movie.”

So the five main hosts of TCM–who also include University of Chicago Professor Jacqueline Stewart and author Eddie Muller–were eager to have these frank discussions on screen while offering historical context from a modern perspective.

“All of us at TCM are watching the world change and watching the culture change,” Karger says, “and even though we show movies by and large from the period of the ‘30s to the ‘60s, we all realized that it doesn’t mean we can’t be part of today’s cultural conversation. It’s not a stretch at all to talk about classic movies from a point-of-view of the 21st century; that’s very possible to do, and I think a lot of our fans are looking for that kind of context when they watch the channel.”

The Reframed series, which was spearheaded in part by Charlie Tabesh, the TCM head of programming, and organized by producer Courtney O’Brien, looks to balance what Karger describes as the push and pull between nostalgia and criticism. Both Malone and Karger are acutely aware of the hesitance some classic movie fans might have about evaluating works from nearly a century ago through a 21st century prism, however the new program is intended to renew engagement with these movies—particularly in an era when there are just as many loud voices that attempt to dismiss or wipe away the legacies of these film’s from the cultural canon.

“That’s really important to remind everyone that this series is not here to shame these movies or to tell anyone that they can’t love these movies,” Karger says. “And if there’s a frustration that I’ve had in this last month, it’s to see some of the reaction to this series be along the lines of ‘you’re part of cancel culture with this series.’ It could not be more the opposite of that. We’re not cancelling anything; we’re showing the films a hundred percent in their entirety, we’re just talking about them.”

Malone further emphasizes this is what can keep so many of these movies vital in an era when sequences like the aforementioned Rooney scenes in Breakfast at Tiffany’s are being deleted from a Sacramento film festival—effectively erased from the collective memory.

“I think everyone at TCM sees this as the way forward,” Malone says, “the way that we can continue to make sure these movies stay alive for younger generations. We can continue talking about them, discussing them, they can change over the years, our feelings can change about them; you can love a film and not be able to justify parts of it at the same time. What’s so important though is just to have the discussion, to talk about these problematic areas and face up to them rather than hiding them. To me, if you take out a film from existence or you just delete parts of a film, you’re in a way saying these problems never existed.”

Indeed, even the opinions of folks as steeped in this history as the hosts of Turner Classic Movies can evolve as the culture does. Ben Mankiewicz, for example, is TCM’s unofficial statesman but he surprised some viewers two weeks ago when he revealed during a Reframed discussion that he can no longer comfortably watch Gunga Din (1939), a rollicking adventure movie set in British India. Based on a Rudyard Kipling poem, that classic film’s influences can still be felt in more modern blockbusters like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). However, Gunga Din is also a movie that glorifies the British Empire at the expense of then-contemporary Indian independence movement, with the villain being a character who Mankiewicz noted is physically modeled after Mahatma Gandhi, who would’ve been seen as subversive by some white audiences in the ‘30s.

“I’ve never been a huge fan of that movie, even though Cary Grant is my favorite actor,” Karger says. “And I was even a little surprised when Ben and Brad Bird included it on [the TCM program] The Essentials last year. Not because it’s not a revered classic movie, but because it’s more than a little offensive. And it was fascinating to be part of that conversation with Ben, talking about the evolution of his feelings for Gunga Din, because he’s been with the network 15 years. I can’t imagine how many times he’s talked about that movie, and it’s just showing you that culture and history are living, breathing things.”

Opinions change. Malone had a similar experience when she joined Mankiewicz and Muller to discuss John Ford’s seminal Western, The Searchers (1956), a movie where the director began reckoning with his depiction of Native Americans on screen. The film is a touchstone to this day for filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and George Lucas. Mankiewicz and Muller note that Ford is grappling with the racism of his earlier films via John Wayne’s lead character, an unrepentant bigot who becomes both the movie’s protagonist and antagonist. However, the film still bathes Wayne’s character in heroic imagery, and still relies on Native American stereotypes.

“Watching The Searchers again with the lens of talking about it during Reframed, I just saw so much,” Malone says. “I know John Ford was trying to have a conversation about racism involving Native Americans, but there’s just no doubt that many of his films contributed to the very dangerous and horrific stereotypes based around Native American people. And I think Native American people have suffered greatly because of the way they’ve been stereotyped in Hollywood films.”

That subject of intent comes up quite a bit during the Reframed series; Karger describes the movies they discuss as running the gamut from mildly problematic to extremely offensive, yet that ambiguity should invite education about the times they were made in, as opposed to preventing audiences from knowing about those eras.

Says Malone, “I think [Reframed] does show an attempted evolution on the parts of the filmmakers, and that’s interesting. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and The Searchers, and My Fair Lady are trying to comment on a particular issue. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers comments on the sexism of the brothers in the film; My Fair Lady comments on the misogyny of Henry Higgins; and The Searchers comments on racism. But at the same time, they are also sexist, misogynistic, and racist.” She ultimately concludes movies can be both progressive and not progressive because of the times they’re made in.

Read more

Movies

From Hitchcock to Star Wars: What Makes a Great MacGuffin

By David Crow

Culture

Was John Wayne High Noon’s Biggest Villain?

By David Crow

My Fair Lady (1964) will be the centerpiece of TCM’s final night of Reframed programming this Thursday. A lavish big screen adaptation of Lerner and Loewe’s Broadway musical, which itself was an adaptation of George Bernard Shaw’s 1913 play, Pygmalion, it deals with the story of cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) being remade into Professor Henry Higgins’ (Rex Harrison) ideal woman through diction lessons. And the fact the musical, written in the 1950s, changed the more transgressive ending of the original play where Eliza leaves Higgins behind, will invariably come up on Reframed.

“Some people would look at that and say, ‘My Fair Lady? What could be the problem with that? It’s a very strong female character who stands up for herself and has so much agency and power in the movie,’” Karger admits. “But then when you really look at specific scenes, particularly the end of the movie, which is what I think we talked about a lot, there are certain things that just kind of make the movie, for me at least, have the tiniest bit of a sour note.”

The question of whether My Fair Lady is a sexist movie or rather a movie about sexism became the heart of its Reframed discussion.

Adds Malone, “We also talk about the fact that that ending has been changed by some stage productions. That is happening now, and we also talk about the idea of the makeover movie. I think the Pygmalion myth is something that’s fairly sexist and outdated when you look at it, but there’s also so much to love about My Fair Lady.”

The opportunity of having these discussions has been a gift for Karger and Malone. They both stress they don’t have the answers to all the questions they raise, and that even with added time for the outros on Reframed, there is no way to cover everything that needs to be said about a film in a handful of minutes.

“I thought about multiple things I wish I said or I forgot to say, or just didn’t have time to say,” Malone says. However, she hopes the series gives viewers the tools to begin engaging more seriously with these films and embrace a greater curiosity about the past. On tonight’s line-up alone, Malone and Karger will both get to engage in discussions of films they lobbied to have included in the Reframed series.

“I had just a brief conversation with Charlie [Tabesh] about including something around the idea of gender identity, or the transgender community, because I wanted to delve into that,” Malone says. “And of course from there, it becomes what do we have the rights to? What’s in license, what can we show? So there are certain limitations on the types of films we can show in the series.” The film they ended up agreeing on is Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho.

“I love the fact that it is one of the classic movies that everyone should watch, a horror classic,” Malone adds.

Karger by contrast will be discussing another Audrey Hepburn movie, this one dealing with Hollywood’s history of depicting LGBTQ characters on screen.

Says Karger, “I will never forget watching the documentary The Celluloid Closet in the mid-1990s when it was released, and that was one of the seminal moments for me, as far as looking at film critically. This was a history of LGBT characters in film history over the years, and one thing you learn when you watch a documentary like that, there was this trope in films where if there was a character who was gay, that character would not live to survive at the end of the movie. That character would either be murdered, have some kind of horrible accident, or end his or her own life.”

He continues, “So you think of The Children’s Hour in the early 1960s and at first you think, ‘Oh this is something to applaud. Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn playing two women who may or may not be lesbians. Wow! This is a great thing to bring attention to.’ And then you realize they couldn’t even use the word lesbian in the movie… then the character who ends up being gay also ends up being dead by the end of the movie, and I just think it’s this unfortunate trope that tells people, consciously or not, that you can’t be gay and you can’t be alive in society… It’s a shame, because it came so close to getting it right but you realize it didn’t have the opportunity to get it right in 1961. It couldn’t with all the restrictions in the film industry and society in general.”

It will be the last night that TCM dives so directly into the murkier waters of some of Hollywood’s legacy, although both hosts hope for a second season of Reframed. Karger, who admits he shouldn’t spend so much time on social media, has seen the predictable social media reactions of “you’re ruining these movies” by talking about these elements. But he’s also been heartened by responses from fans who wished TCM provided Reframed discussions on movies that aired later in the evening, like Stagecoach (1939) or Tarzan, The Ape Man (1932). Karger says if he has it his way, they’ll include all those movies in a second season of Reframed.

Meanwhile Malone would really like to continue a thread begun with the screening of the Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy classic, Woman of the Year (1942), from several weeks ago.

“I love having discussions for films where we talk about the representation of female characters,” Malone says. “That’s something I’ve done a lot of work on, so that’s something I’d like to continue—to talk about the way women have been portrayed in films throughout Hollywood history, and we could talk about that in terms of their beauty and how that was seen to be the most valuable quality a woman could have, or the way they could search for love. I love all the women’s pictures that forces the woman at the end to give up everything for love, but for most of the movie she is a fantastically independent woman.”

Other examples of this trope she cites are His Girl Friday (1940), and nearly every movie Katharine Hepburn made after The Philadelphia Story (1940).

Karger conversely would be interested in revisiting movies with extreme age differences between couples.

“I’d love to look at films like Gigi or Love in the Afternoon,” the host says, “because I think there are some people who have issues with the much older man and much younger woman pairing. And I think I’d love to hear what my fellow TCM hosts have to say about that, because you never see it in the opposite direction.” In fact, based on just this one comment, Malone began thinking aloud about all the ageist movies spawned by Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962), a camp horror classic that kicked off what Malone describes as “hagsploitation.”

When it comes to revisiting (and reframing) Hollywood classics, the options for learning more are limitless. Not that the lessons should be intimidating.

“I think it’s quite exciting the way things change,” Malone says. “Society changes so quickly, and you learn more and have different opinions, [including] on films. I love being more educated and finding out more of my own blind spots and trying to fix them.”

Reframed continues that search on Thursday March, 25, beginning with My Fair Lady at 8pm EST.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post Why Turner Classic Movies is Reframing Problematic Hollywood Favorites appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2P4DWYw

[robert-c]

The Immigration Issue

What disturbs me most about this “debate”, apart from the complete ignoring of the facts, is the clearly racist overtones of the discussions. So let’s start with some of the facts. Neither I, nor anyone I know of in Congress, supports a completely “open border” policy. That sort of claim is used only to inflame the fears of people. The constant claims (without real support in fact) that the surge in asylum seekers and other immigrants are largely composed of violent criminals would have no traction were it not exploiting racist fears of non-white people.

The inhumane separation of families meant to discourage people from crossing was finally overturned, but the legacy of this cruel practice is still with us, and measures like this do nothing to solve the underlying problem. The only kind of “wall” that might be effective is one like the Soviet Union built in East Germany and along other parts of their borders. In addition to a tall concrete barrier, there was a wide open field in which anyone entering was shot. There were, at its peak, about 47,000 border guards along the east German border with the west. That border was approximately 866 miles long. The US border with Mexico is about 1,954 miles and proportionally that would require, in addition to walls, watchtowers, and cleared shooting fields (typically wider than a football field long) approximately106,000 troops to “defend”. Is this really the country we want to be? And still some people managed to get past that East German border.

In an attempt to make their restrictive immigration policies seem reasonable some have suggested that there should be a skills based assessment of applicants that could be compared against our economic needs. This sounds reasonable until you realize that the same people putting this idea forward are the ones always opposing the creation of more government bureaucracy, always telling us the government can’t possibly respond quickly enough to the needs of American businesses. It isn’t a serious or reasonable solution, it is only meant to look like one.

But even if the government could accurately and efficiently update what skills we were short of, no one can completely predict the needs of tomorrow. The power of all immigrants has always been their imagination to create businesses and services we didn’t have before and therefore didn’t know we wanted or needed. From something as simple as there would have been no “need” for pizza cooks before the first pizza was sold in the US to more esoteric skills. Who would have needed physicists, other scientists and engineers, let alone Jewish ones, before the Second World War? But several very famous ones who immigrated here were responsible for getting us the atomic bomb that led to the end of WWII.

But this skills inventory, even if honestly and efficiently conducted and somehow anticipatory of future needs, only applies to economic immigrants, those coming here for better economic prospects. Dishonestly applied it maintains only the highest skilled jobs that we’re short of, and therefor effectively discriminates against any and all who do not have technical degrees.

Now let’s talk about the real problem. There is a real immigration crisis. We are getting more requests for asylum than before and they are coming from families not lone individuals as it used to be. One of the coldest and most ignorant comments I have ever heard about this is “they should fix what is wrong in their own country instead of trying to come here.” When I heard this I was dumbfounded. I honestly couldn’t believe someone could say such a thing. Duh!? Don’t you think they would have if they could? Who leaves all they know, everyone they know, and most of what they owned to go to someplace where they need to learn a new language, a new culture and find a way to survive? Would these so called American “patriots” have said the same thing to Jews fleeing Hitler’s Germany? (Sadly, I think some would have.)

But let’s return to the issue that there truly is an increase in the numbers of people who want asylum in our country (despite knowing that they will likely enter at the absolute bottom rung of the societal ladder). They are fleeing political persecution by the authoritarian gangs, or the drug gangs, that run their countries. In a sense, they are having to flee BECAUSE they tried to “fix” their country. “Not our problem” say some of my conservative friends.

Well, not so fast. Most, if not all, of those Latin American de facto dictatorships were installed with and/or are propped up by, our support. You see, for well over a century our overriding interests in Latin America have been that American businesses can continue to exploit their resources under terms very favorable to us, and related to this that they do not support Cuba or communists in general. Of course like ‘good businessmen’ we share some of the exorbitant profits with a few powerful locals, to ensure our continued arrangements. Then there are the drug cartels – created entirely from our own demand for drugs and our (again) failed policy of prohibition.

Last time we tried this simplistic policy of prohibition (for alcohol) it created a nationwide crime syndicate, which we called the Mafia. Now we have created an international set of crime syndicates. Way to learn from past mistakes! So these people aren’t just fleeing terrible regimes in their homelands, they are fleeing the very thugs we have directly or indirectly empowered in their homelands.

Now how do you feel about our responsibilities toward these asylum seekers?

If we truly want to solve this immigration issue, we need to do something about the regimes we have helped put in power or maintain in power. Once again, it is an issue of either helping American businesses get what they want, or helping the US get what is best for the country as a whole. For too long we’ve confused those two as the same thing. It’s time we quit imagining that the interests of a handful of American businesses is synonymous with the interests of the country as a whole.

BTW if anyone is interested in why communist and socialist ideologies seem so popular in Latin America they only need to look into how American style “capitalism” has affected the people.

There is a fundamental philosophical contradiction in this current immigration stance. We cannot at the same time be the model for the world and not expect others to want to come here for what we’ve created. We cannot support oppressive regimes overseas because that does our domestic businesses (and campaign contributors) good, while at the same time not seeing some sort of reaction. Our Congress and President must realize that despite the fact that most of the people in the world do not vote for them, they are still a sort of constituency – that is what it means to be a “Super Power”. And you can’t just “walk away” from that and return to some romanticized version of isolationist America. Our essential trade with the rest of the world alone would prevent such a naïve move.

There was a time, presumably when some thought America was “great”, that problems overseas were things we fixed for them, because we were arrogant enough to imagine that we had all the answers. Well, here at last, we actually do have some answers because we are the origin of the problem. But do we try to fix what we have broken? No, the best our “genius” leaders can come up with is a doomed to fail strategy of locking the doors and pretending that they are impenetrable.

Now the other form of immigration is economic. The people who want to come here for a better life, and are not seeking asylum. If you really want to crack down on the illegal version of this there is a much more effective way than simply building walls, or running some skills databank. Start criminally prosecuting the businesses who hire them. Checks on applicants’ legal status theoretically already exist, but because businesses lobbied the government successfully they have numerous ways of avoiding responsibility. The company is essentially obligated only to collect some information on a form, not to verify it in any material way. And these loose requirements only apply to employees, not to “independent contractors” which is a whole other way companies can dodge providing benefits and other worker protections.

Don’t doubt for a moment that American businesses knowingly hire illegals. Many don’t bother to know because they want deniability. Think of the advantages to the company. Here is a workforce likely willing to work for less than the prevailing wage, unable to complain about unsafe, or illegal working conditions, let alone organize a union. It’s the closest thing to the reintroduction of slavery you can get.

Solutions can be found, but not if we keep demonizing and slandering immigrants and shielding businesses who benefit from this sort of immigration. Let’s keep this in mind – for those who believe money is a motivator, the penalty for a business must be greater than the profit to change its behavior. Likewise, no matter what rationale they use to complain about these solutions, rest assured the real reason is that they make more money the way things are now. While making a profit isn’t (and shouldn’t be) illegal by itself, some ways of doing so certainly are, and should be. For too long we’ve heard the argument that profit is a good thing, without reservation or exception. Profit, like most things in the world, is neither good nor bad, or perhaps more accurately both good and bad, depending on how it is obtained and used. Once again, we are confronted with the desire to have a simplistic answer for all of the problems, an absolute that will require no further thought.

And now it’s time to be really honest and confront the ugliest part of ourselves and ask (and try to answer honestly) if anyone would be this upset if it were Canadians, or Europeans who were the primary source of immigrants. The slandering of the immigrants and the draconian solutions proposed tell us all we should need to know about the people supporting these ideas. They may smile, wave the flag, and speak in reverent tones about the principles of America, but they have forgotten what has always been our greatest strength and most unique feature. They have forgotten that at one time in the past, their ancestors were the immigrants. Unless you are fully Native American, at least some of your ancestors came here either as colonists or as immigrants, neither with an indisputable right to be here. Virtually every prejudiced claim leveled at today’s immigrants (criminal, dishonest, lazy, irresponsible, etc.) were applied in the past to the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Catholics, and just about every other religious or ethnic group. And yet, somehow, the republic survived the arrival of these people. In fact, most of them now constitute what many would consider the “white traditional” Americans.

There is no doubt that we have serious problems with our often contradictory immigration laws and policies. But we are never going to find a realistic and lasting solution as long as we keep entertaining bigoted racial stereotypes, and looking for simplistic answers.

Let’s start with some facts we should all be able to agree to because they are independently verifiable.

There are more requests from families for asylum,

Requiring that they not travel through another country to get here only means that we allow only the richest of these asylum seekers to make their request,

The regimes that these asylum seekers are fleeing are dependent in many ways on the US and US businesses,

There are virtually no significant penalties on businesses for hiring (or using as contractors) illegal economic immigrants,

There is not a clear and unambiguous path to immigration and citizenship in our current laws, and

Children of illegal immigrants, who have only known this country, are no more responsible for their parents’ actions than the child of a rape that anti-abortion forces are so fond of using as an excuse to not allow a rape exception to their anti-abortion stance.

With these facts alone, we should be able to come to some sort of reasonable policy. It will require letting go of racial and ethnic prejudices as well as the idea that we are being fair by simply ignoring what is happening in their home countries. It is not about a completely open border where any number of people for any reason can enter, but it is also not about limiting immigrants to those who are similar to the people currently running the country.

My call is to heed our better angels, we are better than this fearful clinging to what is familiar and common in our experience. We are better as a people and a nation than this angry response to anyone who is different. We have always been stronger and better by expanding our experiences; by adding more stories to what it means to be an American.

[haravikk]

Do We Need Mass Effect: Andromeda 2?

I know I’m late to the game, two years late in fact, but I speak now as someone who has just completed Mass Effect: Andromeda, and loved it, and wants more.

Mass Effect: Andromeda had a rocky start, with major issues on release, and even two years later many bugs and oddities remain unpatched. But considering the game more than covered its costs, and was still popular despite its problems, did it ever make sense to completely axe its promising DLC, and its sequel(s)?

Technical issues aside, the game is, in my opinion, among the most solid in the series. It has some great characters, easily the best combat of any Mass Effect game, a streamlined dialogue system with some hard choices to be made (and real impacts, both immediate and long term), and so it’s a real shame that such a solid base has had such a poor, and undeserved, reputation.

Yes it was broken on release, but I don’t blame BioWare for that, I blame EA.

For me, Mass Effect: Andromeda was everything I love about Mass Effect, but most crucially captured something that the first trilogy always toyed with but never really succeeded at; the sense of exploration. It was there in the Shepard trilogy, but always on the backdrop of a bigger, much more immediate threat, so ended up feeling out of place.

But in the Andromeda galaxy, exploration was not only the primary mission, but it was a necessity, as with so much unknown, you couldn’t just sit back and hope for the best. While the story had a big-bad, with threat of more to come, the more immediate threat was simple survival, requiring colonies and resources, and that was such a liberating feeling to finally explore. 

I loved flying through new systems, I loved exploring new worlds, and I loved roving around in the Nomad. The main problem was how to also make it exciting, and tell a gripping story, but while it had its faults, I felt Andromeda did a good job of it. Its main problem was the pacing of side-missions, many of which are sprung upon you in batches when you have more immediate concerns.

This a common problem with single-player RPGs, which could really do with taking a look at MMO’s, by having a clearly designed end-game. Give us a pressing concern, let us build up as much or as little as we want to in order to face it, then once we’ve prevailed, cut us loose to enjoy the aftermath (the lull in the conflict, the fresh discoveries etc.). Players who just wanted action can stop if they want, while those who want to explore can be rewarded with more to do.

Andromeda is a game that can be played in this way, but only by knowing in advance which quests you can safely ignore for later; more often than not, these are quests that shouldn’t be put in the player’s way to begin with, as they can easily wait until the “end”.

The worst thing for me about Mass Effect: Andromeda 2 being in limbo is the lack of conclusion for its DLC.

It isn’t much of a spoiler, but upon completion of the game there is an ominous signal pointing to trouble with the Quarian (and Drell, Volus, Hanar etc.) Ark.

What happened to it? Will we ever find out?

It was such a squandered opportunity, as no matter how rough Andromeda’s start was, a solid piece of real DLC, alongside additional fixes and patches, could have encouraged skeptics to buy Andromeda, or early adopters to give it a second chance. Good DLC has saved games before, and with Mass Effect being such a popular series, Andromeda deserved the chance.

But maybe there’s a future yet?

Maybe it’s just a pipe dream, maybe not, but I want to see a Mass Effect: Andromeda 2; not just because I’m curious about the lingering plot threads of the first part, but because it was a genuinely good game. While there are rumours that BioWare wants to revisit Mass Effect, these remain sketchy.

Mass Effect as a series has always felt unique to me, despite its clear influences, it captures sci-fi immersion in a way that no other games for me ever have, and Andromeda, in spite of its flaws, was a worthy addition, and can still serve as a great foundation. One that managed to cut ties with the messy Milky Way storyline and the frankly abysmal ending of ME3, while retaining everything I loved about the first two games.

For me, the hope is that BioWare will recognise they can’t just throw it all away, not when there are real fans of Andromeda, and its characters, and not when they could so easily win back the fans of the Shepard trilogy as well.

Releasing the Quarian Ark DLC, with fixes and patches to polish up the main game, could pick up the new trilogy and propel it forwards by encouraging people to give the game a second chance, or to try it for the first time, ready for a much delayed sequel to drop. With the Quarian Ark launching after the others, it could even serve as an opportunity to bring some surprises, like characters we feared were lost forever.

Like the Andromeda Initiative itself, BioWare needs to stick to its convictions, and not be tempted to go back. The key is in negotiating a sane deadline, and the freedom to push it back if you need to, as Mass Effect: Andromeda’s biggest failure, was being pushed out when it wasn’t ready.

And for I don’t blame BioWare for that, I blame EA.

[machiyuu-wishes]

The reason Sharing Can certainly Power the Future of Marketing

Advertising and marketing have always been regarding the sharing in addition to spreading of ideas, so that the mediums we want to communicate with have got changed, consequently has the dynamics of expressing. Bryan Kramer’s insightful plus perceptive e-book, Shareology needs a broad forward-thinking look at the aspect of giving in the get up of existing trends inside communication, technological know-how, and people psychology and enables extrapolate the impact these adjustments will have in marketing. He's already produced a label for himself with his very influential perform in the electronic digital marketing room and his starting of the #H2H business movements (inspired simply by his prior book There is not any B2B as well as B2C: It is very Human to Human #H2H). Despite his or her busy schedule, Kramer was sort enough to resolve a few questions relating to his ebook and provide also deeper perception regarding locations I thought all of our readers could be particularly considering. As expression continues to enjoy a bigger and even bigger function in the way online marketers interact with stakeholders across programmes, understanding new ways to make your content and company more individuals will become more and more important. Kramer has prevailed in developing a book that may be both an easy task to connect with together with well worth selling.

1. Once you say “being human implies being shareable, ” exactly how do you think a new reality will probably influence advertising and marketing specifically?

Enabling employees to express with their own experiences externally (not just re-tweeting or advertising company-sponsored content) can be potent. We know just how shareable tips are, and allowing people to share their particular stories independently channels for your brand, product or service, or customs is an impressive form of the briefing. It’s trustworthy content that you simply don’t have to generate and it may be in your backside pocket! In terms of employee remonstrance, company market leaders often inquire the wrong query about negative feedback and sociable: “How will i get very own employees to share with you my tips? ” The particular question they should be asking will be, “How am I able to help them show their own material? ” A lot of people want to aid but will just be inspired whenever they feel their particular company stock shares a vested interest in these. Your individuals can be your very best advocates; they will care about your personal brand and also share their very own experiences, however, need guardrails to be sure these are definitely safe, hence setting up sharing guidelines as well as making it possible for them to promote safety is important.

2. Inside the section called “Being a pacesetter in the Individual Economy, ” you go by all of the features required, which usually of these can you find vital to setting up leadership on the new H2H economy?

Completely, most importantly top quality is agreement. Empathy: To be able to understand the over emotional makeup associated with other people; talent in treating people today according to all their emotional side effects. I forecast that emotionally charged intelligence can be increasingly beneficial as your society moves along with robot technology. Regardless of how sophisticated systems get, it will probably never manage to emulate often the miracle in the human brain as well as the ability to prove the features listed above. More specifically, it will never ever be able to exhibit human agape for a contextual moment.

3. “The our economy’s progress will be stagnated by ‘business as usual’ until buyers (en masse) force companies to improve outside their whole comfort specific zones. ”

How would you see that panning out at the moment? What aspects of marketing will probably be most considerably affected by these kinds of changes? The online world of Stuff is a scientific shift here is taking place right this moment where bodily devices are increasingly being digitally attached to create more style. According to Gartner, there will be practically 26 tera- devices online of Factors by 2020. Technology leaders like MICROSOFT and Alternate have been working away at this for quite some time. In fact, Picón even should go so far as in order to call the following evolution the exact “Internet regarding Everything. ” I chatted to Blair Christie, primary marketing official of Cisco, about this in an of this is my company PureMatter’s Substance interview. She referred the concept, while in the context of value, and how that changes the facial skin of enterprise and our life as a whole: Online of Anything is basically another wave. It has how consumers, process, records, and everything is connecting in a fashion that hasn’t taken place before. As an example, we think we’re connected nowadays, but lower than 1 percent of the world is in fact connected to the Net. Today that certainly is less than a couple of billion people. By 2020 it will be near 5 billion. Right now something like 20 to twenty-five billion the drinks is connected to the Internet— by 2020 close to 55 billion items will be attached. That’s impressive! We’re previously having machine-to-machine or thing-to-thing doing lots of interacting, still, we will be discovering more people-to-machine, Machine-to-people, and also people-to-people hooking up and supplying more value because of connection as compared to we’ve ever before seen just before.

you may also be interested in content sharing sites

4. Exactly why do you think it truly is that makes have this kind of a hard time getting “human? ” How might that they best get over these obstructions?

Consumers are puzzled. With an enormous 93% involving communication according to nonverbal body gesture, that results in just 7 percent left to clarify verbally everything we really necessarily mean. So why cannot we ensure it is simple for those to understand what precisely we’re offering, so they can quickly share most of their experiences as well as the value many people felt together with others? More to the point, why is it this what we will marketing frequently does not arrange to true consumer activities? I don’t care everything that language everyone speak, who also your company is or simply what communication you’re trying to send, most of us need to communicate more real human. Too often most of us complicate what we’re attempting to say. As luck would have it, as the world becomes a lot more customer-owned along with socially empowered, we keep seeing difficult, redundant, over-technical, and over-thought mass information getting forced out ~ and shed – in the ether. Can it be really having harder to be able to stand out, with so many facts and information on the market or will be the answer in order to clearly point out what you signify, in clear human words and phrases? The fact is the lines can be extremely far confused now involving the “B2C” (Business to Consumer) and “B2B” (Business for you to Business) promotion segments of which it’s challenging to differentiate. I actually can’t let you know how many gatherings I’ve held it's placed in where acronyms are used frequently that my brain ultimately ends up spending a great deal time wanting to decipher whatever they mean as opposed to focusing on typically the thoughts seeking to be presented. Acronyms get their place, although not when they change communicating information to somebody else who may well not understand your individual world packed with capital words. We all must think just like the consumers we could, putting themselves in the attitude of the customer instead of trying to get rid of.

5. Through the book one talk about the importance of brands to behave more like normal individuals, but on page 147 you interestingly speak about that people may also be becoming similar to brands:

“[The study] incorporated something many of us don’t assume about—that your definition of doing it yourself (their personal brand) includes a large effect on what these shares. ” Are those two factors specific or do you imagine they are converging on several new positions towards a new middle surface? Building an individual brand certainly is not just essential celebrities in addition to high-profile business people. It’s very important for businesses to realize that strength among their employees and to nutriment it. To get a brand to do something more human means adding their individuals out the entrance. We can achieve this task much more for our companies once we empower every individual within those to build a private brand plus share from that. But we are not quite presently there yet. It’s going to “take your village” to really make the mindset move necessary for organizations to adopt this concept. Still as completely, new technologies continue to keep shape just how we hook up and talk, we’ll observe this take place on a bigger scale.

6. Is there virtually any room regarding traditional, top-down, broadcast mass media in this innovative democratic way of life of spreading; or could new participatory and decentralized methods of connection edge you're old protect of marketing entirely?

We are now living in an omnichannel world. All play a role at most touch issue. How we ingest media changes, but the human being sensed will usually need to be achieved in the very same ways some people always have (i. e. noise, sight, feel, smell). The promotion will not alter overnight, but eventually, it will certainly become more concierge-like where folks will assume immediacy and will get personalized recommendations more quickly from men and women they rely on. Support can happen much more swiftly en masse thru Watson-like unnatural intelligence. Yet one thing will continue to be; the shareable contextual times where most people experience thoughts (i. at the. joy, frivolity, sadness) is only going to be produced by us human beings. It’s most of these moments that will make marketing crucial now including the future.

[crimsonrevolt]

Congratulations Angela you’ve been accepted to Crimson Revolt as Amelia Bones.

↳ please refer to our character checklist

Angela! Amelia is a character that we’ve been anxiously awaiting to see for quite some time, and now it’s clear that we’ve been waiting for you! Your application blew us away, from your passion for her as a person to the explanations on how she becomes the person we know her to be in canon to how the horrors she experienced in war has impacted her. It’s clear to us that you have a strong connection and understanding of Amelia, and we can’t wait to see where you take her going forward. Welcome to the group! *Your faceclaim change to Summer Glau has been accepted.

application beneath the cut (tw: mentions of PTSD) 

OUT OF CHARACTER

Introduction: Angela, 25+, she/her, CST but I work night shift which puts me more on par with GMT+11

Activity: As previously stated, I work nights and my shifts are 12 hours. On nights I work I’m usually not as active but on my days off I tend to catch up.

How did you find us? Amelia Bones tag

Anything else? n/a

IN CHARACTER

Desired character: Amelia Susan Bones

Birthday / star sign: December 29, 1957; Capricorn

Occupation: Before the kidnapping, Amelia was working for the DMLE as an Auror. Technically, she’s probably still employed. Unless someone had her officially declared dead, she hadn’t actually bothered to check that. Somehow she doubted Edgar would have given up, despite the length of her absence. That being said, there was absolutely now way the department would allow her to return to active duty, not yet anyway. Which means she’d probably shunted off into an investigation department or worse, some sort of clerical work.

Faceclaim: FC change to Summer Glau, Shelley Hennig, or Alicia Vikander

Reason for chosen character: Amelia was the first character I fell in love with writing years ago when I started RPing. Since then I’ve always had a soft spot for her, but often times the way I view Amelia and the way she is described in RP bios don’t match up. Amelia is a character driven by, but not broken by, loss. Her parents and her brother, along with his family, are canonically murdered. The things she goes through personally are not stated in canon, but for her family to be targeted the way it is, you can assume she was not passive. Especially given that she rises to the head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and eventually murdered by Voldemort himself. I love strong women. She is clearly a threat to the Death Eaters and their cause and I just cannot believe that only happens after the demise of her family. She was just lucky enough to escape their fate during the first war. No one escapes war unscathed, however, and yet she continues on, becoming known as fair and a great witch. I really want to explore the path that gets her there. The struggles she goes through, the times she loses herself in trying to achieve her goals. How justice and vengeance become blurred and how she finds balance again. It’s honestly fascinating to me, especially given her circumstances in this RP.

Prior to her kidnapping, I think she probably had a lot more faith in the system. She believed that the Ministry, while not without its issues, would ultimately prevail. It was a naive viewpoint. For a year she’s been missing, tortured and brutalized, and it’s changed her. She’s struggling with a range of things including PTSD and rage and a need to regain control. She can no longer wait and hope that the Ministry or even the Order will figure out how to make things right, she has to do it herself. She KNOWS what happens to those who get captured. The lucky ones are killed, those like her who might have information…they’re not lucky. Survival is not the gift that some might thing it to be. It’s a burden. One she will do anything to make sure no one else has to carry, including things that she would not have considered before.

Preferred ships // Character sexuality // Gender & Pronouns: Right now the last thing Amelia is interested in is romance. Though, that doesn’t mean she’s against the idea of blowing off steam with someone. She is damaged, that’s how she views herself now. Just…fucked up. There is a part of her that was broken during her captivity, a part of her that almost craves to be subjugated, so long as she maintains some control of the situation. It’s not a thing she likes to talk about or would acknowledge in the light of day. But when it comes to sex, she’s discovered she likes it rougher than she ever would have guessed previously. No attachments, no commitments, just… physical gratification. She has nothing outside of that to give to anyone. And honestly, she’s not that picky when it comes to gender. It’s less about who and more about the feeling she gets when she’s with them. As far as her own gender identity goes, she’s cis-female, she/her pronouns

CREATE ONE (OR MORE!) OF THE FOLLOWING FOR YOUR CHARACTER

https://weheartit.com/thebutlerdidit/collections/95404130-amelia-bones

Headcanons: – You don’t survive a year of captivity without scars. Physical, mental, emotional, etc. Amelia has all of them. She refused just about all of the treatments the Healers offered, preferring not to be touched or poked or prodded any further. Potions were provided and she takes them on occasion, but she prefers to self-medicate with alcohol and/or a good duel. Hell, even a good fist fight provides a decent catharsis. Never again will she place herself under someone’s thumb. Yes, she’s learned to enjoy being subjected to roughness in love-play, but it never goes anywhere she doesn’t expressly allow. The people she was close to before being taken are now held at arm’s length, especially if they try to discover what happened while she was gone. She’s not exactly proud of the things she had to do to survive, the things she had to allow, but in the end all that matters is that she did survive. She got out. And she’ll get revenge. – People tend to underestimate Hufflepuffs and there are probably many who believe her current state of vengeance is out of character for one of her former house. They’re wrong. Hufflepuffs are gentle until pushed to their limit, at which point they fight like hell. Beware the wrath of a person who is usually kind and gentle, because they did not become that way by accident. Kindness is not a default, it’s not a naive choice. Not always, at least. Often times it is earned out of hard fought battles and discovered when tested by fire. But when pushed beyond those limits of kindness, there are few limits to what they will do in order to survive. People who think them weak are fools. When you push a kind person beyond their limits, you won’t find brokenness on the other side, you’ll find steel and rage and power. – Amelia hasn’t talked to anyone about what she went through during the year she was missing. She tells people that she doesn’t really remember, that there were memory spells and it’s all a blur. That’s true for parts of it, but it’s not all gone. She remembers the way it felt to have the cruciatus curse rip through her body, every nerve ending screaming as the unforgivable curse burned through her. She remembers bones broken only to be reknit and broken again. Her dreams are haunted by silver masks and laughter as she was tortured for their enjoyment. There are pieces of what happened that are burned in her mind, never to be forgotten. She might not be able to name names for sure, at least not in a way that would hold up in court, but she believes she’ll recognize her captors if she’s faced with them again. Whether or not that’s true is yet to be determined. – Everything in Amelia’s life since her return is about control. She was without it for so long that now she’s not likely to give it up without a fight. It’s why she won’t take a sleeping potion. Why she won’t submit to the healers exams or the questions of the Ministry. Things will happen on her terms or they won’t fucking happen at all. Anyone who has a problem with that can get the hell out of her way.

IN CHARACTER QUESTIONNAIRE

The following section should be looked at like a survey or interview for your character. The questions may be answered in character or out of character, with or without gifs. (using gifs of a few different FCs I listed, hope that’s okay)

Do you think it is more important to be feared or loved? Which would you rather be? Honestly, I don’t give a shit. Fear me, love me, whatever. It’s of little consequence as long as you do what needs to be done. If I had to be one or the other, I guess I’d rather people love me? But honestly, I don’t need it. I’d rather people just left me alone.

What is one thing you would never want said about you? She gave up. I have not come this far, struggled so hard just to quit. I have not given up, I don’t intend to give up. I’m not going to let myself be broken. I don’t care what it takes, I’m determined to win. I am not a quitter.

If you were able to invent one spell, potion, or charm, what would it do, what would you use it for or how would you use it? Feel free to name it! I’d like to be able to read people’s thoughts and intentions. Not like veritaserum, where the person is forced to tell you what they’re thinking and feeling…I want to experience it. I want to know why and how in the moment. I suppose that some might consider that to be legilimency, and maybe that’s what I mean, but it feels different to me. I guess I don’t just want to know, I want to be able to influence what I discover. To be able to push or pull on someone’s emotions and intentions, but more subtly than the imperius curse. A nudge rather than a shove. Fuck. I don’t know. Just… control. A measure of control over what happens because of the people around you.

What kinds of decisions are the most difficult for you to make? Ones that involve trusting someone else. Things get complicated when you leave things up to other people and often times they let you down. I would rather do it myself than have to rely on someone else. There’s a reason people say if you want something done right, do it yourself, and it’s because other people let you down. They fail when you’re counting on them and everyone ends up paying the price. Better to just rely on yourself.

REACTION TO LAST EVENT DROP

Not for nothing was Amelia one of the best chasers Hufflepuff ever saw. The World Cup was a foolish endeavor, but even she could understand the reasoning behind it. People needed to blow off steam, fine. But honestly, if they were going to put an opportunity like this in front of her, she wasn’t about to ignore it. She might not play anymore, but she can still fly and god knows she can scream louder than anyone thought. (A trait she is fairly certain kept her alive during the year she was held captive. She’d screamed until her throat bled, a sound one particular captor compared to a symphony because he was a sick bastard.) The people need to know. Ignorance will get them killed. She’s been shut down, kept out of the search for her brother, but this was something she could do. The more people that knew the truth, the weaker the other side had to become. The easier it would be to find Edgar. They’d barely gotten a chance to speak, let alone reconnect before he’d been taken and no one was doing a goddamned thing about it. Amelia had to fight hard against her own guilt – a Bones set free, another taken…was it her fault? She tried not to think about it that way but it was hard. Worse is the knowledge that comes with having been in his position before. Amelia doesn’t have to imagine what he’s going through, she experienced it first hand.

WRITING SAMPLE

She awoke slowly, arms tied above her head and her feet barely scraping the floor of the dimly lit room. She shifted to stand on her tip toes to relieve the ache in her arms; they’d been supporting her weight while she was unconscious. Before she could truly survey her surroundings a whispered curse hit her in the back, shocking her into crying out. The stinging hex spread angry welts over her skin.  

“Welcome back, Ms. Bones.”

Amelia turned, trying to look over her shoulder to see who was speaking, but her assailant remained in the shadows. She didn’t recognize his voice, though there were clearly spells in place to disguise it. She grit her teeth and didn’t respond.

“Nothing to say?” the unknown person asked. “You’re usually so vocal. Standing up and shouting for anyone who’ll listen how you plan to bring justice to the wizarding world. You and I both know true justice isn’t an option.”

It took every ounce of her will power to stay still and silent. Whoever had grabbed her was clearly baiting her. She couldn’t remember how long it’d been, but surely the aurors were looking for her. She was hardly the most important member of the department, but they watched out for her own. She couldn’t remember the specifics of the attack but it had been her own damn fault for letting herself get distracted. There was a rustling behind her as the figure moved closer. She could feel him behind her, wishing more than anything for a chance to get the drop on him.

“Your brother was louder. Begged. Said we could do whatever we wanted to him, so long as we spared his wife and children."  

Her blood ran cold. Edgar. "You don’t have him.”

“Don’t I? Perhaps not. Maybe he’s dead. Shall I tell you how we laid them out? Presented each of their bodies in a perfect tableau for you to find. I wanted to kill the dog, too. Little shit wouldn’t stop barking.”

She was shaking now and despite all her scolding, all her training at hiding her emotions she couldn’t stop herself from reacting. “I’ll kill you,” she promised in a low voice.

He laughed.

Amelia thrashed in her restraints, wild with hatred. She was only hurting herself, he was too far away for her to reach and she didn’t have her wand. Despite her efforts, she’d never mastered a wandless attack. She could do simple spells, but nothing more.

“Calm down, Ms. Bones. You’ll snap your little wrists and I won’t mend them.”

He moved behind her again until she could feel his breath on the back of her neck. She threw her head back, barely clipping his chin with the top of her head as he moved away. Probably hurt her a lot more than it hurt him.

“Do you enjoy hurting people?” she growled.

He finally moved in front of her, silver mask gleaming as it reflected the single lamp. His wand was raised, pointed directly at her. Even without being able to see his face, she was certain he was smiling at her.

“Yes.”

—

Another example from a previous blog, but it fits along with the theme (though another talented writer contributed quite a bit.) TW for torture - Amelia was kidnapped briefly and tortured by Evan Rosier - http://hardasbones.tumblr.com/tagged/mister-sandman/chrono

[mimicofmodes]

(Not fashion. I wrote this as an answer to a question elsewhere and nobody saw it.)

Mary Tudor was the first queen regent of England. Was this noted at the time? Was there any significant reaction, positive or negative, to having a solo female ruler?

The only previous time in English history that a woman attempted to rule in her own right as her father's natural heir was Empress Matilda (1102-1167), the daughter of Henry I and granddaughter of William the Conqueror; at this time, it hadn't even been fully established that princesses could pass inheritance rights on to their sons, so it's remarkable that Henry decided to make her his heir in the absence of other legitimate children of his own. The following summary of the situation may sound familiar to you if you read or watched The Pillars of the Earth. When Henry I died in 1135, his nephew, Stephen of Blois, was able to get crowned in London since Matilda, married to the count of Anjou, wasn't able to make the journey immediately - the idea of the heir immediately becoming ruler on their predecessor's death wasn't yet a tradition. In 1139, she did travel to England, though, and sought out the support of local barons to wage a military campaign against Stephen. She prevailed and ruled for a short time in 1141 but didn't make it to a coronation before being dethroned, and kept on being "Lady of the English" until her half-brother and chief supporter, Robert of Gloucester, died in 1147. She then left for France, giving up on her own personal claim to the English throne.

In the very small number of primary sources left about Matilda's short reign and longer campaign, there's a lot of discussion of her gender. Without any precedent for a woman ruling England (though Anglo-Saxon queens had been able to wield their own kind of power as kings' wives or mothers), she had to construct a version of female kingship that led to her taking on a lot of masculine features. Henry had had her take the same normally-masculine oaths her late brother had made as heir, and while her gaining this position required her to remarry far beneath herself in order to produce her own male heirs, instead of taking on that new title she was considered largely as her father's daughter and an empress (her first husband had been the Holy Roman Emperor) and held onto most of her dowry. Once she began her quest for the crown against Stephen, she threw off conventions of gendered behavior and acted quite openly in her own interest: she captured opponents and held them in chains, legally appealed Stephen's succession, and, well, acted as a king among her own vassals.

Although there hadn't been any explicit opposition to her claim just on the basis of her gender, opponents did use her status as e.g. the wife of the Count of Anjou as tools to delegitimize her standing. Once she had some power, though, her lack of feminine reticence and modesty became a problem even in the chronicles that otherwise supported her. It wasn't so much an issue that people said, "hey, women shouldn't rule," but that once a woman was actively exercising power on her own behalf without cloaking that in concern for her son(s) or a pretense of not wanting to do it. Most kings had queens to project softer, interceding, and more forgiving royal power by their sides, rounding off their corners while they were able to make the hard choices and do nasty, bloody things. Matilda simply didn't have the advantage of this kind of partnership, and couldn't be both the king and queen.

So, Mary. While in general Matilda is not considered a proper queen regnant because she was never crowned (let's note that nobody has this problem when it comes to Edward V, one of the princes in the Tower, just saying), there is no doubt that Mary I ruled officially. Matilda was her only pattern when it came to English queenship, and due to the above, she was more valuable as an example of what not to do - despite the centuries between them, it would still not have gone over well if Mary had flouted what was expected of a woman and simply behaved like her father as a monarch.

Mary's Catholicism was a much bigger issue than her gender as a fact on its own, in a kingdom that had recently switched to Protestantism as the state religion, with a government full of people who'd fully bought into it. Where her gender came into it was the concern about where her husband - someone she was regarded as needing in order to produce her own heirs to keep feuding cousins from starting another civil war - would stand in relationship to the throne. Married women were considered femes couverts in English law, subsumed into their husbands' legal identities, which implied that a queen's husband perhaps might automatically be in charge of the country. Edward VI's "Device for the Succession" (which outlined who would follow him to the throne, since he had no heirs) excluded both Mary and the Protestant Elizabeth out of concerns about their marrying foreign princes - as would be appropriate to their station, being born princesses, even if they'd been later declared bastards - and subjecting England to foreign rule, diverting the line instead to Jane Grey, already married to an Englishman, "and her heirs male". (Jane was, technically, of course, another precedent for Mary. She planned to make her husband a duke, rather than allowing him authority over herself.)

Once she'd declared herself the queen, Mary quickly attracted support from the local gentry and nobility despite her gender: she didn't have a husband ruling over her yet and was also no longer a ward of any man, and therefore feme sole, a totally independent woman. While Mary did have to start off with a bit of military violence, unlike Matilda she had no real challengers and was therefore able to drop the masculine-coded aggression in defending her right to rule, inhabiting the office of kingship as a "normal" woman without really upsetting the overall patriarchal power structure. (It was also enshrined in law by this point that daughters could inherit from their fathers and brothers, so it simply made logical sense to most people that she was now the monarch.) She went to her coronation in cloth of gold and with her hair down, as in the famous coronation portrait of Elizabeth I, the traditional way for a king's wife being crowned to appear, and later billed this ceremony as her marriage to the realm, a marriage in which she was obviously the bride. In general, she modeled herself on her pious mother, Catherine of Aragon, rather than her powerful and somewhat arbitrary father - typically, this is presented in pop culture as just a part of her fanaticism, rather than the use of a traditional aspect of queen-consortship. She was publicly rather submissive to her advisors and ambassadors, confirming her status as an unmarried woman above her status as monarch and allowing them to believe that she was naive and trusting, as they expected her to be due to her gender. Before she wed Philip II of Spain, she talked up her desire to remain chaste and made it clear that her main reason for marriage was the succession (the ensuring of which would make her pregnant and therefore extra-womanly); she allowed it to appear that she was totally uninvolved with the negotiation process for his hand, as though the men were deciding her fate. (Despite all of this, she made it clear in her marriage paperwork that she would continue to be the ultimate authority, reducing him to the traditional female role of intercessor and soft-power-holder, and that Philip's title of "king" was only a courtesy, and she also brought no dowry at all to the match - far from the expected behavior of a royal bride, in general!) Rather than bringing herself into the masculine role of king, basically, she brought the role of kingship to herself while staying firmly in the female sphere, and while her sister's reign was longer and more successful, it's clear that Elizabeth took a certain amount of direction from the way Mary handled her gender.

Both of the two "first" queens regnant of England had a great deal of trouble in ruling (and in later biographies) as a result of the way that others perceived their gender and their ability to conform to its conventions. Their problem was the social practices surrounding their gender, that is - not just their gender in and of itself. It's difficult to get into the historical mindset that saw women considered the property of their male relatives throughout their lives (unless they were lucky enough to become rich widows) and yet also considered women not biologically unfit to rule a country. In part, this difficulty is supported by hundreds of pop cultural depictions of historical men as total chauvinists who thought women were simply stupid across the board, which ignores the reality that elite women did a lot of work in estate management and diplomacy, and which they recognized as valuable. It's a contradiction. People have a lot of contradictions, even today - we don't run on pure logic, although many think they do and use that to prop up their own internal contradictions.

You might be interested in reading The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History, by Charles Beem (2006), which is 100% about this issue and was my major source for this answer. It's great! In general, I recommend all of Palgrave Macmillan’s Queenship and Power series.

[idio-cies]

Different Types of Love: Voltron Characters

There are different types of love. (God this is such a cringe-worthy way of approaching this topic.) Anyway... Keith needs to leave himself open for love, Lance wants love and needs to find love in himself, so does Allura in finding her own self-love, there are different types of love and I wanted to point them out with the approaches of the show/show you what's left of characters growth.

I hope people are aware of the different types of love? apparently there was more than I thought. I only knew of 4: Eros, Philia, Agape and Storge, but there's 4 more that are actually relevant. Those are: Pragma, Ludus, Mania and Philautia. They are approached differently though. One I saw said there was 9 different types and another 7, then 5. You get the idea. This 8 made sense to me though.

I'll go through each one and suggest which one goes to where with each pair etc.

So first is the most obvious one: Eros. (Lord help me now) This is obviously the "attractive love". It's passion, desire, sexual. Obviously an intimate relationship requires this. Some other types of love can actually build or turn this type of love into one that goes into another (I'll refer later). I apologise profusely, this is really awkward topic for me, but the others should be fine explaining. Also, this topic is also one you have to walk eggshells on with this fandom in particular. Of course, we all know that Lance ends up with someone, and in the last season this topic was approached sorta (and then with flashbacks in other episodes etc) so it just leaves it open now for this topic to go ahead. In my case, I think this will end up being Klance, but we will see.

Next is Philia: This is friendship. To Greek Gods, this was placed above Eros. This makes sense to me. It's "affectionate" love and also one that puts people as equals. It is platonic, free from sexual tension and is one of loyalty, camaraderie and sacrifice. This one is simple enough, no? It is one the whole team has. It is one that Keith still needs to fully welcome. He had this with Shiro, though it was ever so slightly different because of other things. He also had this with Lance, though (in my opinion and other people’s) may have bordered onto something else. But this is one that Keith has found hard. Though the others have found it a rather easy feat, especially for Lance with Allura after setting aside his pursuit of her. Pidge and Hunk have probably come out with the closest friendship, next in line I think will be Allura and Lance at the end of the day. I personally think that Philia is also just what any sort of loving relationship should have first and foremost.

Storge: This is familial love. It is what a parent feels for their child and the child feels for their parent. It can also be from childhood friends, but can be an obstacle when a family member doesn't agree/support a particular journey. Okay, this should be pretty obvious. What Krolia has for Keith, but is also what needs mending between Keith and Krolia because it is another thing he is learning. I do also think that this is what he feels for Shiro, they have been friends for a long time and Keith has called Shiro his brother, Krolia thanks Shiro for raising Keith, etc etc. I think the fact that Keith's attention is on Shiro and he has just accepted this sort of love, leaves it open and something that Keith is working towards with Krolia. The rest of them though, obviously is shown with Pidge, Matt and Sam, and then the same with Allura for her Father, Coran with his grandfather, Coran with Allura as well. Then of course Lance and his want to be home with his family, and Hunk, though Lance’s is more prominent.

Ludus: right this one, you will not believe. It is "playful love" it can have "a bit of the erotic eros in it"- I have to admit, I laughed when I read it. It is flirting. The source I'm referring to says this "The Greeks thought Ludus was a playful form of love, for example, the affection of young lovers. Ludus is that feeling we have when we go through the early stages of falling in love with someone, e.g. the fluttering heart, flirting, teasing and feelings of euphoria. Playfulness in love is an essential ingredient that is often lost in long-term relationships. Yet, playfulness is one of those secrets to keeping the child-like innocence of your love alive, interesting and exciting" trollolololollllll. Sorry, my little Klance heart <3 Don't get me wrong, playfulness can also be exerted when with friends, but this specifically is all about the beginnings of romantical love, and honestly, Keith has been the one who has shown the "flirting, teasing" and maybe the "feelings of euphoria" with Lance. The places where I'm thinking of "the feelings of euphoria" is in 0302 where he lays on that fond smile at Lance for like, no reason other than it being Lance being a goof and then again in 0306 when he was shocked about Lance saving him. Flirting and teasing is easily seen in 0106 after he gets Blue back, then in 0303 with the "I'm glad we're all making fun of Lance"- It's funny, is all. We have seen Lance flirt but it not going anywhere also, but is something weird with Keith, Lance is just a playful character anyway, but Keith has been the one who specifically has shown those traits in that manner.

Mania: if you couldn't tell by it's title, it's an obsessive kind of love.  Here’s what it says "it occurs when there is an imbalance between Eros and Ludus. To those who experience Mania, love itself is a means of rescuing themselves; a reinforcement of their own value as the sufferer of poor self-esteem. This person wants to love and be loved to find a sense of self-value. Because of this, they can become possessive and jealous lovers, feeling as though they desperately "need" their partners. If the other partner fails to reciprocate with the same kind of Mania love, many issues prevail. This is why Mania can often lead to issues such as codependency." so obviously it hasn't gotten that bad with any character, but this is Lance to a T. Lance wants love and to be loved so he can feel and be of value. That is why Lance has an endgame, though I feel he will find some self-value and comfort in himself before he actually gets himself into a relationship. But this is what he was like with Allura, jealous and possessive. Lance does have an imbalance there. He has flirted with Allura, he is definitely attracted to her, but his childishness faded and it went a different way. Though Allura doesn't exert any feelings that match up to his. Thing is, we've already seen Keith pout, and to grab for attention in 0106 as well in response to Lance, which maybe something that this crosses over too, though it isn’t the same. He literally just pouts/doesn’t look impressed with Lance. I would also say that Keith can obsess/be very protective of special people to him. We see how hung up he got over Shiro, and it’s always emphasised when he saves Lance/being protective.

Pragma: “Pragma is love that has aged, matured and developed over time. It has transcended the casual and has a unique harmony formed over time. It said also that it was mostly seen with married couples, although is rare to find as people don't think about the long lasting. It is the result of effort from both sides; people who have learned to make compromises, patience and tolerance to make a relationship work”. Okay, so I don't just see this with married couples though? Like, I see why it says that, but I also see this with Shiro and Keith (S6 caps this off) and Lance and Allura (just by watching their development from S3 onwards), I do think it has also been shown with Keith and Lance (S3 showed that development), so yeah. This was also borderline shown sort of with Krolia and Keith’s dad.

Philautia: This is self-love basically. ““Self-compassion” which is the deep understanding that only once you have the strength to love yourself and feel comfortable in your own skin, will you be able to provide love to others”.- that's what my source says. I don't dispute that, and believe it or not, this is what Keith has basically just learned but he is still being stubborn... Also, it's what Lance needs to learn, and Allura. It finishes with saying "You cannot share what you do not have. If you do not love yourself, you cannot love anyone else either. The only way to truly be happy is to find that unconditional love for yourself. Only once you learn to love and understand yourself, will you be ready to search for the spiritual freedom of the Self." I think that explains things enough. Self-love (growth/lesson) was shown with Keith when up against Shiro and “Shiro” saying he should have left Keith like his parents did, but also when Keith re-opens his eyes at the end of 0605 because he knew then that things would not be over for them, instead of accepting death in that moment, hence why the flashback before says “I’ll never give up on you, but more importantly, you should never give up on yourself”- he knows that now, he understands it.

Lastly, Agape: this is unconditional love, but it's love that has empathy. Love of "flaws or short-comings" it's basically accepting another despite them being different. "accepts, forgives and believes for our greater good"- well... yeah. Everyone should have this and not be so stubborn... Keith still needs to accept and forgive Krolia. This sort of "love" is also we saw with Allura in S2 with Keith, though in both scenarios it is understandable why it’s a challenge. Technically Allura is still learning this.

So yeah, different ones overlap with each other some feeding into the others etc.

It would be cool if we did see Keith also accept romantic love also, because at the moment its friendship and familial and he just learnt self-love. It would be nice to see him dish out the love to everyone though, not just to Shiro. I feel like he's just avoiding everyone still because he either feels guilty for leaving, or he just, is still scared of being that open. Though it seems to me that Shiro will be the one to encourage him to accept and forgive Krolia, and to bond with the others. I also believe that the fact that he has the cosmic wolf was an indication that he was looking after something other than himself, he was allowing a pet to love him really and he loves that pet in return- baby steps. 

If Keith gets romantic love too, that would be awesome. It has to be the right person though. To me, just directing all of his attention to Shiro is not exactly the healthiest of things, but I get why he would be doing that though. It’s because Keith has just opened that part of himself up. As I said earlier, the fact that he has opened himself up to accepting Shiro, it leaves him open to do so for Krolia. ~It's a little like how Lance having all of his attention on Allura was never a good thing, or even having all of his attention on a flipping rivalry was not healthy but needed growth/different perspective/probably end up being told that will help him realise properly~. It has changed though, and Shiro is that sort of person that is observant and who Keith listens to. Keith does listen to some people, it's just if he actually takes in their words. He doesn't always listen to Shiro. Shiro says to Keith in 0208 "you need to learn discipline" and only now has Keith learnt that on his own (roughly), he listens to Lance when Lance is being serious. He can listen to Allura, but only when it suits him, the fact that he said "I don't want a lecture" is evidence enough, and to me, Keith seems to listen to Krolia, though not fully letting her words sink in, knowing the weight/meaning of them exactly.

Allura and Lance both need to learn self-love. Allura showed this a little when she was getting close with Lotor, but she had support from Coran all this time who helped her not doubt herself, and as of late, Lance has helped her in that fact of not letting her have self-doubt. In that respect, Lance could dish out the advice, but not actually fully apply it to himself. The fact that Lance will get an endgame means he will learn self-love through that, but it will just simply be a part of his arc as a whole. The same applies for Allura, though she doesn’t have an endgame, also the fact that she did progress/got in touch with her alchemy when with Lotor will send her back to square-one. Lance helped her with the right words but that will not be swept under the rug with just that.

The other characters seem to be relatively good. It would be awesome if we saw forgiveness and acceptance with Adam and Shiro if that does go ahead. That goes to both ways and neither would get closure if it was left open like that, even if they don’t get back together, it will be something that would teach Keith a lesson, most certainly. I don’t think introducing Adam in that way, for us not to see him would be really shit and just... not well-rounded. I know that Josh has said that Shiro gets a big emotional scene coming up and people think it will be Shiro and Adam, so maybe. But really, that would be really cool to see that happen because it is said about the Shiro and Keith bond. It would be really good to show that for Keith to learn from. It would help bring a closing to Krolia and his relationship.

Anyway, yeah. I hope this makes sense...

Later Paladudes ;)

[scotianostra]

September 2nd 1724 Maggie Dickson climbed the gallows in Edinburgh's Grassmarket, ready to take “The last drop”

 Her downfall came when she got pregnant and tried to conceal the fact. Maggie’s  husband had deserted her to work in the Fisheries in Newcastle in Northern England.

Consequently she had to leave Edinburgh and moved to Kelso in the south of Scotland. Whilst there she had an affair with an innkeepers son.

As the Innkeeper was her employer she felt compelled to keep the pregnancy quiet as she would lose her job. Tragically the baby died after being born prematurely and she decided to dispose of the body. She intended to cast it into the River Tweed but instead left it on the riverbank. It was soon found and the authorities quickly determined that Maggie was the mother. At that time such an action in Scotland contravened the 'Concealment of Pregnancy Act' of 1690 which made it tantamount to murder. 

"Her reason for concealing the birth of the child was for fear of being made a public example in the church, and a laughing-stock to all her neighbours The legal and religious institutions were severe on women concerning matters of their pregnancy. Even the natural occurrences of miscarriage or still-born infants could incur the wrath of the law.

And so it was, Maggie was tried, convicted and sentenced to hang. The execution took place on the 2nd September 1724 in the Grassmarket area of Edinburgh. This was the favoured location for hangings at that time and normally took place on market day to ensure a sizeable crowd.

Her body was then taken in a coffin for burial to the town of Musselburgh which was east of Edinburgh. Apparently this was only after an unseemly scuffle between her family and local medical students keen for a young body to dissect. The corpses of the condemned were regularly passed to the Schools of Anatomy in the name of science in the 18th century.

The family had their way and took possession of Maggie's remains for burial. They set off on the journey and on the way stopped off at a pub for some refreshments in the Peffer Mill area. All of a sudden there came a knocking and banging on the coffin lid from the inside. Astonished, they opened up the coffin to discover that she was not dead.

Miraculously it seemed that Maggie Dickson had not succumbed to the gallows but had cheated death at the hands of the law. She was alive and well as confirmed by a local gardener on the scene who cut a vein to check for a flow of blood. After spending a night to recover Maggie actually walked back to Musselburgh the next day.

But what would happen next? As the death certificate had already been issued it was impossible to re-execute Maggie. This was because Scots Law is based on Roman Pandects and in this case it prohibited further action. Therefore the King's Advocate could not pursue the matter any further.

Instead he filed against the Edinburgh Sheriff in the High Court of Justiciary for not efficiently conducting the public execution. The ruling also meant that as Maggie was technically dead then her marriage was dissolved.

Furthermore, the prevailing opinion amongst people in Edinburgh considered her survival to be the result of divine intervention. Local people believed it had been 'God's will' that had spared her from an early grave.

Rumours persist that she actually seduced the ropemaker and convinced him to make the noose weak enough not to kill her. We will never know if that's the truth.

Whatever the facts of her hanging Maggie lived for another 40 years and had many children. Her husband remarried her despite that fact that she now sported rope burns and her neck was permanently crooked for the rest of her life. She is said to have ran an alehouse in Musselburgh for the rest of her life.

If you have ever visited Edinburgh’s Grassmarket you will have no doubt seen the names of the bars have a historical connection, The White Hart connects with King David I and his encounter with a White Stag, The Last Drop is of course a nod to the execution place and Maggie Dickson is for our erstwhile subject today, who the people of Edinburgh remember as  “ Half-hangit Maggie “ 

[bills-bible-basics]

Discrimination on the Social Networks -- a commentary by Bill Kochman Let's be honest here. Despite how much we enjoy using them, some social networks are really becoming unbearable. They continuously plaster us with ads we really don't want to see. They are constantly pushing us and pressuring us to spend money on advertising which we cannot afford on our meager incomes. And besides, if the truth be told -- I speak from personal experience -- most paid advertising does NOT garner us a lot of new, long-term friends or subscribers, or even a large number of new likes or comments for that matter. My own experience is that, at best, in many cases, paid advertising may provide us with a temporary increase in the number of views, but that is about it. There is no long-term commitment, so what is the point? At the same time, our advertising expenses makes the social network richer. Of course, as many of us already know, the way that they do this is by purposely exploiting our desire to be seen and heard by the world. This is particularly true in the case of evangelically-minded Christians who strongly believe in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We can be such suckers. But to continue, some social networks are also filled with disgusting, ungodly things -- and people -- which are an affront to our Christian faith. Sadly, as many of us have already learned, there is very little that we can do about it. Even when the social networks do respond to our complaints -- which is rare -- it is usually just to inform us that a particular post falls within the parameters of their Terms of Service, and their sharing/posting guidelines, even if we are personally offended by said material. Now we come to the gist of the matter. Perhaps the thing which irks many Christians the most, is the fact that there seems to be an intentional campaign of discrimination against people who embrace conservative, Christian values. It has become such a huge issue, that it has even been discussed and examined in Washington, D.C. Such was the case with Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Speaking again from my personal observations, on a number of occasions now, I have seen my brothers and sisters in the Lord complain that some of their posts, images or comments have mysteriously disappeared, oft times without any explanation whatsoever. Was it due to the inexpertise of the user; or due to a technical glitch in the social network's system; or was it due to something else? Some Christians have arrived at the conclusion that these strange disappearances are due to "something else". They base this conclusion on the fact that when an explanation is offered by the social network, they are usually informed that their post, image or comment was removed because it was contrary to social network policies -- or "Community Standards" -- in some way. This explanation has been interpreted by some Christians to mean that someone -- sometimes a liberal-minded social network staff member -- apparently found the post offensive, hateful or discriminatory in some way. If this is indeed what is really going on, then clearly, a double standard is being practiced by some social networks. In other words, it doesn't matter that as Christians, we are offended by -- and sometimes report -- some objectionable things that we see on the social networks. Because some social networks are so liberal, our opinions are of little value to them. Who knows, perhaps they even view us as a nuisance. Thus, they will write off our complaints, and claim that the originator of the post -- which we find offensive -- is simply exercising their right to free speech. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that if we dare to strongly express our Christian views, values and beliefs -- which are often in opposition to the politically correct social attitudes which prevail on the social networks today -- we are given a slap on the wrist, and our content sometimes removed. In short, if we are offended by a particular post, it doesn't matter.

But if someone takes issue with one of our Christian-oriented posts, it requires the attention of the social network, often resulting in us suffering some type of negative consequence. Given what seems to be going on, it comes as no surprise to me, that more and more, I come across posts where my Christian brethren are becoming quite discouraged, and announcing that they are permanently leaving a particular social network. Why? Because they just can't handle the unfair bias and discrimination against them. Some of them feel isolated and alone, as if they have been purposely cut off from the rest of the social network, due to their Christian beliefs. While they are given the impression that no one cares about what they think, believe or say -- which is what some assume when no one comments on or shares their posts -- is it possible that this is by design, and precisely what certain liberal social networks want them to feel, so that they will become discouraged and leave? Good question. If you find yourself in this position, allow me to ask you something. Are you going to give up the fight so easily? Are you just going to throw in the towel and surrender? Are you going to let them win the battle? Hoping not to seem too cliché, WWJD? Of course, there is ANOTHER solution: You can join another social network where your Christian views are not only welcomed, they are encouraged and not suppressed. That network is the Christian Social Network, and you are welcome to join it today at the following URL. Forget the antichrist social networks. Come and fellowship with your like-minded Christian brethren on CSNet! https://www.csnet.live/index.php Or, if you are an iPhone® user, you can download the CSNet app for your phone from the App Store®. Simply launch the App Store app on your iPhone, and then search for "csnet". The app icon with the Bible and Cross with the blue background is it! You can likewise download our CSNet app for your Android phone as well by visiting Google's Play Store on your phone. iPhone® and App Store® are trademarks of Apple Inc. https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/discrimination-on-the-social-networks-a-commentary-by-bill-kochman/?feed_id=39468&_unique_id=6426279d49151&Discrimination%20on%20the%20Social%20Networks%20--%20a%20commentary%20by%20Bill%20Kochman

[watchesreview]

A. LANGE & SÖHNE CABARET TOURBILLON HANDWERKSKUNST

The A. Lange & Söhne Cabaret Tourbillon Handwerkskunst shares much in common with the Cabaret Tourbillon, first released in 2008. This latest creation features many mechanical details that enhance the ownership experience. However, its magnificence is not limited to its mechanical virtues, it also extends to the artistic treatment of the dial and movement.

Theo Jansen, the contemporary Dutch artist, once said ‘the walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds’. It seems very apt when looking at a Lange timepiece.

Although Bauhaus, the famous German design school, is based on the notion of ‘form follows function’, some examples of this approach can appear a tad utilitarian. In contrast, Lange surpasses the merely functional, imbuing its products with exquisite aesthetic elements. For example, virtually all models are endowed with a hand-engraved balance cock. From a functional perspective this component could have been stamped out, rhodium plated and left unadorned, however, A. Lange & Söhne would never countenance such a perfunctory approach.

While Lange could expedite the making of a watch by focussing solely on the essential, it chooses not to. Indeed, it creates wonderfully engineered watches that encompass über-refined finishing. Black polishing and hand-chamfering are not the products of haste, but rather demonstrate a mindset that always favours excellence. In my opinion, the engineering manifest with the Lange’s fine watches is conjoined with art.

In 2011, the brand from Saxony, eager to showcase even more of its artistic capabilities, unveiled its first Handwerkskunst timepiece. Its name means ‘craftsmanship’ a reference to the high quotient of artisanal input. For the inaugural model, the German marque chose to breathe upon its famous Tourbillon Pour le Mérite. This limited edition Handwerkskunst model sported a fascinating honey gold dial enriched with an extraordinary texture. This finish is achieved by using a technique called ‘tremblage’, where a small burin is lightly tapped against the dial membrane to create a myriad of dimples.

The following year, in 2012, the Zeitwerk Handwerkskunst was unveiled and enjoyed favourable coverage in many horological publications and websites. This contemporary watch featured the aforementioned artisanal technique, a form of adornment that would eventually be employed on several, but not all, Handwerkskunst models. Moreover, the luxury watch brand shrewdly chose to apply black-rhodium plate to the white gold dial, bestowing the horological vista with a sizeable dose of modernity.

Over the last 10 years, Lange has released several Handwerkskunst models. Some have featured tremblage while others encompassed grand feu enamelling. In 2017, the prestigious watch firm unveiled the 1815 Rattrapante Perpetual Calendar Handwerkskunst. The white gold dial was dressed in blue enamel and adorned with contrasting blue stars. To the rear of the watch is a hinged caseback was embellished with tremblage and relief engraving, all surrounded by a circlet of enamel.

The Handwerkskunst experience is not restricted to the dial and case, it often extends to the movement. This includes different forms of finishing to the ‘standard’ model. In addition, it can also encompass technical changes to the movement specification. For instance, the calibre L043.1, fitted to the standard Zeitwerk, features a variable-inertia balance. The balance wheel is fitted with c-shaped masellotes, set in-board. The Handwerkskunst version is equipped with the Calibre L043.4 which is also fitted with a variable-inertia balance, however, it uses traditional timing screws to adjust the rate. By using c-shaped masellotes, there is nothing protruding beyond the rim of the balance, mitigating air turbulence, thereby augmenting precision. While the screwed balance is technically inferior, many purists appreciate its traditional appearance. The Handwerkskunst movement eschews Glashütte ribbing in favour of a frosted three-quarter plate.

Now, the Manufactory has produced a new work of art, the A. Lange & Söhne Cabaret Tourbillon Handwerkskunst. The ‘standard’ Cabaret Tourbillon was first released in 2008, however, this latest version of the model still looks fresh-faced and brims with a number of additional artistic details.

The dial

There is a reason why most watches are round; they are more likely to sell. When a brand veers from this accepted wisdom it exposes itself to a greater risk of commercial failure. However, over the years, some of the most eye-catching designs have embraced lozenge, rectangular and tonneau-shaped forms. In this instance, A. Lange & Söhne has boldly chosen not to make yet another round watch but instead has conceived a rectangular-shaped timepiece. I can already say at this juncture, with just 30 pieces planned and legions of Langephiles dotted around the globe, the demand for the A. Lange & Söhne Cabaret Tourbillon Handwerkskunst is short to outstrip available supplies.

The lancine-shaped hour and minute hands are rhodiumed gold and convey meaning in a softly spoken, clear manner. Each hour is marked with matching diamond-shaped indexes, save for 3, 6, and 9 o’clock where Roman numerals denote the hours.

Disciples of the Manufactory’s work will immediately notice the power-reserve indicator at 4 o’clock. It is an indication that features on the Lange 1, arguably the brand’s most iconic model. The display on this model is snailed, employs a monochrome palette and features the German words ‘Ab’ and ‘Auf’. A small seconds display is positioned opposite the power-reserve indicator, employing much of the same design language as its aforementioned counterpart.

An aperture in the southern territory of the dial reveals the eponymous tourbillon. The purpose of this device, patented in 1801, is to counter the adverse influence of gravity on the balance. Housed within a rotating cage, the escapement and regulation organ follow a circular path, turning 360° every minute. This highly complex mechanism negates positional errors, enhancing the overall precision of the movement.

In many cases, despite being designed to augment accuracy, a tourbillon seldom allows the wearer to hack the seconds and synchronise the time with a reference clock. When the Cabaret Tourbillon was released in 2008, it allowed the wearer to instantaneously stop the balance inside the rotating cage merely by pulling out the crown. This meant the wearer could synchronise the various time indications with a reference clock and simply pushing the crown home again, set the balance running again. It is an eminently logical feature but one that continues to elude most other watch brands.

In 1990, when A. Lange & Söhne was ‘re-registered’, it released four models, one of which was the Lange 1. Its oversized date display was inspired by the Five-Minute Clock in the Semper Opera in nearby Dresden. The date indication employs two discs, one for the tens and the other for units, delivering a widescreen indication of the prevailing date. Perpetuating this tradition, the A. Lange & Söhne Cabaret Tourbillon Handwerkskunst is also endowed with a large format date display. This confers superb legibility and its proportions look perfectly at ease with the watch, delivering a harmonious mien.

Arguably the pièce de résistance is the artistic embellishment of the white gold canvas. The inner area of the dial is hand engraved with a ‘lozenge pattern’. The regular appearance of each lozenge element might fool you into thinking it has been performed using a machine. However, its uniformly geometric pattern and the absence of any flaws is the product of a deft hand and much patience. A thin line of tremblage delineates one area of the dial from another.

The dial’s epidermis is suffused with a semi-transparent enamel layer, imbuing the dialscape with a wonderful depth.

At the base of the dial, the watch’s country of origin is specified in a crisp font, while in the bottom right-hand corner, the word ‘Glashütte’ effectively signs the masterpiece.

The case

The A. Lange & Söhne Cabaret Tourbillon Handwerkskunst is housed in a 950 platinum case measuring 29.5 x 39.2 x 10.3mm. This noblest of metals is more challenging to machine than steel or gold. When platinum is milled using a CNC machine, great care is needed to avoid excessive heat generation as this can make the material even more challenging to work with. To avoid heat issues, the milling times have to be extended, thereby heightening production costs.

Nevertheless, the additional machining costs and the high price of platinum are justified by the properties it confers. Platinum, which is far rarer than gold, exhibits a becoming silvery-white hue, is reassuringly dense and delivers a wonderfully lustrous sheen.

Each of the bezel’s four sides gently slope towards the case middle. The caseband is straight for the most part, but step outwards near the lugs. Despite its obvious complexity, the watch remains elegant and tastefully understated. For example, the lugs do not unduly project from the case, but peep beyond its main body, drawing the strap close.

One of the highlights of Lange ownership is undoubtedly the movement beating within the case. The German marque indulges the wearer with sublime views of the calibre L042.1, courtesy of an exhibition caseback.

The watch is presented on a black hand-stitched leather strap paired with a deployant buckle, again in 950 platinum.

The movement

The Cabaret Tourbillon is fitted with the calibre L042.1, a hand-wound movement with a tourbillon escapement. The tourbillon features an upper and lower bridge, each fitted with a diamond endstone. As stated earlier, the purpose of the tourbillon is to enhance rate accuracy.

Beyond its functional benefits, the tourbillon provides another vehicle for the German brand to showcase its finishing skills. For example, the upper tourbillon bridge (or bar), spanning the dial aperture, is beautifully polished and secured by two screws, each with wonderfully defined slots. The wearer is indulged with a dynamic spectacle of the escape wheel, pallet lever, balance wheel and hairspring all in motion.

Lange has equipped the movement with a screwed balance, a respectful nod to traditional watchmaking. The two barrels deliver an impressive power reserve of 120 hours, assuming the watch is fully wound. As well as the two barrels delivering greater autonomy, they also contribute to rate accuracy. Indeed, by employing two barrels the power transferred via the gear train to the escapement is more consistent thereby ensuring the amplitude also remains relatively constant.

As stated earlier, the watch has the facility to stop the balance from rotating merely by pulling out the crown. This ingenious system employs an ‘arresting spring’ which cleverly preserves the potential energy of the balance spring so that the balance can restart instantly as soon as the crown is pushed home and the arresting spring is retracted.

Confusingly, the movement within the A. Lange & Söhne Cabaret Tourbillon Handwerkskunst shares the same reference as the movement within the 2008 model, despite both movements looking different.

The Glashütte-based company has respected fine watchmaking etiquette. The calibre L042.1 is rectangular shaped, emulating the shape of the case.

Whereas the movement on the ‘regular’ Cabaret Tourbillon is embellished with traditional Glashütte ribbing, the Handwerkskunst model features a frosted finish. Lange is famous for its hand-engraved balance cocks. In this instance, this exquisite demonstration of the company’s artistic prowess extends to the tourbillon and intermediate wheel cocks. Where the original model is engraved with a filigree-type pattern, the Handwerkskunst version features a ‘lozenge’ shaped motif.

Finally, the movement features 45 jewels, several of which are set in screwed gold chatons, upholding another Lange tradition.

Closing remarks

Most watches impart time, however, it is the method they employ that often differentiates the mediocre products from those brimming with excellence. Personally speaking, I accept that a quartz watch delivers precision, but find them to be soulless. They may fulfil a basic need, but they fail to elicit any emotion.

In some cases, mechanical watches can be devoid of virtue, but the finest examples, the exemplars of Haute Horlogerie, charm the onlooker and lead watch aficionados to smile with delight. A. Lange & Söhne painstakingly crafts watches for discerning souls. The brand’s clients are not merely seeking a functional timepiece but an exquisite object made without compromise.

Since the brand was re-registered in 1990, the firm’s watches transcend the merely functional and incorporate beautifully considered engineering, peerless finishing and numerous examples of tasteful adornment. Lange clearly has a desire to surpass its customers’ expectations, something it has demonstrated over and over again.

The A. Lange & Söhne Cabaret Tourbillon Handwerkskunst embodies everything that is magical about this prestigious firm, but it also encompasses several artistic crafts that few other companies have the necessary expertise to attempt. Based on the evidence, it is clear, when it comes to A. Lange & Söhne, engineering and art are intertwined.

[martinlawless]

British Cycling National Masters Road Race Championship 2021

Category D, 45-49 year olds, E1234 Garstang, Lancashire 7 August 2021

The British Cycling National Masters Road Race, like the circuit race equivalent, is an annual championship that has races in five-year categories. I’m in the 45-49 band, or ‘Category D’ class, for this one.

It’s on the Oakenclough road race circuit near Garstang, that goes into the Forest of Bowland, an official Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in Lancashire. I don’t know it at all and drive the loop twice the evening before. I find out it’s brutal and look again at the maths I did to understand how hard it would be. I had the numbers wrong by some way. It’s a 10-mile lap with about 1,000ft of climbing each time, pan flat initially, that then turns north and climbs. And climbs. And climbs. For 5 miles in total. Then it turns one more time and climbs silly to the top. I will guess at near 20%. It then rockets downwards for 4 miles, more steeply than the ascent, twisting sharply here and there.

That’s not all. The road surface, in parts, is awful. Worn down and ragged through neglect and harsh winters. It’s beautiful all around, but the tarmac is ugly. You’re sheltered quite well on the ascent. On the descent you look west and can clearly make out Blackpool Tower, the Irish Sea and Morecombe Bay in the distance on a clear day – lovely – but you also face the fierce prevailing wind fresh from the sea. It’s a difficult course. And, for me I know it won’t offer the ‘traditional’ benefits of a road race. As I reflect the night before, the ups and downs I reckon will split the pack and it will be attrition for all individually.

Race day. The weather, as forecast, is abominable. It’s quite warm… around 15 degrees, but it’s very wet. Steady rain, low cloud and very often intense, heavy storms coming and going, bringing dark skies and low visibility. The sort of astonishing weather you take videos on your phone with and post online. Remarkably, as we take the briefing and get behind the car to the start, the rain stops and there’s even a hint of sun. We’d go on to do much of the first lap in the dry. But then it all came back with a vengeance.

I was pleased with how I’d dressed. Race suit. Thin, string wicking vest. Good rain resistant arm warmers. Aero-socks, utterly glued to the legs with spray glue. Neoprene full-finger gloves. Ashwell cap with a good visor. This worked well on the day. I knew it would not get that cold even though I was thinly attired. And I wouldn’t get heavy through soaked clothes. The fingers would be fine in the neoprene ‘wet suit’ gloves. I packed four gels and a chewy bar. I took one bottle, as my dad was in the feed zone at the top of the lap to pass new bottles. Every gram would count on this climbing-fest.

We’re off. We are mixed in with the 40-44 year olds race. There’s a good few DNSs – but there’s plenty about as we head off. The flag goes down from the car and we’re off. A mixed bag of riders from all over the country. There’s gravity towards local clubs but they really are from all over the place. Initially, it’s all good. I’m just surfing the wheels and settling in. Then it turns upwards. I can’t tell whether it’s nervousness or exertion, but I am finding it hard to get a rhythm on the ascent. I’m OK, but just can’t seem to get on top of my breathing. It’s surging and whirling a bit as everyone is releasing adrenaline and finding their way into the race. Maybe towards the latter of the ascent, I feel the pace is too hot and dig in and start to burn a match. Ordinarily in this situation, I might hide in the bunch here. The issue is that we’re not really going fast enough for the drafting effect of the bunch to make a massive difference. There isn’t really anywhere to hide. I figure we are already losing riders as we turn for the big bit. All credit to anyone who turns up to race, has a go, dies a death almost instantly and then comes back for more another day.

The big hill is cruel. I am well in the red and sliding back. By the time we crest it, I’m with four others and the bunch is several bike lengths away. But there’s no panic – from any of us. We know what to do. Without going deep, we hustle into a quintet and begin a chaingang. Our race is not over, it’s just a different way to do well.

Lap 2 is largely consolidation and finding rhythm. Cleveland Wheelers chap is a fantastic descender, and it turns out he used to race downhill. He just needs a bit of help on the climbs. Horwich CC fella is happy to do long turns and give us all a break. Chester CC rider is keeping spirits high with his jokes, and the shop team fella is quite quiet, I think hanging in there a bit, but helping on the front like the rest of us.

The rain gets really bad. No, like really bad. I can feel it spilling out of the top of my shoes. My cap is doing well to give me a clear line through my glasses. But it’s limited. It’s so thick and intense, it’s hurting on the downhill and I wonder if it’s hail. But it’s just walloping big rain. Potholes and loose gravel everywhere. This is very technical in parts. Too often the chosen line is the better of many holey evils. I take a turn badly and an oncoming Range Rover slides by too close for comfort. It’s rough. We put a lot of faith in bikes, hurtling around these lanes and over tight bridges.

We carry on though. My gloves are brilliant to fight off cold although dexterity plummets with them on. I attempt three bottle catches but only make one. I can’t feel much too well. That’s fine. I’m not too thirsty in this weather. I’m drinking from the road spray, as it were.

The turning point in my mind is late on. Earlier in the race, I’d expected we’d hoover up dropped riders into our gang. Those who would be spat out from the front. But we’d seen none. OK, through time checks, we knew we were losing around 3 minutes a lap on the bunch, but all the same, a solo rider would soon be caught. But, nothing. Then, in the latter part of the race, we pass one rider. He’s absolutely blasted. We urge him to get on our train, but he’s busted and twiddling to the end of the lap or something. This starts to make me think that the bunch is chewing up riders and they’re not dropping back, they’re quitting. I start to wonder how many dropouts it would take for us to place. National races have points down to 15th place. We could be in with a shout?

I’m galvanized. Of the five in our group, just me and Cleveland are in the 45-49 category. I think all we need to do is stick it out, not get lapped and get over the line.

My feet begin to hurt. I realise I’ve lost all sensation and have tightened and tightened the BOA dials until it’s restricting bloodflow. I loosen the shoes and feel instant relief, eat a bar to avoid cramp from too many gels and sugar, and navigate the climb once more.

As we take on the daft steep bit again, to start the last lap, out of the blue, the chequered flag is dropped. With just around 20 metres, the five of us realise our finish is suddenly in front of us and we break out a sprint. I’m caught out and I’m third of our five over the line. More precisely, Cleveland in my race category is in front of me. The commissaires decide to pull us out and shorten the race, given the conditions, with one lap to go – in part as mercy for racers and organisers stuck on the wet hill. I politely ask if we will still place despite this and not be classed as a DNF – and the judges reassure me this is the case. Suddenly, our race is done. I am relieved. It’s stopped raining. I’m in among the throng at the line and I now get to see the front of the race finish.

It’s amazing how in pieces the front of the race is. The soloist winner has a massive gap over the next few riders, who have minutes over the next solo rider, etc. I’m counting the riders, and their category, to get an idea of who is in race C and D. Eventually a very depleted bunch comes through. I count around 27 finishers in total for both races, with most being in the other ‘yoof’ race. I’m getting excited. Top 15 surely?

Back at HQ, I have a brief chat with Chris, the winner, and watch him get his National jersey. Amazing. Then I go to the results page. There I am 12th place out of just 12 finishers in our D race. Less than one-third the total. That’s 4 BC points.

On a bit of a high, me and my dad do a mini driving tour of the Trough of Bowland and I get a coffee at the Inn at Whitewell, widely regarded as one of the best pubs in the UK. This was a race where it paid off to stay in your comfort zone, keep a match or two, and keep your head down while others suffered greater. This way, you can, over time, survive when the pace and conditions are brutal – to climb the ranks over those who blow up.

It’s not the race I wanted through. I was quite a way off in power for the front. I resolve if I do it next year, I will focus on losing 4-5kgs. I’ll also be in the 50-54 band. That should all balance the ratio out a bit. It would be a nice summer aim.

I also can tell you now, if I do it next year, it will be raining reet hard in Lancashire on that Summer’s day.

Strava link: https://www.strava.com/activities/5755327593

[dxmedstudent]

Greetings, dxmedstudent! If my memory doesn't fail me, you're Catholic, right? I'm a [struggling] Catholic med student and I have mixed feelings about the Church's position on abortion, [artificial] birth control and sex reassignment surgery, and other "controversial" topics. After I graduate, I want to give all patients the best care they deserve, but I'm afraid my beliefs will interfere. What are your thoughts on it? I won't feel bad if this gets ignored. Thank you for your insightful posts!

Hello! Your memory doesn’t fail you, but I don’t recall if I’ve ever specifically mentioned my denomination. I’m not Catholic, nor really Protestant either. I wouldn’t expect you to remember that, though! I don’t think I mention specifics much, on my blog. But regardless of my cultural denomination, I mostly just loosely call myself Christian. I feel that my ethics might be partly based on the religious upbringing I had, but they aren’t entirely formed by it. I’d describe myself as spiritual more than religious.

Despite that, thank you for messaging in. It’s clear that you genuinely want to do the best that you can by patients, and that is what matters. I’m glad that you’re taking the time to reflect on it, and on how you can do the best that you can do. It might be worth medblrs who are more religious chipping in and sharing how feel about these things, and how they reconcile the two sides of their life. I personally have no issues with any of the above things you mentioned, though I know some people do. The prevailing opinion in Catholicism seems to be that these things are Wrong, and that nobody should do them, therefore many Catholics don’t think they should be offered, and that this is often the official line. Which can make it hard for practicing Catholics in medicine, who feel a pressure to go along with current orthodoxy. In countries that are predominantly Catholic, it can be harder because those options are simply legally taken off the table. I don’t believe we should perform religion to fit in with others, and I believe that although we should follow rules that we as a society have decided are just, judgement is not up to us, but up to Him. Therefore I don’t believe it fair for us to judge others by how well they fit our religious rules. Your beliefs are your own, and you have control over what you believe. I know that we’re all raised with beliefs from a young age, and then we examine them, sometimes uneasily as we grow. It’s up to all of us to examine them and think about where we stand, and whether we feel that the religious choices you pick for yourself have to apply to our patients. It’s clear that you want to do the right thing by your patients without compromising your personal code of ethics, and I can respect that. I hope you find a balance that works for you. Each of us is different, some people can compartmentalise their standards for themselves and their patients, others feel that the rulings of their faith are strict and blanket rules for everyone. Your beliefs only need to interfere as much as you allow them to; you cannot accidentally refuse someone birth control or accdentally refuse to refer for an abortion; these are active decisions. But they aren’t central to every aspect of medicine. Whilst every one of us will deal with patients who have had an abortion, or use birth control, or are trans, not all of us will be actively participating in putting those treatments in place. The way I personally see things, is this; as doctors we have so much choice in terms of what we specialise in. So, if we don’t like a procedure, whatever it is, then we can pick jobs that simply mean we don’t have to do it. If you’re not sure how you feel about particular things, there’s nothing that says you have to actively partake in them. You can do some research and find plenty of jobs (within medicine, or outside if you prefer) that really won’t require you to deal with those issues at all. But I personally believe that we should’t take up a job, and then refuse to do part of that particular job. So, for example, if you believed that medically managing miscarriage is abortion, and that is wrong, then you shouldn’t go into O&G. If you believe nobody should be given birth control, or that all abortion is wrong, then family medicine/GP would be a difficult job to do ethically, as well as O&G.  The reason I think this is the following: if too many of us do that, then we’d be taking jobs away from providers who can actually give these much needed services. And if there aren’t enough providers who can do it, then perfectly legal medication and procedures effectively become impossible to access because in some areas there just won’t be enough providers who choose to do it. Legally in the UK GPs can choose whether they refer for abortions, for historic reasons. Therefore it’s technically legal for people here to take up a job and pcik not to do certain aspects like this. But I personally don’t think we should pick and choose which legal treatments we refer for. I think that since these are our personal beliefs, we have to take the burden of choosing a job compatible with them, ratehr than picking a job that isn’t, then refusing to do it. I hope you are able to find a path that doesn’t compromise your beliefs, but also that you think hard about what you personally believe, so that you can move forward feeling at peace with yourself and the role you play in your patients’ lives. You have a great potential to do good, and I hope you are able to fulfil it and be happy.