#supreme teach and edward being

[meluli]

[xray-vex]

i've seen a few eps of Time Bandits now, and like-- look. idk how to explain this magic, but:

pic on the left is Taika Waititi as The Supreme Being. pic on the right is Edward Teach.

[thatsoheeron]

Yesterdays Paper: A look at a (bad) reaction to Brown Vs. the Board of Education TW: Racists from 1955 in Richmond, Virgina

So the powers that be have decided to put an "end" to Black History Month, which is obviously unambiguously awful. I deeply care about history and have for the entirety of my life, and I also happen to have a podcast. So I decided to take one integral moment in Black History and look up what was being published in the newspaper at that time.

This week I chose Brown Vs. the Board of Education (1954) and some articles from The Richmond News Leader in Richmond Virginia (Thursday, June 2nd, 1955) and the narrative described was something I found incredibly interesting.

In reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to integrate all segregated schools, bonds already donated to Richmond schools were revoked on the simple premise that they did not want to pay for integration. What was once $600,000 to be donated to new school constructions had dropped to a measly $150,000, and many individuals called the ruling "vague" in it's wording, a sentiment reflected on the ruling's archive.gov page.

They also criticized the "social psychologists" of which they claimed the ruling was based off of. Which I am assuming is because of the idea that *shocker* black people are not inherently inferior. They also commonly cite Plessy Vs. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruling that claimed that Black Americans were inferior to the white race, and also set the precedent for Jim Crow laws.

Something I found interesting was a small article claiming that a few teachers did not return to their positions and instead decided to leave the profession, which will come up later, of course.

Then the editor of the Richmond News Leader essentially puts it all out there, and writes up a dissertation about what segregationists have to do to keep segregation in schools. Either the government needs to comply with segregationists or there will be no school. At all.

But no school for whom? The entirety of Prince Edward County in Richmond, Virginia? No!

Otherwise he claims that they need to force the Public Schools to sell the buildings for pennies on the dollar and then white benefactors will rebuild private schools for their children to learn.

Huh. So... segregation.

There's also another editor who expands upon the school board meeting and his similarly racist thoughts as well as an article I couldn't even read entitled "The White Race Has Built Great Civilizations," (read at your own risk)

Oh also, the teachers are quitting because they do not want to teach black students, and this complete racist cowardice is being used by politicians to dig their claws into and tear apart integration.

But Sarah why the hell would you do this weird thing? You may be asking yourself, well I believe as a white person that we shouldn't just be fed a white-washed child-friendly version of America's horrible racist past and move on about our lives. That's how you get people who misquote MLK or think that "racism is over," which we all know it very clearly is not.

I also have a podcast and a platform (and a majority white audience) and if the government is going to abandon the public then the first thing we should is educate each other.

If you are one of those white people that think "Well that's old, racism is over," Keep in mind this was only 70 years ago, and the first black student to attend an integrated school, Ruby Nell Bridges Hall, is still alive today. So, no, it was not that long ago.

Keep in mind, this is one school board in one county in all of the American South. Thurgood Marshall, leader of the NAACP is quoted in the above articles saying that they would sue any school that did not comply with the Supreme Court's decision, and whose work was so incredible that segregation can seem like a thing of the distant past, even though capitalism wielded as a tool to enforce white supremacy has been here all along.

Next week we're going to look at the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and will continue to look at more big moments in Black History for the entirety of February. If you want to know more of mine and Josh's opinions, we talk about it on this week's APWSTR ep. 224 'Know Your Enemy (Greg)'

Take care, and happy Black History Month!

[pukner]

Baz | part two

a steddyhands twt thread turned oneshot

|| Rated Gen || Stede and Ed take a brief vacation to visit Stede's family, and find a surprise.

part one / part two

It's a small shack, nearly a cottage, nestled neatly by the edge of the jungle, where few wander. The path is clearly only walked by a few.

It's-- nice. Like a dream someone else might've had. It's certainly never occurred to Ed to dream of a place like this for himself-- small and unassuming, nothing particularly fine or exciting or remarkable about it.

There's a girl, with a riot of blond hair pulled back into a ponytail, going through various fighting drills in the garden. Dressed practically, sturdy boots and worn trousers. Her movements are as familiar to Ed as his own. Which makes sense, considering who taught Ed the finer points of using a sword.

There's a boy sitting by the porch, and next to him is a man, cane propped up next to him.

He looks good, is the thing. Less strain around the eyes. Older, thinner, less muscle tone. But there's something softer around his mouth. Something gentle about his eyes. He looks up at the exact moment the girl does.

His eyebrows fly up. Ed doesn't know what his face is doing.

"Dad!" say the kids as one, looking moderately pleased.

"Childr--wait, Izzy?" yells Stede, flabbergasted. Which is fair.

"Jesus Christ," says Iz, looking resigned, "Fucking Mary."

"You cursed again!" says Louis, delighted.

"And I won't stop," says Iz, flatly. Then, quietly, "Ed."

"Iz," says Ed.

"Did you know," Stede hisses, rounding on Ed.

"I figured it out the second she said he was a terrible gossip," Ed says, pitching his voice so it would carry.

Izzy's face loses that strange, sad cast and scowls, "I've never gossiped a day in my life, Edward Teach."

"But you do?" says Louis, innocently.

Yeah, like, all the time," says Alma, "with Miss Evelyn and mum, you guys get drunk and--"

"Alright," says Izzy, in the same tone as when the crew gets too uppity, "Why don't we head inside for some fucking drinks. Jesus."

He leans heavy on his cane as he walks. Ed watches him, wonders what human flesh tastes like. Stede looks at him, can clearly read the thought on his face, and pulls him along. The kids are told to stay outside. Grown-up talks, says Iz, and he sounds like a dad. It's hilarious.

It must be said, Ed's extremely fucking confused. He's never seen Iz like this; all unbuttoned and relaxed. No sword at his hip.

He pulls out a bottle of whiskey.

"It's barely noon," says Stede.

"I'm not having this conversation sober."

"You wanna talk?" says Ed, hopefully.

Iz levels him with an expression of supreme judgment. Ed's really missed his bitchy little face. He also realizes that Stede has a very similar bitchy little face. Is his type just bitchy little men? Is this why he broke up with Jack?

They end up at the table, day drinking.

"I'm not going back," Izzy says, firmly. He seems like a different man. Ed thinks his heart might be breaking. Some horrid, cruel part of him hates Izzy for getting better without him there.

Then, abruptly, he realizes that this is the exact same horrid feeling Iz had about Stede. Silence, again.

"The children seem to like you," Stede says, apropos of nothing.

"They're good kids. That Alma's going to be terrifying one day."

"I don't doubt it," says Stede, "I've heard good things about your beets, by the way."

Iz looks at Ed, baffled. Ed shrugs. Maybe Stede just really likes beets.

"We've been thinking about visiting the children more often," Stede goes on, in that weird airy tone of his, "More shore leaves."

"...we have?" says Ed.

"Yes, Edward," says Stede, pointedly. Ed doesn't give a rat's ass about the children. He nods anyway.

"...good for you?" says Iz, confused, "I don't care?"

Stede nudges Ed. Ed nudges him back. Stede stares at him.

Wait, oh. "Can we visit?" asks Ed.

"Why would you want to?" asks Iz, "You fucking hate being on land."

"I'd do it for you," Ed says.

Izzy blinks, startled. That hurts. He deserves it, though.

"Because you love me," he says, slowly.

"And I've unfortunately grown somewhat fond of you," Stede adds, in the manner of someone delivering some very bad news.

"What," says Izzy.

"My fault," says Ed.

"I don't feel murderous rage when I look at you anymore," Izzy informs Stede, "That's all you're getting."

"I'll take it," says Stede, looking determined.

Ed knows that look. Doggedly determined, this one. Iz is about to be wooed. No idea what he's just signed up for, poor guy.

Nothing's been solved, of course. Ed still tastes blood in his mouth, Izzy's never going to walk the same again, Stede still has very little idea of how deep this whole thing goes. But it's a start.

Outside, the kids are laughing. Iz has eased up, doesn't look so small.

"So," says Ed, grinning all shit-eating. Because they haven't solved it, and he'll never be his First Mate again, but Ed has permission to try. Which is a big improvement from Past Tense Iz, "Tell me about your beets, Iz."

"Shut the fuck up, Ed," says Iz, but he's grinning back.

They'll be fine. Or, they'll eventually be fine. They'll get there.

And, actually, someone should do something about the Mary-Jackie alliance. Can't let that go unsupervised. Imagine the fucking havoc they'd wreak.

End

[lenbryant]

O Alabama!

(LATimes) Column: Alabama’s highest court declared frozen embryos people. The U.S. Supreme Court is to blame

Tom Parker, now Alabama’s chief justice, announcing his campaign for the position.

(Jamie Martin / Associated Press)

The Alabama Supreme Court’s breathtakingly arrogant, slapdash and pernicious opinion conferring personhood on newly formed embryos vividly illustrates the consequences of another reckless decision: the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

The Alabama court held last week that fertilized ova cryogenically preserved for couples having difficulty conceiving are legally and morally equivalent to newborn babies and, for that matter, 20-year-old adults. According to the court, all are human beings protected under Alabama law to precisely the same extent.

The decision clears the way for wrongful death lawsuits brought by couples whose embryos were destroyed by a patient who wandered into an in vitro fertilization clinic through an unsecured entrance, picked up several frozen fertilized eggs and, shocked by their cryogenic temperature, immediately dropped them on the floor. Reversing the trial court, the Alabama Supreme Court held that this conduct could be subject to a wrongful death claim, rendering it indistinguishable from, say, the death of a 2-year-old negligently left in a sweltering car.

Astonishingly, the sole focus of the court’s analysis was whether Alabama’s wrongful death law encompasses “extrauterine children — that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.” The court did not even attempt to wrestle with the distinction between a just-fertilized egg — what biologists call a blastocyst, a ball of up to a few hundred cells measuring a fraction of a millimeter in diameter — and a fully formed child born at term.

It’s customary to note the parade of horribles that could be occasioned by such an extreme decision. But here the parade has already begun.

Alabama’s largest hospital announced Wednesday that it would no longer offer would-be parents in vitro fertilization procedures due to the substantial threat of criminal liability for mishandling fertilized eggs. Other providers followed suitThursday. Medical personnel who try to help couples conceive have been suddenly recast by the courts as potential murderers.

The immediate consequences don’t end there. Women who use intrauterine devices or morning-after pills, which can affect fertilized eggs, are in the eyes of Alabama law rank baby killers.

The court’s supposed legal opinion in fact rests on the tenet that life begins at conception, a matter of religious faith to which only a small minority of the country subscribes.

Chief Justice Tom Parker’s concurring opinion employs quotations and teachings from Scripture as if they had the legal force of the Bill of Rights. Passages from Genesis and Exodus, various theological tracts, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards take their place alongside the writings of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil M. Gorsuch. All are marshaled in support of the view that “God made every person in his image… and human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”

But apart from the wrath of God, there is no attempt to rationalize the legal equation of a frozen, formless collection of cells with a living person. The court simply assumes it away with the syllogistic reasoning that Alabama’s statutory law specifies that human life includes “unborn” life.

Such ham-handedness undermines the entire opinion. The critical question for the state is not whether an embryo of any particular age can be said to be, in some sense, alive; it’s whether it is a human being deserving of the rights and protections accorded to all of us, which is a far broader and more complicated designation.

A stadium full of theologians, philosophers, ethicists and politicians couldn’t come up with an authoritative answer to that question. And in the absence of such an answer, how can the state impinge so deeply on the liberty of women and aspiring parents?

It’s in that sense that the Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion can be traced directly to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The idea of shoving this tendentious religious tract down Americans’ throats would have been a nonstarter under Roe vs. Wade, which asserted the constitutional liberty interests of women against an overreaching, moralistic state.

Post-Dobbs, those rights are featherweight. The outrage belongs with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ill reasoning and grotesque overreach.

Nor is Alabama the only state purporting to enshrine the fundamentally religious position that human life begins at conception in law. Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma issued similar proclamations in the wake of Dobbs.

The Alabama Supreme Court takes this malign presumption to its logical end, stripping every American in its jurisdiction of the right to make their own decisions on a matter of the highest moral and practical import. That’s the antithesis of liberty.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast. @harrylitman

[piratesofnassauarchive]

Sam Bellamy - The Wealthiest Pirate

One of the more successful members of the Flying Gang, an impressive feat considering his company, Samuel Bellamy otherwise known as 'Black Sam' or 'Black Bellamy' was often seen as akin to a Robin Hood figure.

His introduction to sailing was through the Royal Navy, although he was quickly swayed to piracy through the promise of riches. Sailing under Benjamin Hornigold and Edward Teach, Bellamy eventually took over the Marianne and later still his own fully fledged galley the Whydah. This ship is especially notable because its wreck was found in 1984, making it the first authentic ship from the Golden Age of Piracy.

The Whydah's wreck contained a multitude of treasure, money and jewels, and along with the records of the era helped to cement the idea of Bellamy being the wealthiest pirate in recorded history. Despite this title, Bellamy was far from the most successful or long-lived, as he was only a Captain for approximately a year and his short stint was ended by the Whydah's shipwreck off the coast of Massachusetts. The few survivors were rounded up and taken to Boston, where they were convicted on October 22 1717 and hanged for piracy on November 15 of the same year. Sadly, the King's pardon allegedly arrived in Boston three weeks late meaning that the 9 survivors should have been offered freedom.

Bellamy's reputation amongst his crew was positive, he ran his fleet democratically and was clearly well liked. While his pirate exploits are well known, his personal life is less clear. It is widely believed he had a mistress, although there is no definitive identity, and it is facts such as her name, age and marital status are often disputed. Despite this the legend prevails that Bellamy loved a woman from Cape Cod and that he committed acts of piracy to gain favour from her parents or to perhaps run away with her. Historically accurate or not, this love story is well known and often sensationalised such as in the Netflix documentary The Lost Pirate Kingdom.

Sources:

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Maritime Underwater Surveys, Inc., 403 Mass. 501 (Mass. Supreme Court 1988).

Clifford, Barry; Perry, Paul (3 May 2000) [1999]. Expedition Whydah: The Story of the World's First Excavation of a Pirate Treasure Ship and the Man Who Found Her. HarperCollins. p. 261

The Lost Pirate Kingdom (2021). Stan Griffin. Netflix

Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period: Illustrative Documents, ed. by John Franklin Jameson (Macmillan, 1923) p.303

[goldeneyedgirl]

Any chance you have more of “married in vegas”? So curious to see the intro to the fam 👀

I do have more! However, the initial meeting hasn't been written - just the supremely awkward beginnings of the visit which I have right here. Obviously the Cullens aren't exactly enthused by any girl that Jasper married, drunk, in Vegas.

But this is definitely starting to show it's age, I should rewrite it tbh. But I hope you enjoy anon!

Dinner was awkward – delicious, but awkward. Mrs Cullen was one of the most amazing cooks, and it had been forever since dinner hadn’t been minute-noodles, or something from the bar. Luis was a good cook, but a girl got tired of grilled cheese.

“You’re an amazing cook, Mrs Cullen,” I said finally, smiling brightly.

“Thank you, sweetheart,” Mrs Cullen beamed. “This is a bit of a family recipe.”

“Can you cook, Alice?” Rosalie asked coldly as she cut up her chicken.

“Um, it’s been a while since I had the opportunity,” I managed.

“Really,” Rosalie said, taking a bite.

“I usually just throw something together. I work a lot, saving for college,” I said cheerily and tried to ignore the voice in my head pointing out that my aggressive landlady, her boyfriend slash boss, drug-dealer, and her kids generally prevented me from being at home, let alone in the kitchen.

And I’d never had anyone teach me to cook. Mom was gone, Dad didn’t care.

“What were you planning on studying?” Dr Cullen asked, watching me carefully as I plucked up another bread roll.

“Oh, um, nursing,” I said. “I like taking care of people, and its consistent work.”

Dinner conversation was downright unpleasant, but I did learn a few things. Edward was in college at Olympia, and Bella was a copy-editor at the Forks newspaper and studying for a degree in English literature. Rosalie worked in the local garage, and was studying mechanical engineering at college. Emmett was studying, too – teaching and sports journalism.

Carlisle was a top trauma surgeon, who had taught at most Ivy League med schools, and the top hospitals in the country. Esme was a renowned architect and interior designer; they had moved to Forks when Edward was eight, to be closer to Esme’s father, and loved it so much they had stayed.

And Jasper? He had a goddamn degree from Yale in American History, and had become one of the youngest Majors in the US army. Half the dinner conversation had been about some Professor they all seemed familiar with, and his new book.

I was sitting at a table where everybody had – or was in the middle of acquiring – a college degree. And I never even finished eighth grade.

“So,” Edward said suddenly. “Alice. Were you born in Nevada?”

Everyone was looking at me. “What? No, I was born in Mississippi. We moved to Las Vegas when I was young,” I said. “My father had more job opportunities there.”

“We look forward to meeting your family,” Dr Cullen said in way that could have been a threat. “Jasper, have you met Mr and Mrs…?”

“Brandon,” I supplied softly. “Unfortunately, my parents passed on when I was in high school.”

Esme made a horrified sound.

“I’m sorry to hear that,” Edward said slowly. “Do you have any family?”

“There would be some distant relatives in Mississippi,” I said. “But no one I know. My parents were only children, and my grandparents passed on when I was a child. I’ve been on my own for a while now.”

//

I found it a little funny that I was given the guestroom, instead of sharing Jasper’s bedroom, though I said nothing but thank you.

It was the prettiest room I had ever seen – a miniature chandelier, pale grey walls and soft yellow accents, it was just gorgeous. Fresh flowers were arranged in a crystal vase, and a cluster of bath gels and fancy bottles lined the bathroom.

--

In the end, it wasn’t hard to do something completely stupid.

Like having sex with Jasper in his aunt and uncle’s gazebo.

We were just talking, at first. Looking around the property. It was beautiful, with immaculate gardens and paths that wove their way around. I was wearing one of the dresses he had bought me, white with green stitching that felt a little short.

He was complaining about his leg. That no one wanted a cripple, let alone a young cripple.

And all I could think of was that he was nuts. He was gorgeous.

And sort of jumped him.

It was kind of romantic. Flowers, forest, sunset, and an emotionally vulnerable soldier with the body of a god, who was so gentle and made sure I, um, enjoyed myself. And he seemed to have a good time, too.

He was smiling afterward, rubbing my hip and looking at me like a goddess. And all I could think was that I couldn’t stay here. He’d get the annulment and I’d have to leave while I was falling in love with my ex-husband.

[jacobbellaendgame]

Rewatching New Moon with new eyes is one heck of an experience. I'm taking notice of things I never bothered to notice before (while giving me even more respect for Chris Weitz and a little more for Melissa Rosenberg) and it is a trip.

The Cullens are so worried about their secret but Bella yells out loud about Jasper’s mood control while people are walking around and they’re cool with it?

Edward’s monologue about different suicide options is really discomfiting; while it leads into Edward telling Bella about the Volturi and sets up for what happens later, the fact that he envies Romeo the ability to choose what death he wants when Juliet is gone is just unbelievably tragic and horrific all at the same time - The Romeo/Juliet symbolism = EDWARD/VAMPIRISM IS DEATH (not a good message)

No coincidence that Alice is taking pictures at Bella’s party that Bella doesn't even want (but Alice wants - Alice trying to live through Bella)

Rosalie and everyone leaves due to blood from Bella (but in BD2, Rosalie and Emmett are fine around the blood of Garrett’s victim? make it make sense)

Bella almost uses the knowledge Carlisle gives her to try to manipulate Edward to change her in the truck scene; her true motive is revealed for the rush on the change when it comes to Edward's involvement: “You’re not gonna want me when I look like a grandmother”

Most awkward kiss ever between Edward and Bella in that scene - actually, all of their kisses in this movie are supremely awkward

The bending of the picture of herself with Edward: once again, she’s seeking perfection - her putting the photo in her “senior year” aka last year of human life book: she’s intent on being changed (and Edward removes it, after seeing how she’s bent it aka he doesn’t want her to be changed)

Lovely metaphor - Bella follows Edward and gets lost

No coincidence that Sam found Bella in the woods (when she's "lost") since Bella and Sam are basically in the same type of position with different circumstances: Leah -> Sam -> Emily; Jacob -> Bella -> Edward (and the werewolves don't represent death/fantasy, they represent life/reality)

Bella keeps sending emails to an email account for Alice that no longer exists - here she mentions the Cullens last after mentioning Edward - her goal: vampirism (this is what she’s missing)

Bella’s depression is literally like a withdrawal - the depressed state would be one thing but the nightmares are the giveaway

“The Dead Come Back” - telling of the ending as well as being a tongue-in-cheek nod to vampires

Bella puts herself at risk to get Edward to appear - she is totally uncaring of the dangerous circumstances even after what Edward saved her from in the first movie (and don't even get me started on her not thinking about Charlie and Renee)

The meadow is dried up, looking dead compared to the greenery surrounding it, and here is where Laurent finds her → not only is it imagery that indicates how Bella feels with Edward/the Cullens gone but also for the state of her relationship and for death (which is why Laurent is there and the wolves/life save her from Laurent/death)

“I mean, how much could you mean to him if he left you here, unprotected?” - that's a good point, Edward really didn't think Victoria would use someone else to attack Bella if need be, boy does she teach him that lesson in Eclipse

Bella always attempts to protect those she loves; her mom in Twilight; Jacob in NM, her dad in BD - completely jives with the deer/mountain lion scene later in BD2; she’s unable to protect Edward or the Cullens, which also helps to explain the desire for vampirism outside of the aging and forever-bound-to-her-and-her-to-them factors

Cool effect shot with Paul and Jake knocking down the camera in the woods

Bella sees Sam loves Emily as she is (she may be the imprint/perfect love but she’s still not perfect per se) - Bella should be learning from this moment since she sees her humanity as such a blemish but she takes away the exact opposite from this moment

“What, I’m not the right kind kind of monster for you?” → Jacob wasn’t a vampire, if he was Bella would have been all over him like white on rice; she has a problem with werewolves allegedly killing people but not vampires, more specifically the Cullens who have, especially Edward?

Jake is gone hunting Victoria who is after Bella and she knows it, but hey let’s go cliff diving so we can see Edward again (if this isn’t an unhealthy addiction mixed in with such self-absorpancy, I don’t know what is)

“You’re not gonna lose yourself. I wouldn’t let that happen.” - more Bella protecting

Out of the past few months, the only vision Alice had was of Bella jumping off of a cliff? What about when Jake left?

Bella gives up Jake’s secret right off the bat but was protecting the Cullens’? - more of this unhealthy version of Bella/OOCness that happens when she's around the Cullens/Edward

Let's be real, a little bit of Bella’s anger is when Jake asks how long the Cullens are staying. And if they’re coming back = sore point aka abandonment issues

Edward will think Alice is lying and rush headfirst into death? Really? Even though he’ll also see that Bella traveled with her, what she’s wearing, what their plan is, and that she’s not lying? 

Edward didn’t smell Bella when she hugged him? And for that matter he didn't detect a bit of her scent as she's running towards him?

“I’m human, nothing” - this is the crux of Bella’s problem - even Edward said he envied humans’ mortality

Bella: “She wants to be…” Demetri: “So she will be” Jane: “Or dessert” - important quotes and important scene for Bella - this choice can have one of two consequences

Why didn’t Aro just take Edward and Alice right there? Specifically Alice since he has been wanting to acquire her for years? Edward and Bella can't stop them so...

The fact that Bella still wants to become a vampire after seeing the human children being led to their deaths just makes it that much more unhealthy and tragic and even slightly horrifying - there was nothing Edward, Bella, or Alice could do but this is literally the monster you're becoming, no matter what the Cullens' diet might be

Bella wakes up from a nightmare (which means she’s still having them even after reconciling with Edward) - it’s only when she chooses to be changed that her nightmares disappear until BD1

We get Charlie’s reaction that we should have gotten in Twilight, before and after Phoenix/James

A picture of a wolf next to the door - a certain wolf is there to stay and has taken up residence hehe

Of course Bella doesn’t like it when Edward says they can fool the Volturi and not change her; has Edward not been paying attention? This girl is going to become a vampire come hell or fire

Bella shuts Edward up when it comes to voting time = because her desire to change really has nothing to do with him

“You’ve chosen not to live without her which leaves me no choice. I won’t lose my son.” → I think this particular wording means Carlisle would have voted no if that wasn’t the case

Decision wheel: Rosalie → no (because she knows this shouldn't be a life goal); Emmett → yes (will pick fight with Volturi some other time = he just thinks it's a grand ol' time); Alice → yes (already a sister = you're becoming one of us bitch); Esme → yes (already a part of the family = Edward's not giving you up and surprise or not really, but you're his mate); Jasper → yes (so he doesn’t want to kill her all the time = so her fragile human state that smells way too good is no longer a burden); also it's no coincidence this happens in the same room as the party scene from the beginning of the film

Jake being in the road to stop the car after “Edward, I want you to be the one to do it” → he’s going to be a roadblock to her plan and she's not changing, not if he has something to say about it (which we see he does)

Jake has no problem telling Bella what’s going on vs Edward (we even see this play out again in Eclipse)

Selfish and idiotic Bella: “I love you. So don’t make me choose. Because it’ll be him. It’s always been him.”

And last but not least, like in Twilight, Edward tries to give her more time, will live her life with her, but of course Bella can't have that. Apparently, 23 is the new grandma age. She can't bear to be a year older than Edward, never mind two, even though this guy is basically a walking, talking, crystallized corpse that's been doing that for over 100 years but yes, 18, 19, or even 23 is a problem. My eyes cannot roll anymore than they already have.

And Bella giving in to Edward’s condition that she doesn’t want: marriage. Edward manipulates this, thinking she won’t give in or if she does, then he’ll get what he wants.

It's insane. But man does Chris (and Melissa grumble, grumble) deserve a lot of credit for showing us these things.

[nevermindirah]

Dorothy Freeman facts

By facts I of course mean headcanons, because Nile's mom doesn't get a first name in canon (or even confirmation that her last name is Freeman). All we know about her is the picture on Nile's phone lock screen (which is Kiki Layne's real-life mom and brother!) and a few lines that Nile tells Andy about her. I’ve been collecting my Dorothy headcanons for a while now to eventually make a post, and @mprosperossprite​‘s excellent post giving non-Americans context for what it means that Nile is from the South Side of Chicago prompted me to go ahead and share this. Disclaimer that I’m white and I will absolutely make corrections if it’s pointed out that I’ve caused harm with any of this.

So here have some fun facts about the version of Mama Freeman who lives in my head rent-free:

Her family and growing up:

she was born in the mid-'60s and named after Dorothy Dandridge

I can’t decide whether she was born in Chicago or moved there later on (maybe with Nile’s dad?) and when in the waves of the Great Migration her family left the South

she came of age in the "post"-Civil Rights movement and went to college in the mid-80s when a lot of what are now the foundational classics of Black feminism were being written

she was a young adult when Anita Hill risked so much to report that a Supreme Court nominee had sexually harassed her, and as a result she HATES Joe Biden

Marriage and babies:

she met Nile's father — I can’t decide how they met and I have two competing headcanons for his name, either Gideon for the hefty Biblical masculinity vibes (Giddy for short among family, that man loved to laugh) or Carl, which started out as a shitty Carl’s Jr burger chain joke that turns out to be perfect (it means free man!), and @knoepfchen​ used it in the sequel to if you do take a thief where Carl is alive!! — and Dorothy was a little skeptical of his near-religious devotion to the military but he was really hot and really devoted to her and they made it work

she's a little pissed that she was right but it's unbearable if she thinks about it too often

it's going to be a long, long time before she can look back on pictures of Baby Nile stomping around the house in her dad's combat boots (this is a Gina Prince Bythewood headcanon, whyyyyyyyy can I not find a link to where she said this)

she named their second baby Indus, Indy for short (this is nearly as established fanon in Book of Nile circles as how much Booker loves eating pussy, and Indy Freeman as a young adult is portrayed by either Aldis Hodge or John Boyega I don’t make the rules)

Work:

Dorothy did some office jobs but nothing really grabbed her, and she was probably gonna have to move for her husband's career, so she decided on teaching — high school humanities

she’s been active in CTU (one of the strongest teacher’s unions in the US) her whole career and one year she was on the bargaining committee and her babies know damn well never to trust a boss, not even one who says all the right things — if she ever finds out the way Nile said "like Quynh?" when Andy promised to protect her, she will lose her mind with pride

(Nile was 18 and freshly graduated from high school in 2012 when CTU went on strike for the first time in a generation and she brought her mom snacks on the picket line)

one of her very favorite things is getting her students to laugh despite themselves at her "oh my GOD you're so EMBARRASSING" old-people jokes

she's one of those teachers who can get 30+ teenagers to go dead silent with judicious application of body language

she's known to occasionally go easy on grading subjective things like essays when she knows students are having a particularly rough time at home, but the second she gets the feeling they're taking advantage and not trying their best that shit is over and they better mind their Ps & Qs

she's the kind of person who says old-people shit like that

she gives her students assignments like "help 5 neighbors register to vote" and "write a compare/contrast table about the candidates in this local election" and "research 5 different ways you could get grant money to do X" and other practical civic-minded shit

standardized testing is her supervillain origin story, just kidding it’s Rahm Emanuel, why the fuck did Obama trust that asshole

After her husband died:

she would have lost her goddamn mind if it weren't for her church friends after her husband died, people from the church raised money so they could make ends meet while his pension paperwork was taking forever, church friends watched Indy so Nile could go out for the soccer team, etc etc

she sold her and her late husband's house and moved to a 3-bedroom co-op unit when Nile started high school, it's more affordable and it meant she didn't have to worry about household repairs in the same way, she can use a wrench if she needs to but she doesn't have time and it just makes her grief flare up (co-op housing has a long history in Chicago and other US cities (like Washington DC where I live) as a way for Black people to access decent, affordable housing in the face of entrenched discrimination)

the move meant putting a longer commute between her and church, but she didn't even bother looking for a church closer to their new home, she loaded the kids into the car on the weekends, parking is hell in their new neighborhood but it's worth giving up a hard-won parking spot to not have to wait so long for the L on Sunday mornings

Indy lived with her through college and he was gearing up to get his own place when Nile died, Dorothy was planning to move into a one-bedroom in the co-op building because she doesn't need so much space anymore, Indy took a day off from his new job (not so new anymore, her baby's so grown!) to help her sort things to donate when those dress-uniform Marines came to their door

part of her wishes she could've been home more and not had to rely on Nile so much for help with Indy, but he's turned out such a kind young man, and he's a much better cook than his sister is (was, oh God — no wait, is! she’s alive! what do you mean you’ve been alive all this time??)

some of the girls from church are encouraging her to check out this social dancing thing, nobody's pressuring her to date but there's definitely been some ribbing, and with Indy out of the house... maybe? probably not, but maybe

Her feelings and beliefs and likes and dislikes:

she's an absolute badass and also she's a soft human woman with lots of feelings

she's very, very traditional in some ways, and part of her mixed feelings about Nile following in her dad's footsteps is gender stuff, she's proud of her daughter and would never stand in the way of what Nile wants to do with her life, and if Nile came home and told her she's a lesbian she would never reject her, but if Nile came home and told her she's bisexual maybe she can just try focusing on men? “I love you sweetheart and I want you to be happy I just know how hard it is already for us in this world” type shit

she has been on team natural hair basically her entire life and one of the worst fights she and Nile ever had was over Nile wanting to straighten her hair as a pre-teen

Indy takes more after her and Nile takes more after their dad, she's so proud of both of them, but Dorothy's activism was mostly wearing her natural hair to work and daring bosses to give her shit, Indy's out there marching in the streets like her parents had and she WORRIES

she teases Indy for going to so many protests like he's using it as an excuse to meet girls, but she WORRIES

when she turns 60, she gets box braids with streaks of dark purple, subtle enough that it's still work-appropriate but it makes her smile, she may be old now but damnit she’s still pretty!

she loves Grey's Anatomy and Star Trek and she watched Bridgerton all in one day

she has a dirty-old-lady celebrity crush on Chris Hemsworth

if she's ever masturbated thinking about Donna Summer, well, that's nobody's business but her own (do non-Americans know about the queen of disco??)

If you want to read fic featuring Dorothy:

I won't have to leave alone, 1000 words, Nile has a nightmare and decides to go tell her family she's immortal

I See Your Eyes Seek a Distant Shore, 65k, Nile adjusts to immortality and does a lot of soul searching about what it means to "do what we think is right", Booker goes to grad school for trauma studies, the working title of this fic was Booker Reads Edward Said and Gloria Anzaldúa and Goes Down on Nile and the final product has an annotated bibliography in the author's notes if you’re into that kind of thing, a lot of my Dorothy Freeman headcanons were born of my process writing this

Gather round the table, we'll give you a treat, 2279 words, college AU, Nile brings her Jewish boyfriend home for Christmas

a contribution I made to Shitty Old Guard Deaths: (Booker, USA, 2025, cause of death: a mother’s righteous wrath)

[our-flag-means-death-ao3feed]

Wounds long healed

by Claude_Depussy

Ed's knee has been bothering for so many years he lost count. He learned how to cope with it, and recently, how to ask for help with it.

Tori hasn't learned that yet.

Words: 944, Chapters: 1/?, Language: English

Series: Part 6 of The Devil Twins

Fandoms: Our Flag Means Death (TV)

Rating: Teen And Up Audiences

Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply

Characters: Blackbeard | Edward Teach, Stede Bonnet, Israel Hands, Original Child Character(s), Tori ( OC )

Relationships: Established Steddyhands - Relationship, Blackbeard | Edward Teach/Stede Bonnet, edward teach/Israel hands, Stede Bonnet/Israel Hands, Steddyhands & OC, Steddyhands & Original Child Character(s), Established Jim Jimenez/Oluwande Boodhari, Established Lucius Spriggs/Black Pete

Additional Tags: Family Fluff, Emotional Hurt/Comfort, Family Feels, Found Family, Past Child Abuse, Hurt/Comfort, mild whump, Scars, Chronic Pain, Ed's fucked up knee, Tori's fucked up ankle, Steddyhands accidentally adopted two traumatised kids, Massage, Platonic Cuddling, Adopted Children, Sibling Bonding, Tori needs a hug, And she gets it, Soft Ed, Soft Stede, Soft Izzy, Tobi being a supreme brother, These two need so much therapy, everyone does tbh

source https://archiveofourown.org/works/42059220

[thatfunkyopossum]

drawing advice nonnie here! i guess,,,specifically the faces? your clones are so lovely and expressive and mine end up looking like eldritch monsters ajksdjfkl

Well, there’s no quick thing to being able to draw well, all you can do is study and practice! Without seeing your work there’s nothing specific I can help you with (and I’m not sure I have the time or energy these days to give specific critique) but where most people struggle with faces (including myself) is Anatomy and Volume.

So here’s what I recommend for learning those.

First, your supplementary online resources are going to be https://line-of-action.com/ which you can use in lieu of an in person drawing class (i recommend class mode settings) and the youtube channel Proko. I recommend studying with the use of a large pad of cheap paper, preferably newsprint, and willow charcoal if you don’t mind the texture.

The materials are not important, but I recommend large paper for studies like this because you can really let your body get into it. It’s completely fine not to have an easel to work on, in which case you can either prop up a large pad of paper on something with the use of a board, or you can have a smaller pad of paper. Anything works better than nothing, but if you can get large cheap paper, you absolutely should.

1. Look at Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards, [PDF here]

     -I recommend checking this one out first. It teaches you the bare bones of drawing from observation and is absolutely invaluable to learning to see the way an artist does. The science in it is bunk, but its methods are sound.

2. Check out The Natural Way to Draw by Kimon Nicolaides [PDF here]

     - Read the section on gesture drawing and practice it using Line-of-action, which you can set to do an endless stream of 30 second poses. I found it very helpful to do these studies in ball point pen (forces you to commit) or willow charcoal (difficult to erase and very soft), which was very freeing to me.

     -The Gesture exercises can ABSOLUTELY be applied to just faces if thats what you want to draw. Faces are complicated and if that’s what you want to study, go for it.      -I can’t vouch for most of the book as, tbh, i havent read it because i feel bad not committing to what the author asks of you. These specific beginning passages though on gesture and contour are very good!

3. Also get your hands on Drawing The Head and Hands by Andrew Loomis [PDF here]

I’m not going to lie to you. Andrew loomis might be one of the most boring authors in existence. I was reading his book aloud in a car once and it put my friend (who cannot sleep in vehicles!!!) to bed. His prose is boring as fuck. That said... he was an incredible artist! And may artists for decades have found his instructional books supremely helpful. I am very happy to have them on hand.

    -For each section of the book, draw along with the examples. Copy Loomis’s art. Use line of action from the beginning, either for anatomy traces or from observation studies. Even in the planes of the face section, you can trace the planes over the photos either on paper held up to your computer, or directly onto the photo through use of a digital drawing program.

   -Use Proko to supplement your learning with Loomis. It can be extremely helpful to get input from multiple sources, especially because IMO Loomis is honestly not the best teacher in his books, even if his methods work very well. The Anatomy and Structure videos in the Proko Facial Features playlist should be most helpful.

Please note, the sources on anatomy that I’ve provided here will only teach you how to draw the “ideal”, white face. They’re the sources that I learned from, which is why I’m recommending them to you. Which is why I want to outline right now what you SHOULD be trying to learn from these sources.

1. Underlying anatomy

Luckily, human beings from every race and national origin have the same exact bones and cartilage and fat and muscle, just in different places and attached at different points. What you are doing when you are learning anatomy, especially from biased sources, is not how the anatomy should be shaped, but rather what it is. If you get a deep understanding of anatomy, you should be able to problem solve and figure out by drawing from observation exactly what the underlying structures look like on anyone. The nose of a white person will, most likely, be pretty different from the nose of an east asian person, or a māori person, or a black person. That said, the cartilage and muscle attachments and bones are still all the same. What changes is the shapes.

2. Drawing from Observation

Honestly, learning to draw from observation is one of the most important things that an aspiring artist can learn. If you can’t draw from observation, learning will be an uphill struggle. If you can’t put aside your notions of what things should look like according to what you know, and instead start drawing them as they are, your growth as an individual artist will only ever come in switching out the symbols you use to represent different things.

As a last parting word related to that last thing: Imo, artists should not use symbols to represent reality, the way flash puppet animation does. What you should be doing, is you should be striving to understand the real, actual world, and then simplifying and streamlining and nudging it about into art. Symbol based art is, of course, still art, but its limited, and until we can break from these limits then our art can never reach its full potential. Draw as often as you can, draw with your shoulder and not your wrist or fingers if you can help it, do art warmups, and happy drawing :)

[alchemic-elric]

What do you headcanon Ed's IQ score is? My guess is 160.

|| Not to humble brag here but Ed’s at least 180 - 190 - maybe pushing 200. I never really thought about it prior to getting this ask, I always just had him at ridiculously intelligent. So I poked around on ye ol’ interwebs and looked up scales and such so I could have a good feel for range. 

At the end of the day, I leave him at just that  ridiculously intelligent. 

You have to take into consideration how fast Edward can transmute and what that takes to do so. He is internally inscribing the required circle for a transmutation in the matter of a few seconds to transmute an object - knowing the amount of material needed, the elemental composition of that compound broken down into sections by element and the amount of power he needs to draw up from the Earth in order to preform that transmutation. He does this in seconds.  He does those equations in his head in seconds.  He does this with as much ease as breathing. 

The only information he was given about Greed was ‘I’m basically human just built a little sturdier than most.’ and while taking a full body beat down, he was doing high level mathematical equations while cycling through the bodily composition of a human being to find the core behind his Ultimate Shield while doing the equations he needed to fight back and create the needed circles to be able to transmute stone towers and spikes, while staying on his toes to attack his opponent while defending himself all while he was supremely pissed off, while  being worried out of his mind about his brother.    

This kid is called a “genius prodigy” for a reason. Ed’s level of intelligence is pretty insane honestly.  He does strings of equations in his head with the same ease as he does taking a breath. He knows references in other Alchemist’s alchemic code almost like he’s taking a picture. He instantly knew what “green tea” was referencing in Marcoh’s notes and instantly knew what books and reference journals he’d need to work with that information. It was a snapshot. It was like his eyes snapped the words and his mind took a picture and knew. No guessing, no pondering - no getting stuck in that moment - he just knew and he’s been doing this since he was five.  

He was breaking down the composition of the human body and calculating what the protein levels were comprised of in grade school when he was seven or eight. Anything his teachers had to teach him was boring and he moved on to teach himself. Not only is he insanely intelligent, but he’s self motivated. His thirst for knowledge is unparalleled and he shares it with his brother. This is also a testament to Marcoh himself, since later the Elric Brothers are complaining about the difficulty in cracking his code.

Edward can see alchemical symbols from civilizations 400+ years old, shattered to pieces and missing parts and read them like plain Amestrian text. He can look at other alchemist’s transmutation circles and break them down in his head with glance. There are equations and problems running through his mind at near  constant. All while carrying his regular duties of the day to day military grind. His ability to split his focus is insane.  He can tell that Slicer’s armor is  hollow by the sound and he’s constantly learning throughout the series. He never thinks he knows enough. Self improvement and betterment is a constant drive for him throughout the series. 

He never stops learning. He never thinks he knows enough. He’s already witnessed the “truth” and he still belittles his intelligence to Izumi and thinks he needs to learn more. He’s never ever stagnant.  

Edward Elric is ridiculously intelligent and he’s only sixteen years old. 

[classpectcurse]

class pairs: seer - mage

key words: perceiving, knowing, understanding

(why bother with a preamble when i can just jump right in to the interesting stuff)

these things are monsters, watch out

seer: passive

they understand their class, can perceive it with greater clarity and thoroughness than others. this tends to be an intellectual, brainy sort of understanding. it errs on the side of theoretical rather than practical knowledge. seers are head thinkers: they are able to come up with plans, ideas, solutions, about their aspect that others might not. they understand and have a VISION of their aspect. they can be relied on to direct others, come up with the best strategy, to explain the topic clearly and make others understand the thing.

however, on the flip side, if unchecked, it makes them rather idealistic and naive, and often arrogant. they can be blinded by their own knowledge. because their knowledge has a limit.

as a passive class, they are best served in a passive role; they work best when guiding others, teaching, directing, or strategising, rather than putting themselves on the front lines. by being head thinkers, seers tend not to think emotionally, and thus end up lacking a sense of boundaries when it comes to executing their own plans. this can lead to them taking things too far, morally speaking, or failing to be cautious due to overconfidence in their own abilities.

in fiction, a seer that oversteps his role is often punished by the narrative. they go too far, and engineer their own downfall. their hubris brings their own demise. they must learn to step back, take on the guiding role for players better suited to direct action, and they will see the best results.

the seer class is obviously based on the mythological seer archetype. think, the oracle of delphi in greek myths. the seer’s role is often to passive guide, to direct the heroes towards what they need without directly interfering in events. seers are often used as a narrative device by authors to deliver exposition; occasionally this use might be so egregious as to change a character who is otherwise NOT a seer into a seer by function (looking @ u jkr :/).

(important note that in fiction/mythology, the seer role has an unpleasant gender aspect to it, in that seer is an easy role to shove a passive woman character into, to give her something to do/say in the plot without involving her in any action. this is still unfortunately true of a lot of fiction today, but this doesn’t work irl bc gender is fake. beware of assigning gendered fictional seer characteristics to descriptions of the seer class.)

a great example of a fictional seer arc is mdzs wei wuxian. (SPECIFICALLY the mdzs version, not the drama version. cql!wwx is a different story.) through his ingenuity and creativity, he becomes the founder of demonic cultivation. however, he is arrogant in assuming that he knows best, that he could control the yin tiger seal, that his path was the only path to follow. the result is, the narrative punishes him for his arrogance. he loses control. he watches his loved ones dies. he dies a horrible death.

but in his second life, after his resurrection, he properly steps into the seer role. he solves the mystery, he guides and teaches the juniors, he steps away from the demonic path. and through embracing his role as a seer, he is finally able to achieve his happiness.

emotionally speaking, seers aren’t very complicated? if the time is right and the circumstances align they’ll confess their feelings etc. they might lack a sense of shame about it, in fact that seems an alarmingly consistent pattern. they kind of just don’t place on the emotional constipation scale. though they might be bogged down by logic and stuff and won’t examine their own feelings properly until later.

identifying traits of a seer: - wordy. good at explaining things; smort - very much a head thinker as opposed to a heart thinker; likes to think of things intellectually - can seem a bit emotionally cold? not that they’re cold people but just that they tend to be a little less overtly emotional, simply due to the nature of their class

examples of seers: namjoon (RM) from bts, wei wuxian (MDZS only), jing beiyuan (qi ye), rose lalonde (Homestuck), terezi pyrope (Homestuck)

prospit/derse: fairly straightforward, both types of seers still tend to be up there in terms of energy and chattiness, but derse seers are just more pretentious about it ngl.

mage: active

on the flip side to seers’ cerebral understanding of their aspect, mages have an intuitive, experience-based understanding, and they function best by employing this understanding directly.

mages, in a team dynamic, essentially serve as the talented weirdo/grumpy uncle who is extremely competent at their job, as long as nobody asks them to explain what they’re doing. mages understand their aspect supremely well, but they CANNOT, for the life of them, explain what the fuck goes through their head. it just comes out a bunch of confused, jumbled rambling that doesn’t really help anyone else. everyone knows that, without a doubt, this guy is a genius, but it’s useless to ask them to teach you because they can’t. they can’t explain shit.

their understanding of their aspect is not, NOT intellectual. it’s just that it comes from a place of instinct, rather than of deliberate, calculated thought. mages work best when they don’t try too hard to rationalise their understanding, but instead allow themselves to operate according to how they feel is best.

mages don’t really have a specific character arc? it’s more just about consistently trusting their instincts, maintaining the relationships around them, and retaining the trust of the people in the team. mages really need to do their own thing, and so a team is best off when they point the mage in the right direction and let them do what they feel is best, because they’ll often do a better job going off instinct than any plan could.

mage characters often come with some kind of tragic or mysterious backstory. because mages learn from experience, this backstory often serves as an explanation for their level of expertise. but irl this isn’t strictly necessary for mages. nevertheless they retain an intuitive understanding of their aspect which can be traced to their personal experience of it.

the thing to know about mages to identify them is just, they give off weird gremlin vibes. like, weird cousin in the basement vibes. like, coffeeshop uncle yelling about the government vibes. like on the surface they might seem respectable and shit, but deep down?? they’re some weirdo gremlin and that cannot shake the weirdness even if they’re in a law firm or a full tailored suit.

i used to think mages were really emotionally constipated but honestly they’re not that bad? they like to put things off, emotionally speaking. like they want to just leave that stuff for later, maybe never, bye, but they do get to it eventually. there’s a lot less active agonising going on, they just don’t like to think about the Feelings thing. when they do confront it, it’s usually just a, OK I SAID HOW I FEEL, CAN WE SKIP TO THE PART WHERE THINGS AREN’T AWKWARD ANYMORE. it’s funny but it gets the job done i guess.

identifying traits of a mage: - grumpy, crabby, whatever you get the vibe - gremlin energy. they’re just kind of weird - know their shit but cannot explain it, like maybe they can explain it a bit but it’s really not their talent and they are more likely to confuse someone than teach them anything - don’t like talking about their feelings if they can help it, but they’re not like, awful at it ig

examples of mages: yoongi (suga) bts, edward elric, meulin leijon (homestuck), sollux captor (homestuck), zhou zishu (tian ya ke, word of honor)

prospit/derse: prospit is edward elric. derse is bts suga. idk what else to tell u. it’s angry weirdo vs vaguely apathetic weirdo. both are weird with gremlin vibes.

[arcticdementor]

Wokeness has not simply taken over the CIA, as the entire foreign policy establishment has moved in the same direction. A particularly sinister aspect of this shift is that we are seeing a merger between a fanatical new faith and long-standing institutions specializing in manipulating populations.

Spreading democracy is an important part of American foreign policy. While it’s fashionable to brush off concerns with democracy as hypocritical or just a cover for power politics (“look at Saudi Arabia!”), I believe that outside of the Middle East, where pretty much everyone is non-democratic, American foreign policy is driven by ideological goals that aren’t reducible to material interests.

In this worldview, all countries called “democracies” have reached the end of history, while all others are candidates for regime change, if not today then when the time is right. When countries fight back against this, it’s considered aggression on their part. Hillary Clinton believes that Putin interfered against her in the 2016 election because she spoke out against his government as Secretary of State. I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s certainly what I would do if I were Putin, and the lady who tried to overthrow me was running for president.

It seems strange that such a concept would drive US foreign policy, given how little Americans themselves agree on what is or isn’t “democratic.” Was Trump casting doubt on the legitimacy of 2020 “undemocratic”? How about when Democrats did the same in 2016? What about gerrymandering? Court packing?

These are silly debates, and I feel sorry for people who have strong opinions on them, which always boil down to “what my side does is democracy, what the other side does isn’t.”

…

Nonetheless, the American government clearly has something in mind when it uses the term, and it often relies on non-governmental institutions (NGOs) as supposedly objective sources of information. One of the most important of these is Freedom House, and it is therefore worth looking at the organization in some depth.

According to its financial report, in the fiscal year that ended in 2019, Freedom House raised $48 million. Of that, $45 million, or 94%, came from the American government. Its current President is Morton Abramowitz, a lifelong American diplomat. The Chair of the Board is Michael Chertoff, who was Secretary of Homeland Security under the second Bush.

Looking at the 12 members of the Executive Board, and just going off their bios on the Freedom House website, it appears that 6 have had jobs for the federal government, with at least one other appearing to have worked as a government contractor.

You might think that an organization that is funded almost completely by the American government, and staffed by former American officials, wouldn’t have much credibility as an “independent non-governmental organization.” Yet it is called an NGO, and regularly cited by the press as an objective authority on which government actions are legitimate.

Much of what is called “civil society” functions this way. The American government then uses the work of “independent” organizations to justify its own policies, as you can see by going to the State Department website and searching for “Freedom House.”

…

Freedom House has represented the American foreign policy establishment as long as it has existed. According to its own website, the organization at its founding in 1941 had among its leaders Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, the Republican who lost to FDR in 1940. So imagine a “non-governmental organization” today being founded by an alliance of Jill Biden and Donald Trump.

After advocating for American entry into World War II, Freedom House supported the Cold War. Although the website mentions these facts, it tends to downplay or ignore its more recent history, which has involved cheerleading for disastrous wars in the Middle East.

…

So it is this organization, run by former American officials and funded by the US government, whose former Chairman was also the director of the CIA and helped lie the country into Iraq, that is the nation’s most important source for deciding who is or isn’t free.

Recently, Freedom House released its annual report on the state of democracy in the world. It would be one thing if the organization simply declared some countries “democracies” and others not. Instead, it gives a number to each country on a scale that goes up to 100, updating the scores on a yearly basis. So in 2020, Ethiopia gets a 24, Switzerland is a 96, and North Korea is a 3. After 20 years of war, the US has managed to get Afghanistan to 27.

Here’s an interactive map where you can find out how well your country is doing.

There’s actually a formula that they use to calculate each score, although it’s not always clear what causes a country to gain or lose points. 40% of the score is determined by how well a country does on “Political Rights,” and 60% on “Civil Rights,” with subsections under each of these headings.

The 2021 report tells us that 2020 saw “the 15th consecutive year of decline in global freedom.” Sounds really bad. But it’s one thing to say, that for example, the US is freer than China, or that the coup in Myanmar was a blow against democracy. It’s quite another to pretend to have a neutral formula that can compare the state of democracy in say Hungary versus France, the US versus Canada, or Syria versus Cuba. But that’s what Freedom House gets tens of millions of dollars a year from the American government to do.

…

In Europe, Freedom House tells us that “Hungary has undergone the biggest decline ever measured in Nations in Transit, plummeting through two categorical boundaries to become a Transitional/Hybrid Regime last year. Poland is still categorized as a Semiconsolidated Democracy.”

That’s a nice coincidence, how the two European countries that have moved in the most conservative policy direction are the ones also becoming more “authoritarian.” Looking in more detail, it appears that Freedom House classifies conservative countries as authoritarian in two ways

1) Portraying things that would otherwise be considered normal politics as “authoritarian”, while ignoring things that are similar or worse when done by non-right wing governments; and

2) Just directly penalizing countries for conservative policies.

…

This map gives the game away.

…

The connection between how many genders a government acknowledges and its level of democracy is never explained. The report also mentions the Polish government’s opposition to abortion and Slovenia reducing funding for its public broadcaster.

Many conservatives in the United States criticize the media and would like to ban abortion, cut funding for NPR, and not have schools teach that gender is a social construct. They may be surprised to learn that they are engaging in “anti-democratic” activities.

To show the kind of hackery at work, here’s the report on Poland for 2020. We are told that the Archbishop of Kraków describes “LGBT as a ‘rainbow plague’ bearing similarities to communism.” So apparently countries are judged based on the wokeness of their clergy, so Poland loses a point in part for that, and appears to get another point deducted for some combination of the government’s positions on birth control, abortion, and gay adoption.

You can really tell that American conservatives annoy Freedom House analysts more than any other people in the world. In the US, not only are conservatives’ views on abortion and gay marriage undemocratic, but so are their positions on organized labor, with Freedom House mentioning a Supreme Court ruling that government employees could not be forced against their will to contribute to public sector unions.

…

Not only does Freedom House portray the behavior of conservative governments in an unflattering light, but it looks past what are much clearer violations of individual liberty and democratic norms when they are committed in the service of left-wing social or political goals.

Sweden, for example, is one of only three countries to receive a perfect score of 100. This is despite having hate speech laws, which have in the past been used to arrest Christian preachers for their interpretation of the Bible. Norway, another “perfect democracy,” in 2020 expanded its hate speech laws to cover gender identity, with punishments of up to three years in prison for violators.

“Whether a country arrests people for speech” seems like it could be a clear criterion an organization interested in democracy can use, but Freedom House prefers a vague points system that allows it to penalize countries for everything it doesn’t like.*

…

As seen above, Freedom House doesn’t mind criticizing the United States; the country after all only gets an 83, making it a not very good democracy. Yet it’s notable what the US doesn’t lose points for: NSA spying programs, and the prosecution of journalists who have brought them to light. Julian Assange is, in the words of Glenn Greenwald, “responsible for breaking more major stories about the actions of top US officials than virtually all US journalists employed in the corporate press combined,” and he’s now facing life in prison. Yet Assange goes unmentioned in the 2020 report, along with Edward Snowden.

On the question “Are there free and independent media?” the US only gets a 3 out of 4, because “Fox News in particular grew unusually close to the Trump administration” and “Trump was harshly critical of the mainstream media throughout his presidency, routinely using inflammatory language to accuse them of bias and mendacity.” The US gets 4/4 on the question “Are individuals free to express their personal views on political or other sensitive topics without fear of surveillance or retribution?” Surveillance programs are mentioned, but here no points are deducted (the US also gets 4/4 on academic freedom).

It’s a strange algorithm that deducts points for criticizing journalists, but not for putting them in jail. It’s the algorithm you’d expect, however, from an organization run by former American government officials.

…

If the US government and the NGOs it relies on define conservatism as undemocratic, we will in the coming years find ourselves having hostile relations with nations that do not threaten American interests and whose only crime is offending the sensibilities of a liberal elite that holds positions that are far from universally accepted within the United States itself.

The potential implications for liberty at home are no less catastrophic. If conservatives are not only wrong, but “undemocratic,” it becomes easier for the other side to justify attempts to silence dissent and take extreme steps to prevent them from coming to power.

The media, when it advocates censorship or government suppression of its enemies, never says that it’s going about silencing dissenting views. Rather, the propaganda it uses involves classifying what the target is saying as “hate,” “disinformation,” or “foreign propaganda” to delegitimize the speech as unworthy of either First Amendment protection or respect from non-government institutions.

…

It’s fine to disagree with many aspects of American conservatism, as I certainly do. And it wouldn’t be correct to say that there is no objective measure of democracy one can use; certainly, some countries pick their leaders through fair elections, and others don’t. But democracy is supposed to involve a respect for various segments of society, and a consideration of their views. A definition of the concept that delegitimizes what large swaths of the population believe about economic and social issues, while overlooking the prosecution of journalists disfavored by American foreign policy elites, is little more than a tool of propaganda and potentially oppression.

Luckily, it’s easier to know what to do about Woke Imperialism than Woke Capital, or Woke Institutions more generally. The national security establishment does not survive by its ability to bring in voluntary donations or make money through selling products and services people want. Freedom House, like many other similar institutions, is almost exclusively dependent on the American taxpayer, despite the NGO label.

Given how much contempt the organization clearly has for a large portion of the public, and the threat to political liberty that can result from identifying democracy with one side of the political spectrum, there is no reason for that support to continue. While cutting it off would certainly be seen as “undemocratic” by Freedom House, it would remain at liberty to continue writing reports at its own expense.

[achraf4you]

WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT MUHAMMAD [ PART 1 ]

Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol II, pp. 276-77:

“If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?

The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls... the forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unit of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.”

“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?”

Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, History of the Saracen Empire, London, 1870, p. 54:

“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Quran...The Mahometans[1] have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’, is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”

Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammadanism, London 1874, p. 92:

“He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope’s pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.”

Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4:

“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”

W. Montgomery, Mohammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, p. 52:

“His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”

James A. Michener, ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion’ in Reader’s Digest (American Edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70:

“Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570 into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five, his employer, recognizing his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband.

“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: “There is one God.”

“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumors of God’s personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human-being.’

“At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever.’”

Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33:

“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.”

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Sen. Bernie Sanders almost certainly won’t win the Democratic nomination after his string of defeats in recent primaries. So the questions around how and when Sanders will end his campaign aren’t really about electoral math anymore, but are instead connected to deeper questions about policy, the Democratic electorate and Joe Biden and Sanders’s personal goals.

These deeper questions essentially are: Does Sanders have any specific goals that he wants — such as Biden taking up one of his major policy ideas — that he could essentially trade with Biden in exchange for dropping out and endorsing the former vice president? Does Biden, who is now racking up endorsements and winning primaries by huge margins, really need to negotiate with Sanders at all? Does the bloc of around 30 percent of Democratic primary voters that have backed Sanders represent a clear constituency that he actually leads, or will Sanders’s supporters be unenthusiastic about Biden even if Sanders embraces him? Will most of Sanders’s supporters vote for Biden in a general election simply to get President Trump out of office, or does Biden need to accommodate them in some way? And are Sanders’s supporters actually open to any accommodation beyond Sanders being the Democratic nominee?

I can’t really answer any of these questions confidently, and despite what you will read or hear on TV, I’m not sure anyone else knows the answers to these questions either. But one way to think about this is through history. Every competitive nomination process ends with a winner, at least one person who can claim to be the runner-up and some bloc of the party that has lost. So here are some models for how the Biden-Sanders primary could be resolved. These are ordered from the least to most favorable for Sanders:

Sanders and the left get basically nothing

Parallel: The 2000 Democratic primary between then-Vice President Al Gore (winner) and former Sen. Bill Bradley.

Bradley didn’t win a single caucus or primary and earned just 21 percent of the popular vote, so he was obviously in a weaker position than Sanders is now. That said, many Democrats view Trump as an existential crisis and now America has a crisis (the novel coronavirus) that could last until November or beyond. With those concerns, Sanders may have less room to get much from Biden because the growing pressure to leave the race and back Biden may at some point become too strong for him to continue.

So Sanders could get nothing, according to Mark Schmitt, who was a top adviser on Bradley’s 2000 campaign. “Not ‘Godfather II’ nothing, but nothing wrapped in a lovely bow of recognition and respect,” Schmitt said.

Sam Rosenfeld, an expert on party politics who teaches at Colgate University, said, “Biden’s victory came so quickly and with so little in the way of extended trench warfare that it’s true that he likely feels less need to assuage Sanders substantively than HRC [Hillary Clinton] did four years ago.”

In this scenario, Biden would pick a running mate, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is similarly resistant to more left-wing ideas. Biden would basically refuse to adopt any of Sanders’s policies and might block their insertion into the Democratic Party’s official platform at the party’s convention, which is currently scheduled for July 13 to16 in Milwaukee.

Changes to the party platform

Parallel: The 2016 Democratic primary between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (winner) and Sanders; the 1976 Republican primary between then-President Gerald Ford (winner) and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.

In 2016, Clinton and her allies allowed Sanders-backed provisions, including the abolition of the death penalty and a $15 minimum wage, into the party platform. A generation earlier, Ford and his camp used the platform to placate supporters of the more conservative Reagan.

The Democrats put some of Sanders’s less controversial ideas into the platform four years ago. In the 2020 process, he has pushed four far-reaching ideas in particular: a wealth tax, Medicare for All, the mass forgiveness of all student debt and free college for all Americans. The party platform in theory speaks for all Democratic candidates, even ones in swing districts. Those Democrats want to appeal to more moderate voters and are wary of Republicans linking them with socialism (and Sanders). So is there a compromise on the wealth tax or the mass forgiveness of college debt that satisfies Sanders’s allies and, say, more moderate House Democrats? That’s not easy to see. How far will Democrats go, with a GOP eager to cast the entire party as socialists?

Formal policy and/or appointment promises

Parallel: The 2016 Republican primary between Trump (winner) and Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

In May 2016, as some establishment Republicans were still thinking of ways to prevent Trump from winning the nomination, Trump released a list of people he would consider for Supreme Court seats. Neither Neil Gorsuch nor Brett Kavanaugh1 were on the initial list, but it was full of conservative legal figures. That list served as essentially a promise to the party’s establishment and conservative wings that Trump would appoint conservative judges to the bench, a key priority of the party. (He has followed through in spades.)

Biden has already promised to pick a woman as his running mate and a black woman as a Supreme Court justice — both attempts to placate other important constituencies in the party (black voters and women). And Biden recently announced that he supported tuition-free public college for Americans in households with incomes of $125,000 or less, moving toward Sanders’s position.

Will he go further? In theory, Biden could promise to appoint some prominent liberals to his administration (Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sanders himself or some of their allies, for example). He could promise not to appoint people that liberal activists strongly dislike, such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or basically anyone affiliated with Facebook or Wall Street.

In terms of policy, could Biden, in a general election, commit to some kind of tax on the wealthy that is akin to a wealth tax? (The wealth tax is fairly popular with Americans overall.)

Daniel Schlozman, a political scientist at John Hopkins University who focuses on political parties, argued that the left will demand a major federal government response to the coronavirus pandemic if Biden is elected — so the disputes between the party’s left and center-left wings might look much different than they did during the Democratic primary.

“The big left asks of Biden will be on the scale and permanence of government interventions more than on any of the issues in the primary,” Schlozman said.

“Biden is very old and his instincts really do just stem from a different and much more cautious era for [Democratic] domestic policymaking,” Rosenfeld said. “That’s going to matter. That said, it’s important to note that the establishment has itself moved significantly since 2008 … The center of gravity on policy questions has shifted left.”

A leftist vice-presidential nominee

Parallel: The 1996 Republican primary between then-Sen. Bob Dole (winner) and conservative activist Pat Buchanan and businessman Steve Forbes; the 2012 Republican primary between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (winner) and former Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; the 2016 Republican primary.

Some in the GOP’s more conservative wing doubted that Dole, Romney and Trump were sufficiently right wing in each of their respective primaries. So all three chose running mates — former Rep. Jack Kemp for Dole, then-Rep. Paul Ryan for Romney, then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence for Trump — deeply trusted by more conservative Republicans.

This route would be complicated for Biden. In theory, the former vice president could excite the younger and more liberal parts of the Democratic base by picking a running mate who is not Sanders but shares many of Sanders’s positions. But few people close to, or as liberal as, Sanders are governors, senators or otherwise serve in positions that might make them natural candidates for the vice presidency. The most obvious figures, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Warren, would require Democrats to remove a sitting senator and hope that the party can win a special election to keep that seat.

Let’s focus on Warren for a moment. She presents some obvious advantages for Biden in terms of her policy knowledge and high favorability ratings among Democrats. At the same time, Biden’s campaign messaging has been about electability. Would he choose a left-leaning senator from the Northeast like Warren over a more centrist senator from the Midwest like Klobuchar? Also, can a 77-year-old candidate pick a 70-year-old running mate? Can a Democratic Party that is nearly 40 percent Asian, black or Hispanic run an all-white ticket? Also, it’s not even clear that Sanders’s supporters would be super excited about Warren as the vice-presidential nominee.

Sanders is the vice-president nominee

Parallels: The 1960 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John F. Kennedy (winner) and then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson; the 1980 Republican primary between Reagan (winner) and former CIA Director George H.W. Bush; the 2004 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John Kerry (winner) and then-Sen. John Edwards.

The history of the second-place candidate becoming the vice-presidential nominee illustrates one of the challenges for Sanders — he’s not really viable for arguably the biggest prize a runner-up can reasonably expect. Being second on the ticket is potentially incredibly valuable — Johnson and Bush not only served as vice president but ultimately won the presidency themselves (Johnson obviously in very unusual circumstances). But it’s really hard to imagine Biden choosing Sanders, an even older white man (Sanders is 78), as his running mate.

I don’t think it’s worth trying to predict which of these precedents the Biden-Sanders race will follow — I would expect something more than nothing and less than the vice presidency. But this process is worth watching closely, because it won’t happen all at once. Sanders’s exit from the race, the Democratic convention and the time between Biden’s election (if he wins) and the start of his presidency are all potentially points of negotiation between Biden and Sanders, and the center-left and left wings of the Democratic Party. It will take some time to assess what concessions Sanders and the people who support him come away with.