I’ve been rewatching “Little House on the Prairie” on TV recently and I came in just before my favorite episode came on, the two-parter “Sylvia.”  This episode may be triggering for some people (these episodes address rape against a young teenage girl), so I’ll put the rest under a read more. 

I just want to say that I am still s o  i m p r e s s e d with how this 1981 episode addresses the issue of Sylvia’s rape. These episodes aren’t perfect by any means, but there are still so many great, sad, and even funny lines and moments in this episode:

*First off, I really appreciate that this is a two-parter episode. Putting it mildly, this is a heavy subject matter, and I’m glad that the writers decided to let the story and characters breathe and grow and develop properly

*Michael Landon’s respectful writing, producing, and directing for these episodes

*Willie saying that he and the boys have a “nature project” as an excuse to, ahem, go see Sylvia

*Mrs. Olesen rightly standing up for Albert when Mr. Webb tries to physically hurt him for spying on Sylvia

*Mrs. Olesen rightly being disgusted when she learns that the boys were peeping on Sylvia 

*How funny Mrs. Olesen is when she asks Willie if he saw “the difference” when he went to go spy on Sylvia 

*Mrs. Olesen rightly calling a board meeting to address the problem going on between Sylvia and the boys (even if by this point, she is incorrect about who’s to blame)

*Despite using the old “boys will be boys” adage, it’s not used to justify that Albert, Willie, and the other two boys peep on Sylvia. Instead it’s used as a reason to explain why it’s necessary to have serious conversations with sons about how to treat women properly and respectfully

*Albert apologizing to Sylvia about peeping, and consistently tells the other boys to be respectful to Sylvia thereafter, and stands up for Sylvia whenever they tease and bully her

*The fake-out suspense that builds up when Sylvia is walking through the woods alone, thinking what she hears is just a flock of birds, but it really is her rapist. (I know that sounds like a weird way to phrase it, but it’s the only way I know how to right now, and I think the way it’s done is pretty important, since it shows that even those looking out for themselves can be attacked like that.)

*This episode may be why I hate clowns

*The episode showing Sylvia right after the rape, so we can see the full picture of how it’s affected her 

*The episode showing how being touched unexpectedly can trigger the memories of rape for survivors

*Dr. Baker and Laura knowing that Mr. Webb lied about Sylvia falling to explain her bruises (a common excuse to cover physical abuse), even if they can’t explain the cause

*Sylvia being open to love, despite her recent trauma

*The innocent summer-like romance that develops between Albert and Sylvia

*How concerned Albert is for Sylvia when she faints after school

*That a 1981 TV episode actually used the word “pregnant.” It’s not a word that would have been used at the time the show takes place, which I think just puts more weight on the violence against Sylvia

*How numb Sylvia is when she asks, “You blame me for this, don’t you? Don’t you?” and the equally cold and shaming reply from her own father, ”You reap what you sow.”

*Pa Ingalls reminding Albert not to hate or judge Sylvia without understanding the full circumstances behind her pregnancy

*The ugly close up of Mrs. Olesen’s teeth when she spreads the ugly news and gossip of Sylvia’s pregnancy and that Albert is the father after listening in on the phone call between Dr. Baker and Mr. Webb

*Albert standing up for Sylvia when Willie calls her a “tramp”

*Willie getting punched in the nose

*Twice

*Albert taking responsibility for Sylvia’s pregnancy, because he loves her 

*”Well, I don’t much care about what other people think, so long as I know I’m doing right.” YOU GO, ALBERT. MY SON IS BECOMING A MAN.

*Except, he’s still not one, no matter how much he tries to convince his parents otherwise

*Pa Ingalls chuckling and saying, “Good for her,” when Ma Ingalls storms out to take a walk when she’s angry about Mrs. Olesen spreading rumors about Albert and Sylvia

*Ma Ingalls’ quiet frustration as she kneads the dough 

*Ma Ingalls shoving the ball of dough into Mrs. Olesen’s face

*Ma Ingalls saying that even God Himself would have shoved that ball of dough in Mrs. Olesen’s face

*”I”ll be back in an hour, Nellie. Make sure your mother isn’t here.”

*Everything about Mama Bear Ingalls

*The continuance of Sylvia’s overactive flight-or-fight responses whenever she’s unexpected touched

*Albert genuinely wanting to care for and marry Sylvia, because he loves her, even if it’s not the right thing to do, since they’re so young (14/15)

*Sylvia pointing out that they’re too young

*Sylvia being open about how much her father’s abusive behavior scares her

*The episode’s portrayal of the negative effects of not believing victims and survivors when we see the betrayal in Sylvia’s face when her father asks, “How can I believe a whore?!”

*I’m sorry, but this time watching the episode, Pa Ingalls reminding Albert needs to wait until after finishing high school, college, and med school to even think about getting married just made me laugh. I mean, it’s the 1880s. What are the odds that Albert would actually get a proper high school education, if he were alive in that time period? Plus, that certain episode that brings Albert’s future into question....

*The Ingalls discussing that Albert, at 14, is not ready to face the commitment and heavy realities of married life

*Queen Mama Ingalls pointing out that loving Sylvia and loving her baby are two very different things

*Queen Mama Ingalls pointing out that, since Sylvia became pregnant through an act of violence, not love, that even Sylvia herself may have a hard time loving this baby

*Queen Mama Ingalls straight up asking if Albert has even asked Sylvia what she thinks of her baby

*Queen Mama Ingalls making Albert realize that he did not have this serious, necessary conversation with Sylvia (or anything beyond the early phases of teen love...)

*Queen Mama Ingalls

*Mr. Webb’s sadness after he lets go of his anger against Albert, whom he thought was the father of Sylvia’s baby

*The genuine panic I always feel when Sylvia’s rapist returns when she’s happy thinking it’s Albert

*Sylvia’s on point fight-or-flight responses. YOU BANG HIM IN THE HEAD WITH THAT WOODEN BOARD, GIRL!

*Sylvia being able to hang on to the dream of having a traditional church wedding

*”Kiss me, my love”

*THE UGLY TEARS I ALWAYS CRY AT THIS EPISODE. ALBERT AND SYLVIA TOGETHER WERE TOO PRECIOUS FOR THIS WORLD!!

I know this is a lot to spend on a tv episode that’s almost 40-years-old now by this point, but “Sylvia” is really a great episode with a respectful story arc, and has some of Matthew Laborteaux’s and Ma and Pa Ingalls’ strongest character moments, and, of course, Olivia Barash is perfect in the titular role. There’s a reason this episode was nominated for awards for its cinematography and Barash’s acting. 

GET THIS BOOK

Author:

Anthony J. Bron, Ramesh c. Tripathi & Brenda J. Tripathi

Published in: Chapman & Hall Release Year: 1997 ISBN: 0-412-41010-9 Pages: 724 Edition: 8th Edition File Size: 97 MB File Type: pdf Language: English

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Description of Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit

Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit has now passed through six editions and ten reprints in less than forty years, growing in pages from 309 to 553 and in illustrations from 173 (initially none in color) to 467 (56 in color). Both text and illustrations contain much that is of historical interest, and - like my predecessor - I have wished to avoid tampering unnecessarily with the author's creation. However, very considerable changes have been necessary which have entailed a rewriting of about a quarter of the text. Only the chapters on the osseous orbit and comparative anatomy have required less extensive deletions and replacement by new writing. In all sections many old citations (limited in interest and often undocumented) have been omitted; and yet the Bibliography has almost doubled in length, a measure of the injection of new contributions. The accumulations of knowledge, particularly in such fields as the ultra structural detail of ocular tissues, analysis of ocular movements, and organization in the visual pathways, have demanded particular attention; and it is to these that revision has been deliberately directed. These and other fields of study have evoked many highly specialized monographs and a countless legion of original papers, many of which can only be quoted briefly.  But it is my belief that readers of such a generalized textbook (Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit) as this will thus find useful signposts by which to look elsewhere for further detail. There are 75 new illustrations in Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit edition, the majority being replacements. In this regard I am much indebted to my friend, Mr Richard E. M. Moore, DFA(London), MMAA, FRSA, who works in my own department; he has contributed 28 new illustrations and diagrams. I am also most grateful to Dr John Marshall and his assistant, Mr P. L. Ansell (both of the Institute of Ophthalmology, University of London), who have provided much improved substitutes for 40 electron- and photomicrographs.  I must also thank Dr N. A. Locket (of the same Institute) for the loan of preparations for photomicrography. My colleagues, Mr Kevin Fitzpatrick and Mr Joe Curtis, have also helped in the replacement of several illustrations. Dr Gordon Ruskell (The City University, London) has helped with much useful criticism. From the publishing staff, and particularly Mr John Goodhall, I have received most efficient and patient support. Despite all this help I am solely responsible for any inaccuracies and omissions in Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit text. While hoping that readers will find it improved in its usefulness, I hope equally that they will volunteer their criticisms and suggestions. Revision of  Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit has been a very considerable task and one which we have enjoyed. Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit new edition builds on the strengths of its predecessors while reflecting the increase in our knowledge since the seventh edition was published over twenty years ago. The larger format of Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit edition permits the use of double columns, and gives far greater flexibility to the display of illustrations. The text is now over 600 pages long, despite the omission of the chapter on comparative anatomy.  The number of illustrations, many of them with multiple parts, has been increased to 667, of which 570 are new or have been redrawn. Many of the old figures have been reannotated where possible, to give a consistency of style. In order to do justice to the expansion of knowledge of the anatomy of the eye and its related structures, seven new chapters have been added: the cornea and sclera, the iris, the ciliary body and choroid, the drainage angle and the lens and the retina have each been given independent status. Although we have retained parts of the old text, most has been extensively revised. In many respects the book (Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit) is entirely new; new topics include: the innervation and classification of the extraocular muscles, the ocular mucins, the collagens and proteoglycans of the ocular coats, the properties of the trabecular cells, stereology of the lens, the detailed anatomy of the ocular circulations, the morphology and connectivity of the retinal cells, the functions of the retinal pigment epithelium and current views on the topography of the visual pathway and the role of the visual and prestriate cortices. We are indebted to the many scientists who have provided illustrations for Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit book and would like to thank the following individuals, in particular, who were most generous with material and with their time and advice. They include: M. P. Bergen; M. van Buskirk; M. B. Carpenter; 0. Earley; G. Eisner; A. W. Fryckowski; T. F. Freddo; I. K. Gipson; I. Grierson; J. Jonas; H. Kolb; L. Koornneef; J. R. Kuszak; D. Landon; E. Liitjen-Drecoll; N . R. Miller; J. M. Olver; Y. Pouliquen; A. C. Rhoton; G. L. Ruskell; J. Sebag; K. Sellheyer; B. W. Streeten; E. R. Tamm; G. Vrensen; S. Zeki and E. van der Zypen. From the inception of Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit new edition of Wolff's Anatomy, until his death, Roger Warwick, who revised several previous editions, was a constant source of encouragement and inspiration. We hope that we did not stray too far from his wishes.  We would like to thank our publishers, Chapman and Hall, in particular Nick Dunton, for their support and forebearance, and also Jane Bryant and Sue Deeley for the copy editing and project management, respectively. We are aware that, despite our best efforts, Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit book has many deficiencies and we welcome the comments and criticisms of our readers.

The NRDC China Connection: It’s Hiding Right in Front of You, Congress

Tom Shepstone Shepstone Management Company, Inc.

  Congress is investigating the NRDC gang’s China advocacy, but the NRDC China connection is hiding in plain sight for those who know the Rockefeller family.

The Hill tells us House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) have written a letter to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asking why it is advocating for Chinese interests over US interests. The letter itself may be found here and it’s quite well done, better than I hoped, raising several great questions about why the devil the NRDC is so deeply committed to China’s welfare, compared to ours. Curiously, though, the letter doesn’t address what should be well known about the NRDC China connection.

Bishop and Westerman wrote a great letter as far as it goes. They start out by noting “the potential manipulation of tax-exempt 50l(c) organizations by foreign entities to influence U.S. environmental and natural resources policy to the detriment of our national interests.” They also properly raise several key issues such as these (emphasis added):

The Committee is concerned about the NRDC’s role in aiding China’s perception management efforts with respect to pollution control and its international standing on environmental issues in ways that may be detrimental to the United States. The NRDC’s relationship with China has many of the criteria identified by U.S. intelligence agencies and law enforcement as putting an entity at risk of being influenced or coerced by foreign interests.

The NRDC’ s involvement in China spans two decades and represents a significant investment of time and resources. The NRDC’ s ability to work in China is dependent on the goodwill of the Chinese government. The NRDC leadership regularly meets with senior Chinese and Communist Party officials. NRDC press releases, blog posts, and reports consistently praise the Chinese government’s environmental initiatives and promote the image of China as a global environmental leader.

When engaging on environmental issues concerning China, the NRDC appears to practice self-censorship , issue selection bias, and generally refrains from criticizing Chinese officials. For instance, a widely reported 2016 study by Greenpeace concluded that China’s government subsidized commercial fishing fleet threatens the viability of fisheries around the world. Just months after the Greenpeace study was released, the NRDC praised China’s “bold new reforms” on domestic fisheries emphasizing that “China has been the world’s largest producer of wild fish for over two decades.” Similarly, the NRDC has never condemned, or even mentioned, China’s illegal and environmentally destructive island reclamation campaign that has covered over 3,200 acres of coral reefs with runways, ports, and other military facilities. Of note, the NRDC collaborates with Chinese government entities that are deeply involved in Chinese efforts to assert sovereignty over the South China Sea in contravention of intemational law.

Coral reef destruction by China

By contrast, the NRDC takes an adversarial approach to its advocacy practices in the United States. In fundraising materials, the NRDC claims to have “sued the  about once every ten days” since President Trump was inaugurated. Over the last two decades, your organization has also sued the U.S. Navy multiple times to stop or drastically limit naval training exercises in the Pacific arguing that naval sonar and anti-submarine warfare drills harm marine life. We are unaware of the NRDC having made similar efforts to curtail naval exercises by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy. Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the NRDC sought to shape public opinion, in part, by attempting to discredit those skeptical of China’s commitment to pollution reduction targets or to honestly reporting environmental data. The disconnect between the NRDC’s role as “thought leader and trusted adviser to our partners in China” and its approach to environmental advocacy in the United States is disconcerting.

The Committee is concerned that the NRDC’s need to maintain access to Chinese officials has influenced its political activities in the United States and may require compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). “The purpose of FARA is to ensure that the U.S. Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws.” In relevant part, FARA requires any person or entity, including non-profits, to register with the Department of Justice (DOJ) if they act “at the… request… of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly, supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal ….”

These are serious matters. The Congressman have heavily footnoted their letter to back up each and every claim. Yet, they haven’t (perhaps for strategic reasons) touched upon the obvious foundation of the NRDC China connection. It’s the special interests of the Rockefeller family, which include not only making a wilderness of Upstate New York and environs but also pursuing interests in foreign investments.

The NRDC is, essentially, a Rockefeller enterprise. It was founded by John Adams, a bat boy for the family team, who continues to be affiliated with the organization as well as its Open Space Institute and Catskill Mountainkeeper spinoffs, the latter being a plaything for his son Ramsay and the former being headed by Rockefeller descendant Kim Elliman. Larry Rockefeller, Jr. is also involved, of course, and the family as a whole funds numerous other fractivist enterprises who collaborate with the NRDC gang. The NRDC does absolutely nothing that is not wholly aligned with the Rockefeller family agenda. They’re family, after all (see also this NY Post summary).

This is a chart I assembled five years ago to accommodate the EID article linked above. It show the Rockefeller family connections to NRDC at the time. Edward Ames was Trustee for the estate of Mary Flagler Cary, granddaughter of Standard Oil partner Henry Flagler.

That agenda, as I noted here, includes major investments in China, which I wrote about here, explaining the following:

This brings us to Steven Clark Rockefeller, Jr., the elder Steven’s son and well connected fifth-generation member of the famous family. As I noted in my earlier article, Junior (pictured to the right with his wife Kimberly, both idolized by the New York Social Diary as “good examples”) is, like his father, is a big Asian fan. He is Rose Rock Capital (part of the Rose Rock Groupheadquartered at Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan). This outfit is, through such vehicles as the Rose Rock Partners Fund, investing billions in China:

Steven C. Rockefeller, Jr., is Chairman and CEO of Rose Rock Capital, a family-owned holding company dedicated to fund management and real estate development in China. Family leadership is shared by his son, Steven III, and his nephews, Collin Eckles and Landon Eckles. The company’s current primary focus is on development, in partnership with Tianjin Innovative Finance Investment Company Ltd., of the Yujiapu Financial District in Tianjin’s special economic zone. Prior to founding Rose Rock, Mr. Rockefeller worked with numerous start-up companies across a range of industries, often serving on the Board of Directors. Industries represented by his focus included green energy and technology, educational television, specialty pharmaceuticals and robotics.

Junior, too, is heavily involved with Scenic Hudson (of Storm King infamy) and is busy bringing Chinese investment into favored areas of the Hudson Valley where development meets with family approval. Such relationships are behind his ability to ingratiate himself in Asian markets and make these sorts of arrangements (emphasis added):

Rockefeller has set up a venture with Tianjin Finance Investment Co to launch the funds, which aim to raise 5 billion yuan initially, including 2 billion yuan by the end of this year, the newspaper said.

Rose Rock, which controls 90 percent of the fund management venture, will be responsible for daily management and operation of the funds, while its Chinese partner will focus on government relationships, the article said.

Money raised will be used to build a landmark commercial property project in Tianjin’s financial district, while future investment will expand into other areas including infrastructure, culture and education, the newspaper said.

That infrastructure, I pointed out, was a new petrochemical import terminal in Tianjin,  “the first time in history” a Western company had a stake in a Chinese petrochemical port. “Rose Rock Infrastructure, Ltd. Is a subsidiary of Rose Rock Partners, LLC and is dedicated to development, ownership and management of infrastructure assets in China.” It has joint venture offices in Beijing, Tianjin and Hong Kong.

But, that isn’t all. Check out this story from March of this year and this, in particular:

New York-based Rockefeller Capital Management, formed through the acquisition of family office Rockefeller & Co. by its management team as well as an investment fund from Viking Global Investors and a Rockefeller family trust, officially launched last week, with $18.5 billion in assets under advisement in its existing asset management and wealth management businesses….

Viking owns a majority stake in the firm, while the trust representing the family owns about 10 percent. The firm’s board also includes Rockefeller family members David Rockefeller Jr., son of the family patriarch who died in 2017, and Peter M. O’Neill, a Rockefeller heir who has long overseen the family’s investments.

And, where is Rockefeller Capital Management focused? Well, perhaps this title block for an article on its website by Chief Investment Strategist Jimmy C. Chang provides a clue:

The article, to be fair, is much more fair and balanced than the subtitle, but the point remains; Rockefeller Capital Management is focused on China. And, the NRDC being as Rockefeller project, this is the real NRDC China connection. It’s also the one Congress ought to be investigating as it properly digs into the way 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are being misused to advance private special interests. It’s the same with everything the supposedly “charitable” thing the Rockefeller family does. The time for busting up this cartel is long overdue.

The post The NRDC China Connection: It’s Hiding Right in Front of You, Congress appeared first on Natural Gas Now.

https://www.shaledirectories.com/blog/the-nrdc-china-connection-its-hiding-right-in-front-of-you-congress/