yeah, it kinda hurts.

Hello pommunist dot Tumblr dot com, I just wanted to say thank you for your posts! I may not agree with all of your perspectives but they are a very good source of differing views to keep my own bias in check. I always see you making sure that discussion stays overall respectful and that is very swag of you 👍 I come from an environment where it's very common for workers to be exploited in the ways that are relevant rn (as far as I know, all of my friends have been). I also, as a person, have a very hard time being angry or taking a strong stance against anything (the more I disagree with someone's actions, the harder I subconsciously try to empathize with them) so your expressions of outrage help me remember that things like this are not normal and should be fought against.

It's very hard for me to condemn any of the things that quackity or others involved with q studios have done. To be clear, I completely support the admins' rights to proper treatment and pay; it's just that I know that if I was in the place of those higher-ups/quackity, I would have made the same or very similar mistakes, so it feels very fallacious to hold them to higher standards than I would hold myself. Is this a strange or inappropriate position to hold? I just do not know how to flex my brain in the right way to look at qstudios as a 'corporate entity' rather than a 'collection of individuals.' That plus the fact that in my opinion, all these problems with the server's management are much easier to make than people (at least in my experience) want to think, and have a good chance of happening with any project just because communication is so inherently infallible and human nature is complicated.

Again, I do really appreciate your point of view and perspective. I just have a hard time truly understanding the more "zero-tolerance" approach to—well, to anything, but in this case to abuse of workers' rights. Would you be willing to explain more of your perspective? I really truly do want to understand better.

I hope you are having a good day/night, and that the tone of this does not come off as anything other than genuine. Lots of love! ❤️❤️

Hey anon !! First do not worry your message came off as nothing but genuine, no problem at all 🫶

Also I don’t think it’s strange or inappropriate for you to have the position you described in your ask ! I actually relate a lot to you saying you can have a hard time being angry at something because same, the more I analyse someone’s actions the more I tend to see their pov and empathise.

Also about holding yourself to a different standard if you were in their shoes, the question is : would you, in a similar scenario, have made decisions that would have put you in the same situation they are now ? Personally, I know that I don’t have the money, ressources or abilities to manage such a big project, so by realising it, I wouldn’t have gone through with it.

For the others things you brought up I’m gonna link you to a previous ask I answered, as well as to the very pertinent addition by @blockgamepirate to it, which I hope can bring some elements of answers to your questions.

And personally, there are many reasons I feel so strongly about the topic of workers rights. Them being that I just care about politics and have an interest in them, but also the current political climate of my own country and my personal background makes it that I kinda HAD to strongly make my mind on this topic. In this particular case it angers me even more because the admins were mostly young people, who had a great love and admiration for the project, and for the passion of young fans be taken advantage of is just heartbreaking.

I hope this was at least somewhat helpful, sending love back ♥️

The case of the mysterious woman

So, my friend got digisurvive for their birthday and was diligently texting me about it. When he met the mysterious woman, he remarked "lol this is arukenimon again, isn't it?" (We watched Ghost Game together, but she hasn't actually watched 02 LMAO).

At any rate, this got me thinking the scenario brings out very fun points of interest for Shuuji, Kaito and Aoi, regardless whether we, genre-savy digimon fans, can buy it.

We get our first taste of Shuuji's risk aversion in this part when he quickly shoots down the idea of going out to explore, backed by Aoi. In true Takuma fashion, we push the decision for later, much to Saki and Minoru's disappointment. From Minoru's side, who has the tendency to act impulsively and plan poorly ("Let's go out and look for the Professor asap, we can look for food on the way"), it's not surprising he'd take this stance. Despite his fear being getting the spotlight in his arc, it's not like he lacks an adventurous spirit or dislikes entertaining bizarre ideas; it's more about how inconsistent he is to act based on integrity because of falling into his avoidance coping and priotizing his own comfort or giving in to his emotions.

From Saki is more interesting, I think, given she was chased around by Fangmon alongside Shuuji and finds the possibility of violent confrontation distateful, not to mention she's fairly conflict adverse too. Still, she emphasizes the idea of at least trying something in part 5, and, with her cultivated optimism, expects for the best. This very strongly plays into why her and Minoru trust Arukenimon so easily. Lots of wishful thinking and wanting to believe the best can happen. I think one could have a lot of fun playing into how eager she is to jump into the apparent easy solution. The disillusionment certainly starts to set for her past part five lol

Shuuji's stance is, as said earlier, risk adverse. He doesn't wanna take any chances and he immediately jumps into the possibility of getting them all killed. At this point, he still hopes a search party will find them and hasn't yet been shown that won't be the case, so he's not being entirely irrational here. However, the fact remains that it's a defined pattern for him to reject taking any risks and freezing and failing to respond to the situations before him. The other thing that is also a pattern is how easily he caves in to external pressure. He doesn't have much trust in his own judgment, and his own personality and upbringing make him suceptible to that sort of external pressure— so once the majority outnumber him, he takes on the responsibility of spearhearding the exploration lol This carries over to the way he fails with Arukenimon. He's suspicious of her but eventually caves in to what his juniors want to do, even though it's so ill-advised. Given the Cherubimon evo scene underlines the need for him to embrace his "selfishness" and trust his own judgment, it's pretty great how even early conflicts show us how badly he struggles to actually put his foot down and stand by his discernment. On the flipsode, this trait of his isn't always negative, not imposing on the group can lead to some necessary outcomes, but the fact is that these early "agreements" stem from being outnumbered and not having any real alternative than to follow the group, so they usually bring out his shortcomings more often than not.

In the case of Aoi, I think it's interesting that she initially backs Shuuji up, only to change her mind when she hears about the radio tower. In part two, she wasn't opposed to looking for the Professor and co, but she disagreed about going out unprepared, wanting the group to find food first. As she puts it in part four when scolding Shuuji after his argument with Kaito, they can't get by without ever venturing outside. So, she's not as risk adverse as him but tends to prefer caution and less plans when they don't have a clear goal. She rejects the idea at first, but once she hears about the radio tower and reasons the benefits it'll have (being able to communicate with the world), she sees the risk as warranted. Arguably, she agrees with Shuuji and Kaito about the Mysterious Woman because of pragmatic reasons but completely fails to rouse the group under this directive. While being a pushover often seems more of a her problem, this scenario brings out really well how her inaction or inability to assert herself can have negative outcomes for them as a whole.

With regards Kaito, this scenario is a great reintroduction to his character. The initial reason he gives for not trusting Arukenimon can boil down to just instict (Everything we have met this far is a monster, what makes you think she isn't), even in the face of the partnermon not being able to confirm his suspicions. Beyond that, he's so riled up by Arukenimon, he comes off as too irrational and violent (Shuuji and Minoru straight have to hold him back from fist fighting her, which is just hilarious). I think this makes him easy to dismiss by Minoru and Saki, even though his case is actually pretty credible once he actually explains it LOL The fact Dracmon straight up says "We'll go through this, and if we're wrong, we'll say sorry afterwards" makes it doubly funny. Despite being right and having pretty solid reasoning, he sure makes himself look pretty badly lol

I have opinions about Bill's (The Last of Us) political stances and I have nothing to do but make people suffer through my thoughts. 

But first like... Obligatory thing to say that these are my headcanons of the politics of a fictional character, they're no reflection of my personal political opinions and any phrasing that makes it seem like they are my personal opinions is just me dramatically impersonating what's going on in Bill's head. I'm just a little gremlin who likes to think about how the minds of fictional characters might work. And that this is more of a modern day thing because my memory is shit when it comes to dates and times and things that have happened, and I don't remember the political climate of anything more than three years back at a time, which is very sexy of me. 

So firstly, we know several things for a fact about Bill. He does not trust the government one fucking bit, he believes very, very strongly in his 2nd Amendment Rights, he has a Don't Tread On Me flag, he's a Survivalist, he's gay, and has refined tastes in music, wine, and food. To me, Bill is an interesting person with some seemingly contradictory traits and I firmly believe his political opinions are also an interesting mix of things. 

Some people have thrown around the word libertarian, and I vaguely know what that means politically, but not enough for me to be satisfied just going with that and I don't care enough right now to look it up, which is also very sexy of me. This is a stupid fandom post, I am not trying to make an informed decision about something or influence someone else to, therefore I don't have to do research about things if I don't want to. So if I just describe what the typical libertarian believes then. Okay. Whatever, I guess. Post cancelled. 

Anyway. 

Bill would see someone with a Don't Tread On Me flag and a Thin Blue Line flag and immediately consider them the dumbest dumbass to ever dumb, because the latter thing shows you don't understand the former. OBVIOUSLY the message of the Don't Tread On Me flag is meant specifically for people like the POLICE and the MILITARY and the GOVERNMENT. 

And some people might look at him and go, wait, you hate the military? But Bill, don't you love freedom? They're fighting for that!

To which Bill would probably be like, you're stupid if you think they're fighting for YOUR freedom. Who do you think those guys work for, dipshit? Not you! You're not giving them orders! What happens when Governor Jackass decides he's sick of people disagreeing with him so he mobilizes the National Guard to get everyone in line, huh? You think the National Guard is gonna care about YOUR freedom? No. 

Which is of course why he thinks everyone should have guns, because the government is run by Nazis. 

Now, this being modern with no apocalypse, which means no FEDRA, people will be like well, not quite that bad, Bill. 

And he's like, have you never researched World War II? Pearl Harbor? We had concentration camps! Arguably, we still have concentration camps! We just call them migrant detainment centers. And prison. 

So Bill, you're for immigration and abolishing prisons? 

No. Bill is not necessarily for or against these things, because these things are matters that hold no personal importance to him. It's not worth having an opinion on them. He is, however, very against anything that the government can use to just throw people that disagree with them into a cell. 

Well that would never happen, Bill! Only bad people go to jail. Only people entering the country illegally get put in detainment camps. 

Uh, no, actually. Again, Pearl Harbor, they rounded up anyone who so much as looked Japanese, who had done nothing wrong, and put them in camps. And that's all it takes! The second they have a reason to come after you, they will!

Which is of course why he thinks everyone should have guns.

But Bill, what about all the school shootings and gun violence?

If more people had guns, people wouldn't be stupid with guns, because they know someone would fucking shoot them. Yes, also, teachers should have guns. Duh. 

Now I think meeting Frank would kind of slide his opinion on that a little bit, but it would be later in their relationship and it would be in that weird way where he knows he doesn't believe what he did before, but he doesn't know what the proper solution would be because it's obviously not stricter gun control. But at the beginning, if Frank asks him, "Okay, so you believe teachers should have guns, and grocery store people, and mothers, in case those people ever have to shoot someone. And me? You think I should have a gun in case I ever need to shoot someone?" Bill would say yes, of course, it's a matter of safety. 

But later. 

Later, if asked that same question, his knee-jerk answer is interrupted by the mental image of Frank watering flowers, and painting, and smiling, and laughing, and touching so gently, so kindly... And him having to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Which is an immediate no from him. Frank should never have to do that. And that's kind of where he suddenly, viscerally understands that the argument for not giving teachers a gun is about protecting them in an entirely different way. It's about wanting to make sure people who thrive on gentleness never have to be put in that kind of situation. And from then on, he doesn't know. He doesn't know because he firmly believes the answer is not to take guns away from people, but now he also believes it's not a good idea to arm everyone, and it's DEFINITELY not any kind of police presence, but then how do you make sure people like Frank are physically safe, and emotionally safe? 

The best answer he has is that physical safety comes first, so, reluctantly, yes, arm everyone. But he's no longer satisfied with that answer so it comes with a whole spiel about, "But other people's safety isn't my concern, so that's something each person should decide for themselves. I'm just going to be here and make sure MY personal ray of sunshine never has to worry about that so don't fucking test me."

Now of course we all know what kind of people usually have those Don't Tread On Me flags and a hard stance on the 2nd Amendment, so where does Bill stand on racism? 

And that's kind of like the immigration and prison abolishment deal. He has no hard and fast opinion of that. Is the government probably inherently racist? Yeah, that tracks. Is life easier for him because he's white? No, that's stupid. Does white privilege exist? No, that's stupid. So you don't believe in the Black Lives Matter movement? And that's where he would shrug and say that he doesn't have an opinion on it, he's not black, he doesn't know shit about what black people experience every day. But enough of them seem to think that there's something they need to push back against, and he very much supports the right to do that, it's not going to turn into reverse racism, because that's also stupid. It's not like they're pushing back against him specifically because he's not doing shit to them. 

The right to protest is an important right to him. Made even more important because cops show up in full riot gear to them, which means the government is scared, and the government should be scared. 

Oh, the people bemoan, but Bill! The the police are there because the protests will turn into riots and looting otherwise!

Yeah, well. If the government listened in the first place, they wouldn't. But Bill would damn well resort to violence too if he felt he had to, and half the time those riots and looting are started by COPS, and also, if all the store owners had guns, there wouldn't be any rioting or looting!

Welfare stuff? 

He doesn't need it, but hey, he might one day, so he had a vague opinion about it. And that vague opinion is that the government is supposed to help people but they don't because they're all Nazis and not helping people keeps them in power. This is why everyone--

--SHOULD HAVE GUNS, WE KNOW BILL. 

--Should learn how to be self-reliant at all costs and not hesitate to break those stupid ass laws about not growing or hunting your own food, because in the end no one can help you but yourself, also yeah, everyone should have guns. 

Basically. Basically. This is a man who hates the government and believes in defending his own so much that it almost wraps around and becomes a weird kind of liberalism. Like, every person for themselves means that every person has the right to do whatever they feel they need to in order to keep themselves and their own safe, just like he does. It's not "go around and shoot everyone" but it's "if someone goes for you or yours, shoot them". And it's fine, because he doesn't plan on going after anyone, so it won't hurt him if everyone is allowed to do that. If someone takes it too far like people sometimes do, he will shoot them, easy peasy. 

Also also. Yes, Bush did 9/11, no the government is not secretly aliens or living off baby blood or whatever, and that Q Anon conspiracy stuff isn't trustworthy, I'm not going to trust shit from some random jackass on the internet who plays favorites with politicians.

And I can just see when Frank and Bill in this hypothetical modern AU get around to talking about political opinions, and Frank experiences the emotional whiplash of, "Immigration detention centers and prisons are bad," followed closely by, "Teachers having guns would end gun violence in schools," followed by, "Cops shoot innocent people and I don't trust them," followed by, "The government has no right to issue mask mandates for Covid and by doing so they're only further proving my point that they're all Nazis," followed by, "But I'm wearing a fucking mask regardless because the only negative side of it is doing what the government says and all the people who have made up reasons for not wearing one have obviously never worn a military grade gas mask for 8 hours straight while working with incredibly toxic chemicals. Your stupid cotton mask won't give you brain damage, Sharon, and neither will an N95, but I'll be damned if I'm going to catch whatever kind of stupid you have just to spite our dumbass government."

Frank sitting there like, "Okay. So all the things you said that pissed me off are balanced by all the things you said that I wholeheartedly support, so... I guess that means I'm neutral about your political opinions? Alright, good talk. I think?"

LDS support gay marriage? 🤔

Lol sorry for the confusion, this is probably about the post to go to a gay family members wedding. In short, No.

But! This does not mean we hate and shun gay people!

“We solemnly proclaim that Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God and that the Family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children” - The Family, a proclamation to the world.

This is the opening line of a document called The Family, a proclamation to the World that the Church released in the 90s to unequivocally state our stance when it comes to families. I’d invite you to read it, it’s only about a page long and really good. The main points are:

- marriage according to Gods law is between a man and a woman

-husbands and wives are to love each other

-husbands and wives are still commanded to multiply and replenish the earth (as far as they are able, obviously the decision if or when to have children is still up to the couple)

-children are entitled, as far as possible, to be raised by a mother AND father

-fathers and mothers are to work together to raise their children in love and righteousness

-fathers primary role is to protect provide and preside, mothers are to nurture their children, but spouses are equal partners and are to help each other in all things.

- gender is an eternal and essential part of Gods plan and our identity (gender later clarified to mean biological sex)

-those who abuse spouse or children will be held accountable before God.

To sum up our beliefs, gay marriage is not marriage before God. We will not perform gay marriage within our temples because it is not marriage. Homosexual acts are considered a sin . This is because any sexual interaction outside of marriage is sin, and if gay marriage is not marriage, then that would be sin.

Homosexual acts and heterosexual acts outside of Gods law are equal sins. I would still go to my cousins wedding even though she had sex before marriage. So I would go to a gay family members wedding too. Because I love them.

HOWEVER, we also believe very strongly that every person on earth is a beloved child of God, given unique gifts, talents and experiences. We can’t know why some people experience same-sex attraction, and we strive to be sensitive to that. I imagine it must be very difficult. Gay people are welcome to join the church and receive all associated covenants and ordinances. But like everyone else, they must keep sexual interaction within Gods marriage (so pretty much we are asking them to be single or magically change their orientation, so I get that it must be very hard, and it’s difficult to imagine dating with no intent to ever get married)

The post I shared earlier was from one of our church leaders urging members to not shun their gay family members. Go be with them on their important day. Go support their milestones even if you don’t agree with the action, because above all, family is the most important. Keep your family close, even if you disagree theologically. Remember that everyone is a beloved Child of God and deserves your kindness.

In light of trying to love everyone while also upholding Gods commandments, you’ll see me post something one day about “marriage is only for a man and a woman” and the next from a gay LDS person about how we need to do better at being kinder to them. It’s a fine line to walk in todays world, but I pray that God will guide me because He is ever just, but also ever merciful.

So, I am going to make my stance very clear on this because I just read a wonderful article (linked below for anyone that is also interested)

Free practice is essential and the argument that F2/F3 has less doesn't make it any less essential. F2 and F3 have always been behind when it comes to innovations, changes etc. as people have always favoured F1 and it's always been a huge problem how those grids had less safety measures etc. The treatment of F2 and F3 has always been horrible especially when you consider they get essentially no way of communicating their wished as they have nothing like the GPDA. They should. Just as they also should have more free practice time.

But in the end, what F2 and F3 has that F1 doesn't is there cars are all much more similar. That still doesn't take away from the fact that they should have more practice but it gives a different perspective on why they don't. Yes set up still makes a huge difference but you have similar comparisons in certain things something that you don't have in F1 because the cars from F1 teams are all complelty different while F2/F3 at least share some similarities. F1 engineering I would argue (and I hope everyone agrees with me) is more complicated than for many other categories and especially when you have such a different car from others, you need more time to test set ups, be sure in strategies etc. to maximise performance.

I definitely agree that F2 and F3 should have more free practice because they also deserve more running time. But the grid is different than an F1 grid.

Another point that he made is sprint races which apparently we have to get into again so here it goes: Sprint races are shit. I don't care that it's an opportunity to get points and I don't care that it might be cool once in a while. If it's on Friday you can make the same argument that goes for Free Practice which is: Who will have time to watch it or rather who wants to watch it? The problem with Free practice is that it falls on a day where many people have work or similar things like university which makes them miss out. And yes I have seen the argument that some fans won't watch it which is totally fan! But do we really think they will watch sprint races? The problem is just like a normal race a sprint race really doesn't do much in terms of positions unless something crazy happens. There's usually nothing to gain from sprint unless a car breaks down etc. I also don't think drivers should get the chance to get a better position before a race if they messed up their qualy. Moving on from that because I don't know why it was brought up and I don't know what relevance it has on this discussion other than being another dumb decision by the FIA which punishes backmarkers who might have had good luck in a qualy.

Jake Hughes (a current FE driver) did a great tweet about what George said that actually focuses on something he criticises. Yes F2 and F3 should get more practice.

No, that doesn't mean F1 should have less.

Also I would not talk about the amount of "extra" races F1 has because that's a whole different problem. The extra races also don't benefit? Every track needs the same amount of practice because they are all different (asphalt temperature, hot temperature in general, possible weather conditions etc.)

So in one line: I strongly disagree with what George said, I don't understand why he said most of those things and Max once again looks out more for his team and driving than most other drivers apparently.

Something I have noticed in the Court decision responses regarding abortion

There is one side that mentions religion a whole more than the other side.

Specifically it is the same side that thinks that abortions are now illegal across the entire nation and that the lives of all women are under attack and anyone against abortion must hold that belief only because they are old white males who want to control all women.

I have literally seen no one since the Court decision became official using any religious argument to support a pro-life view or opinion. But I have seen a good deal of people on the other side claiming that religion is being forced upon them, which makes no sense at all.

I feel this is a great example of something I have seen in the abortion debate for a great while now, and that is the so called pro-choice side refuses to understand the opposing views at all. It seems at this point like it is intentional, I mean how hard is it to understand the argument that an unborn child is a person and should not be killed on a whim? Even if you disagree with that argument I can’t understand failing to even understand the point even half as badly as I have seen pro-choice people do literally my entire adult life.

I can honestly say I have actually never even once seen any pro-choice person even address that argument. The closest they ever get is to say that they don’t believe an unborn child is human, without ever explaining at all how that clearly insane stance is supported by anything other than their own unsubstantiated beliefs, a.k.a. religion.

To me when the vast majority of your responses to an opposing view do not even acknowledge what that view is saying in any way it is generally a good sign that you are either clueless about the topic or you do not have a reasonably or logically sound stance. Of course, we are all too well aware that does not stop many people from holding strongly to exactly those types of stances anymore.

Atheism and dating in the US via /r/atheism

Atheism and dating in the US Hi all! I’m feeling overwhelmed after a date I just had. The following is just a rant on a theme that constantly comes up as an atheist woman trying to date. I naively thought that if I didn’t ask about religion, that I could get over it and just enjoy their company. But I find that even interacting with theists in a potentially romantic way is exhausting. I find myself constantly biting my tongue so as to not offend them. I constantly feel like I give them so much more grace than they give me, and it’s just so draining. For example, my date today had a lot of promise. We are the same age, like anime, cat lovers, and we are both in nursing school. He’s funny, chatty, and seems intelligent. We are also both not looking for anything serious as we are focused on school. But sure enough, he volunteers his belief in Christianity, and that bleeds into conversations regarding COVID and the vaccine and how he wouldn’t have gotten it had he not had to for school. He strongly believes in his right to bodily autonomy. So naturally, I ask if this belief is extended to women regarding abortions. And of course it’s not. Because his decision to not want the vaccine does not directly cause the death of another “person”. He does not see the cognitive dissonance to his stance. We go on and on in circles. I point out that he has literally spent the last several years studying the human anatomy and the science behind it. Specifically the importance of herd immunity and the effect the unvaccinated have on the immunocompromised. So how can he in good conscience tell me his “choice” does not impact or lead to the death of another? How can he be so obtuse towards women’s bodies and claim to still love and respect women, and in the same breath tell me we can agree to disagree and this shouldn’t impact my decision to fuck him or not? It’s all just so exhausting. The way religion causes otherwise logical people to jump through mental hoops in order to justify such harmful beliefs. Because his stance on abortion is so clearly influenced by his belief in Christianity. This idea that a clump of cells is equal in value to the living, breathing human being that hosts it is just so, unhinged. Overall, I just feel disrespected. Is it so much to ask to be treated with the same respect as a hypothetical fetus? No, not the same respect, as a clump of cells should never supersede a whole person. But I suppose with theists, yes, yes it is too much to ask for. End rant. Submitted December 18, 2023 at 03:23AM by YessMartinez (From Reddit https://ift.tt/Ia7hu3f)

Batch 3

Blog Post 1:

Expression through art, Photography:

Photo taken at a local dj set. Lately i've been trying to experiment more with my photos attempting to capture motion or a feeling instead of something still. Would eventually like to branch out into concert photography.

Blog Post 2:

Photography update:

I was able to land a gig at a somewhat popular artists show. Conventionally this wasn't my best picture but still one of my favorites, I was messing around and was able to capture the light blurs which added an interesting effect to the photo.

Blog post 3:

Islamophobia In France

After reading and watching multiple articles and videos on the topic it leads me to question France's stance as a country who claims to be secular and the double standard that is observed in their decision to ban Abayas and bikini's. Some scholars view this situation as an attempt to uphold secular ideals by, but i strongly disagree as I believe this decision infringes upon right to self expression and religious freedoms. To me it comes across evidently as plain islamophobia as it marginalizes the Islamic community in France. Regarding Birkinis there appears no significance difference between the Birkini and a plain wet suit except the name. Had the Birkini been advertised under a different product name I highly doubt it would currently be receiving the same treatment by French officials. I believe they negatively associate any form of Islamic expression with an old fashioned mindset rooted in islamophobia. France is known for its commitment to remaining secular by practicing a separation between church and state. While this attempts to uphold a sense of neutrality by keeping public institutions a space free from any religious influence, it inadvertently imposes restrictions on self expression leading to the marginalization of certain communities.

UCLA UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law Title A Comparative Analysis of European Islamophobia: France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/870099f4 Journal UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, 16(1) Author Abdelkader, Engy Publication Date 2017

Islamophobia in France The Construction of the "Muslim Problem"

Translated by Steve Garner

Abdellali Hajjat and Marwan Mohammed

The Weaponization of Laïcité Against Muslims: Pushing More Towards Extremism Eurocrisis admin By Tanzila Jamal

Blog Post 4:

Perception of Islamic communities through a Western Lens

Blog Post 5:

Self Biblography:

Music - One huge aspect of who I am is my love for different forms of media. I am obsessed with consuming all types of media wether it be books, music, movies, art, poetry, photography any form of media that stimulates me i tend to go deep down the rabbit hole learning all there is to learn about that subject. One of the biggest forms of media I consume is through music. I love all kinds of music ranging from a frighteningly wide range of genres (everything except country), From vapor trap to edm to classical jazz I listen to nearly everything. For me music goes beyond just a catchy melody and some corny lyrics. It shows me a window into another persons soul. Currently my favorite artists would probably be Frank Ocean due to his expertly crafted beats and experimental productions as well as the deepness of the lyrics.

2. Photography

From my previous blog posts you could probably already tell that I am passionate about photography. I inherited my now recently passed mothers camera and ever since refuse to shoot on anything but that. I love the grainy and vintage feel it gives to my images. Sure it may not have the best sensor or the sharpest quality but I still believe its the photographer who gives the phots life not the camera. My favorite type of photography is probably concert photograpy due to my love of music but I have recently been branching out into documentary styles.

3. Fashion

A huge part of how I express myself is through what I wear and I believe i accurately represent my personality through my clothes. When I include fashion I don't simply mean what I wear but also my love for the fashion industry as a whole. Avant Garde fashion is my favorite type of fashion to learn about and I love hearing the creative design processes involved in making such pieces. Rick Owens, Maison Margiela, Rei Kawabuto are some of my favorite designers and brands due to their incredible ability to tell stories through clothes. Most people miss the point of high end fashion and easily fall to criticize higher end fashion garments. Although I do agree some brands are a straight up money scam people fail to recognize fashion is an art and not everything needs to be an everyday wearable article. Most avant garfe peices many a times hold a much deeper symbolism behind them.

https://youtu.be/a6qInn2DOng

So I've left this anon for like a year because I'm always a little sketched out by links in anon asks. (Is it gonna be porn? Is it a virus? What fresh hell lurks behind the url)

But anyway, it wasn't a trick. It was this video:

Not entirely sure if anon just wanted me to share this vid or if they want my opinion...

So here are my not actually that brief but I tried thoughts:

The participants in this video seem to be the sort of people that are common nowadays that call themselves feminists but because feminist has become an identity that means 'person who believes in equal rights.'

Feminism is about action. Not identity. 'Do all feminists think the same?' isn't a helpful question. In fact, this video is interested in mostly asking unhelpful questions.

Also, the fact that the women in the video are very evidently wearing make-up and have manicured, fake nails (rejecting the makeup industry is a pretty minimal feminist action and one that can have its impact multiplied when you do so in a public context like a mainstream YouTube video) makes me a little skeptical that any of the participants are taking too many feminist actions.

"Can men be feminists?" doesn't do it for me. Can men work towards the liberation of the female sex? Yes. But its hard and 99% aren't interested in putting in that work. Do all men benefit from sex-based oppression? Yes. Are some men harmed by patriarchy? Sure. Do men have a stake in ensuring patriarchy remains in place? Yes.

(I don't think men can be feminists because I think the inherent privilege of being male under patriarchy makes it impossible for men to take enough feminists actions to be 'feminists.' But I also prefer to label actions rather than individuals feminist. Men can be allies to the cause. But that's as far as I'll go.)

The one participant kind of nails the problem when saying "I think most men that are feminists are like usually either lazy, virtue signaling, just want to see-- or have access to easy sex." (But yet she does somewhat agree that men can be feminists!)

It does a little bit piss me off that the participants of the video (so-called 'feminists') are 50% 'men'. One of the 'men' - Leon? - is a trans man, which brings the ratio up to 2/3, but still Why is this platform invested in making men (because I think Jubilee would say that their official stance is trans men are men) an equal authority on what feminists think?

For the next question, "White feminist voices are too loud," I think this has always been a problem and continues to be. The way it's phrased is kind of rough because I don't like calling any woman 'too loud.' That's kind of loaded. But white feminists haven't done enough work to make room for women of colour. 'Feminism' usually means 'white feminist' by default.

The sorting of public figures into 'feminist'/'not feminist' is annoying because, like I said earlier, I don't think describing an individual as feminist is meaningful or effective. An action can be feminist. An action can be neutral. An action can be anti-feminist. How many feminist actions vs anti-feminist actions does a person take to be a feminist?

That being said, it was appalling to see 4/6 of the people strongly agree or strongly that Amy Coney Barrett was a feminist. And the other two were neutral. Women can have power and not use it to feminist ends. The fact that she is a role model by being a woman on the supreme court doesn't outweigh her political decisions.

(But good for most of the women for saying JKR is a feminist. Because that's a woman who's consistently taken concrete action to improve the material conditions of women.)

The "Trans women are women" question was kind of funny and predictable. All the AFABs aside from the probably trans man disagree. All the AMABs and the trans men agree. It was a little frustrating to see their opinions being framed as related to general opinions about "the LGBTQ" given that SSA radical feminists are some of the strongest voices against the idea that trans women are women. But not surprised to see that

The telling moment for me was when Leon, the trans men, said, in response to whether feminism should be fighting for trans women, that feminism should be fighting for all genders. That's pretty standard for post-modern pop feminism. But also a useless stance. Feminism is about the liberation of the female sex!

"Every feminist should be pro-choice." OH NO. I mean who's surprised after the Amy Coney Barrett question, but only the trans man agreed. You CANNOT be a feminist without being actively pro-abortion.

(I'm gonna save my annoyance with pro-choice and pro-life as labels for another day. They're inherently obfuscating is all I'll say here.)

Grace "identifies as a pro-life feminist." And part of her problem is that she doesn't think it's right to tell people that they can or cannot identify as feminists based on their beliefs. This goes back to the issue of feminism as an identity but she's taking it to extremes here.

"Menstrual products should be free." Yes. They should. But this seems to be a US video and I don't think that we can expect a country that doesn't provide free healthcare to produce citizens that believe that menstrual care should be free.

(One of the women is concerned that free menstrual products will result in labourers not being paid. Which is kind of a funny pro-capitalist reactionary stance to anything that looks like socialism...)

"Every woman should be a feminist." Grace is once again the 'pro-choice' pro-lifer, believing that telling women they should be feminists is anti-feminist.

Every woman should be a feminist, but women can make individual and incremental gains (ahead of other women, generally not ahead of men) by aligning themselves with patriarchy so it's unlikely that every woman is going to be a feminist. This is why consciousness raising and being in community with other women and girls are so important.

So those are my half-baked thoughts for an anon that probably forgot they'd sent this. Hope this helps nonny

Do you have any thoughts on the whole Techno killing Tubbo at the festival shebang?

I don't fully know all the details, and I know that you're very much one of the sources or die type people, so I was interested to hear what you'd say about it.

Obviously Techno says that he did it due to peer pressure, which, well, a dictator telling you to do something plus a load of voices screaming for blood in your head constitutes some pretty damn strong peer pressure, but for me just brushing it off as peer pressure always felt as though it was downplaying it. It *was* peer pressure, but at the same time did Techno ever go as far as to explain to say Tubbo or anyone else fully about it? It felt a lot like just a welp, it was peer pressure, yup. Nothing more to say about it. Not gonna acknowledge those long term after effects.

Because it's something that I see c!Tommy bringing up a *lot*, especially in the doomsday vod, about the whole "don't forget about the past now" thing, but... it always felt a little unfair of him to blame Techno for Tubbo's death fully there. Yes of course, he pulled the trigger, but Schlatt was the one ordering it.

So that's essentially what my ask is about - was there any other option for c!Techno there? I've seen arguments before saying that he could have chosen not to, but are they valid? Because it feels as though it's more of c!Tommy steering away from addressing Techno's points and tunnel visioning on it.

I suppose I wonder if it's similar to the Techno spawning the original withers situation. The way that I see that event was that Techno really didn't do that much damage by spawning the two withers? Wilbur did a lot of the damage, but since Wilbur was dead Quackity tunneled on blaming Techno and making him pay, a price that I think he would have made Wilbur pay had Wilbur not died. I can't help but wonder if Schlatt was alive he would be the one being blamed for Tubbo's death, or if Tommy would still completely blame Techno for the situation.

TLDR; was it Techno's fault? Does Tommy have a leg to stand on in regards to that?

And a side note: I generally believe that Techno has been justified in his actions, but the one thing that I do think he could do is acknowledge the after effects of his actions on Tubbo. Not necessarily apologise for killing him, but the one thing I don't like is that Techno can sometimes brush off consequences of actions. Like in prison expecting, albeit perhaps jokingly, for Quackity to have just moved on after he killed him. In this specific situation I feel like Techno never acknowledged that Quackity was the one pulling a lot of the strings in L'manburg. I feel it's a little unfair for him to only tar Tubbo with the "government" brush and view him as nothing more than the government, but I suppose that that is just because Tubbo was the president; one would expect that he'd be in charge of making his executive decisions, not letting other people make them for him.

Anywho, sorry this dragged on, it's just something that I've been thinking about lately.

I am so exhausted of talking about the Red Festival so I am not gonna answer this one in detail. My stance on the Red Festival is that the only one to blame for Tubbo's death is Schlatt and by blaming anyone from Pogtopia people kind of give Schlatt what he wanted, which was to saw dissent in the ranks of his enemies. Technoblade felt like he couldn't escape the situation with him and Tubbo alive due to his limited knowledge of the server and his unfamiliarity with his own weapons, and so he didn't attempt to. End of story. Whether his perception of the situation was accurate or not doesn't matter here.

I must say I don't like the "a load of voices screaming for blood in your head constitutes some pretty damn strong peer pressure" argument of it because 1) the voices weren't introduced into the story at that point 2) the violence-inducing aspect of Techno's voices is an ableist trope that I prefer not to bring into analysis unless it's explicitly stated to affect canon. The peer pressure came from the crowd the majority of whom seemed to agree with Schlatt (that's what it seemed like to Techno, at least), not from Schlatt himself or the voices.

However, you bring up some interesting ideas, especially how Technoblade downplays the way he hurt others sometimes. I think that's an actual issue he has. And I do think that part of the reason the Butchers went after Technoblade is that Wilbur, the bigger culprit of November 16, was out of their reach. Although there are a lot of other motives that go into the execution which I won't get into here.

But you also mention some things I strongly disagree with.

"...I feel like Techno never acknowledged that Quackity was the one pulling a lot of the strings in L'manburg" it was impossible for Techno to know that. Even Philza, who was a resident of L'Manburg, wasn't aware of it because he wasn't part of the cabinet. Technoblade was a complete outsider unaware of the cabinet's inner workings, so I don't think it's unfair of him to not consider the possibility that Tubbo's decisions weren't entirely his own. You can't acknowledge something you're unaware of.

I don't think c!Techno "viewed c!Tubbo as nothing more than the government" either. Look at this quote for example:

I’m not saying everyone in L’manburg's a bad person. Tubbo? He might be a nice guy. The problem is that government, power corrupts. You see what Tubbo’s done? Ever since he became president? He’s cast you aside. He’s abandoned his friends. Just to protect his own power.

He didn't view Tubbo as government, it's just that he only disliked Tubbo for his role of president. So of course when he criticizes the guy who executed him, he's going to focus on the fact that he's the head of state, because Techno doesn't think Tubbo executed him out of inherent evilness or something, but because it's what his power made him do.

And that's my piece.

2020 fic year in review

I was tagged by my lovely @khorazir! Thanks, you! 

Total number of completed stories: Three, but two of them were fairly long? I wrote: 

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: John/Sherlock, 50,689 words, explicit, John POV. Set in New York, because I was itching to go there and couldn’t, and setting a fic somewhere is the next best thing. Probably my most political fic to date, this one was a deliberate reversal of the fake-couple-for-a-case trope, aka I wanted to create a setting wherein John and Sherlock become a couple during a case but need to keep it a secret for the sake of the case. So I set it at a massive, anti-gay conference in the US. Naturally. :P 

Sine Nomine: John/Sherlock, 45,626 words, explicit, mostly John POV with sections of Mycroft and Sherlock POV as well. In fact, though the sections aren’t equal in length, it’s symmetrical: it goes Mycroft POV/John POV/Sherlock POV/John POV/Mycroft POV. This story has a dark premise and a particularly dark setting for one section. It’s based on the concept of Mycroft rewatching the footage of John beating Sherlock in the morgue for the hundredth time or so and revisiting the question of whether John had been the making of his brother, or made him worse than ever. He’s definitely come to the latter conclusion, but decides to give John one final chance in the form of a test. John, for his own reasons, makes what Mycroft deems the incorrect choice, and Mycroft basically sends him into a death trap. The setting of this place is officially set in Serbia with indirect hints at events similar to the Srebrenica Genocide in Bosnia, but the actual setting is Syria, which I’ve just spent the past year studying intensely. Putting a slice of that into the dark core of this story, albeit disguised as another place, was strangely cathartic for me. The title, which is Latin for “no name”, is a double reference to the village here, which Sherlock and Mycroft never name, ominously referring to it only as “the village”, both to each other and to John, as well as John’s never-named or owned feelings for Sherlock. This one is close to my heart for a lot of reasons, but most of all because of Syria. Also, the vast majority of the time in my writing, I choose a singular POV and stick to it very closely for the entire story. Choosing to rotate between these three men essentially allowed me to show how they’re all justified in their own decisions here, and to examine the relationships between all three of them. It’s a story about reckonings and eventual, hard-won reconciliations. 

The Secret of Hazel Grange. Sherlock/John, 18,181 words, explicit, Sherlock POV. I’m going to claim that the reason I only managed to swing three fics this entire year is partly that I put another project on hold in order to write this one, lol. This is the third Christmas fic I’ve written and I’m happy with how it came out. It’s also the only story I’ve written that’s explicitly set during this pandemic, and during the second London lockdown, which is eerily similar to the code red lockdown my own city is in, so it just felt right. It’s been a somewhat miserable holiday season for me (so many reasons, including unhappiness at work and an illegally high rent increase that my apartment building is putting through, on top of the pandemic and all of that isolation and all of those cancellations), so writing some happy endings for someone else was pure escapism for me. Hopeful for others, too! 

Total word count: 114,496 words of posted fic. 130,796 if we’re counting my work-in-progress that got interrupted for the Christmas fic. :)

Fandoms written in: BBC Sherlock.

Looking back, did you write more fic than you thought you would this year, less, or about what you’d expected? I wrote about what I thought I expected to be able to write. Right now, I have a full-time job, a part-time job, and then freelance work, all to attempt to make ends meet, so I have very little spare time to write in, unfortunately. So getting over 100k words in is actually somewhat miraculous to me. It feels like not very much when it’s just three stories, but I guess it still amounts to a fair number of words? 

What’s  your own favourite story of the year? Picking favourites is always tough, but for the Syria connection, I’d have to go with Sine Nomine. 

Did you take any writing risks this year? I suppose that going so hard on the whole Republican anti-gay groups thing could be considered “risky” in some circles, but not really hereabouts! LGBTQ+ rights is one of my areas of advocacy (in fact, I’m a founding member of the Rainbow Equity Council at my workplace and spent a crap ton of time this month drafting governance documentation for it), but genocides are the issue that are really closer to my heart, so the Syria connection, even if it wasn’t named outright, could also be seen as a “dangerously” political stance, I suppose. But compared to other writing choices (like Scars, which features actual rape, or any of my Freebatch stuff, or any of the stories where Mary is an overt terrorist (rather than “just” a freelance assassin, lol)), I don’t really think I was terribly risky this year. 

Do you have any fanfic or profic goals for the new year? The first item on the agenda is to get back to work on Nocturne, my WIP. After that, we’ll see. That said, I STILL would like to get back to searching for an agent for my novel, which is strongly based on Against the Rest of the World. I would also like to write that Johnlock cookbook I keep vaguely promising (it would feature recipes from my fics), and in a quirky “other” sort of project, I also wrote a heap of haikus about Republicans this fall that I’d like to see about getting published. Want a taste? Sure you do. I give you: 

Brett Kavanaugh

Brett has a face like

a snarly little hedgehog.

He likes beer, okay?!

Mitch McConnell

Moscow Mitch is a

corrupt turtle who keeps his

balls in his neck pouch

Most popular story of the year? Well, the longer a story is posted, the more time it has to collect hits, kudos, bookmarks, and comments, obviously, so that makes The Four Horsemen the clear winner here. 

Story of mine most under-appreciated by the universe, in my opinion: From this year or in general? :P I often find that my plottiest, most detailed, most researched stories that I personally think contain some of my most thoughtful writing are the ones that get the least attention. For instance, after series 3 aired, I wrote three back-to-back intensely-detailed series 3 fix-it fics (which all, to their credit, do get plenty of attention, though none so much as Vena Cava, the third of the three). Then I wrote a light-hearted, almost-crack porn fic, more as mental relaxation than any sort of literary genius, and that fic - Best of Three - remains my most wildly-popular story of anything I’ve ever written. It used to frustrate me, but now I’m just grateful to have anyone read anything of mine. But along that theme, yeah: the most complex of this year’s stories (Sine Nomine) is probably the one I feel is the least appreciated, but that’s also fine. No complaints here - I’m very lucky to have the readership I have!! 

Most fun story to write: Sine Nomine, for all the reasons I talked about above, though I’d also call this the most emotionally-invested story of mine from this past year. That said, setting any story in Manhattan is always going to be fun, and I loved researching approximately 500 holiday rental properties in various parts of England in order to finally just create my own, aka Hazel Grange, lol. 

Most unintentionally telling story: Ha, well, if you weren’t sure about my stance on gay rights, marriage equality, or Republicans in general, The Four Horsemen should clear that up pretty distinctly, lol! 

Biggest disappointment: Just that I haven’t had more time to write. 

Biggest surprise: Possibly that I felt so able to represent all three POVs in Sine Nomine as equally as I did. By that, I don’t mean being able to write in their perspectives, but rather in presenting their arguments with (I hope) equal persuasion: Mycroft thinks that John’s entire presence in Sherlock’s life has spelled nothing but disaster for Sherlock. He’s arguably not wrong. He decides that John is out of chances, and that he’s justified in being the one to make that call. Sherlock disagrees, hard, and he’s not wrong. John makes the choice he makes for his daughter, not for the choice Mycroft gives him between choosing either Mary or Sherlock once and for all, and he’s not wrong to have done that, or unjustified in wanting to go and demand some answers from Mary, who isn’t dead after all, here. But then I think that their various reasons for reconciliation are all equally justified, too. I hope! Usually when you stick to one perspective, the story naturally gears itself to persuade the reader to identify with that one character and to take their side. Here, I hope I manage to juggle the balance fairly equally. 

I don’t know who’s been tagged in this already, but I’ll tag: @totallysilvergirl, @blogstandbygo, @nade2308, @weneedtotalkaboutsherlock, @hubblegleeflower, and anyone else who writes. 

My professor has shown multiple ASP videos and has always pointed out that even though you may strongly disagree with someone’s stance, it’s still important to hear it. Because it’s giving you the information to make an informed decision on what you believe in. Hearing just one side is not beneficial to anyone. It’s possible to listen and not be in a yelling match with someone you disagree with and think is an idiot(Mike Lee). Letting more people hear his stance, can clarify someone’s position which in turn can get them out of office when it’s time to vote. Yes, I have down right hated some people Chris and Mark interview but I understand doing it. It’s the very foundation of democracy. You don’t have to be rude and disrespectful to disagree with someone whole heartedly.

Again, my issue isn’t with sitting down and talking with these people. It’s when lies and misinformation aren’t corrected. To your point, yes, it is important to always listen to the opposition’s side—this is how discussion, dialogue, and education happens. I personally do that frequently. I engage with a lot of politicians and voters on the other side of the aisle. However, when these people are given a platform to speak and aren’t fact checked when they spew their BS they’re given a platform that people DO buy into and believe. And when what they’re sharing is misinformation or straight up lies, that’s a HUGE problem. 🦎

My newest letter to Romney: 

Senator Romney,

Though I am not a constituent of Utah, I felt it was my duty as a concerned American citizen to express to you the depths of my disappointment upon hearing this morning that you are in favor of a vote for a new Supreme Court nominee prior to the completion of the 2020 election.

Your previous actions standing in opposition of the current administration gave many hope, Senator, that despite party lines there were those of you in the Senate who hold fast to the traditions of honor and integrity. With this single statement you have quickly and efficiently taken away that hope. I am asking that you reconsider that position now.

I would like to remind you of the position of your own party during the 2016, with more than ten months left before that year's election.

At that time, the following was said, and remains public record. We will begin with Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader.

""The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." -  February 13, 2016.

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court." - February 16, 2016.

"[W]hile finding the right person to take the seat [Scalia] occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it's one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle. Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who's on his way out the door...I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision." - February 22, 2016.

McConnell was not the only Republican to take this stance.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): “I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President. Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.): “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.”

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

Yet with less than 45 days until this year's election, the Republican Party seems determined to forget their own words and to force through a vote before November 3rd. Doing so is both hypocritical and irresponsible. Rather than taking the time and consideration that this matter deserves and allowing time to mourn the loss of the Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (may her memory be a blessing), the Senate has declared their intent to rush a nomination and a vote and have sent the American public into turmoil.

I am asking, Senator, that you uphold the precedent set forth by the Republican Party in 2016 by refusing to vote on a new nominee until the completion of the 2020 election and the subsequent inauguration. Give this matter the time and the energy it deserves rather than acting purely on party loyalty.

The world is watching.

Thank you for your time.

Will The Next Cold War Be An Economic One? FIRST HOPE FINANCIAL Several big stories hit the financial news this past week but the real significance of these stories were not discussed anywhere. Number one, the U.S. Congress pushed to file unfair trade practices against China, stating that the Bush administration’s quiet behind-the-scenes negotiation strategy was unacceptable as a tactic to bring economic reform to China. In another story this week, these words appeared - Rather than serve as "an apologist" for China, "I hope the administration will join this team," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters after testifying before the Senate Finance Committee in the second hearing on China's economic and currency policies in two days. This article reported that Congress aimed to pass bi-partisan veto-proof legislation that will force the Chinese Yuan to appreciate against the dollar. American manufacturers have claimed that the Chinese government’s unfair manipulation of their currency has hurt them and their Congressmen are listening. Then finally at the end of the week, this headline appeared in an article: “The U.S. Commerce Department announced sanctions against paper imports from China, the first time in 23 years that U.S. duty law has been applied to imports from that country.” Reporting the above is fine, but what are its implications? Here is my view. For once, I agree that the Bush administration is taking the proper stance and their disapproval of these brash, flag-waving Congressmen is merited. When sending U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and the U.S. Secretary of Treasury Paulson to China only resulted in China defiantly stating that they will not allow another nation to dictate to them how they should run their economy, U.S. Congress should have gotten the hint. Instead, they escalated an already potentially volatile situation with their threats and sanctions this week. Stephen Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley warned Congress that currency valuation was far from being the sole component hurting American manufacturers. He stated that China’s cheap labor costs, burgeoning modern infrastructure and technology and growing investment in human capital and research also have greatly contributed to the burgeoning trade imbalance between China and the United States. Mr. Roach commented, "The foreign-exchange rate is not the answer, in my view. You in the Congress need to ask yourselves an important hypothetical question: How would you feel if you got your way on the Chinese currency adjustment but found that after three or four years the pressures bearing down on American workers had only intensified? As I see it, that's a very real risk that should not be taken lightly.” Although I have vehemently disagreed with Mr. Roach’s past views on other subject matters, I believe that he is on the mark 100% this time and I’ll tell you why. U.S. Federal Chairman Bernanke has already publicly stated that everybody knows that the weak dollar is good for the U.S. government because it makes their debt cheaper and also helps to close the trade gap. So if you don’t think that the U.S. is not guilty of manipulating their own currency as well to serve their purposes then you are living in some kind of economic fantasyland. There are a whole lot of American expats living abroad that would like to see their own government do something to protect the value of their own currency instead of lecturing other nations as to how they should be managing theirs. Furthermore, this event is indeed a watershed event in the ongoing re-structuring of the world’s economies. In the past, colonized nations had bitterly complained to Europe and the U.S. about the harm their economic policies inflicted upon their economies. But now we see a 180% reversal, with developed countries complaining to emerging nations about their policies. But this is almost beside the point when it comes to examining much more significant fallout of an open trade war with China. The reason the Bush administration is trying to negotiate quietly with the Chinese rather than take the more hard-line stance assumed by the U.S. Congress is that they know that the Chinese government holds far more important cards than the valuation of the Yuan, namely the more than one trillion dollars of U.S. dollar denominated assets that they currently hold in their reserves. As I stated in a blog I posted about a week ago to The Underground Investor, the U.S. Congress would be foolish to aggressively alienate the Chinese government with so much at stake. The problems with the U.S. economy are much more a product of past U.S. fiscal irresponsibility than the manipulative actions of the Chinese economy and if the U.S. chooses to try to scapegoat an economic giant like China for their current problems, I believe, as Mr. Roach stated, that re-valuation of the Yuan will not be the answer. Furthermore, it is exactly these protectionist measures that the U.S. is seeking to implement that have hindered emerging markets in the past. Instead of addressing the real reasons behind a lagging economy, protectionist measures many times seek to scapegoat another country’s economic policies for far more deep-rooted economic failures at home. Furthermore, protectionist measures often harbor and encourages domestic inefficiencies to persist instead of encouraging proactive solutions that attack the root of the problem. In fact, if the U.S. Congress pushes through their punitive measures, I can tell you right now that revaluation of the Yuan will NOT be the answer to the problems of the American economy. And despite the fact that offloading massive amounts of U.S. dollars will hurt the Chinese economy as well, there will also come a time when the Chinese government, if pushed far enough, will offload massive amounts of U.S. dollars because their strong economy will be able to absorb its negative effects much better than the weak U.S. economy. And if they do so, the U.S. Congress will have given them the perfect excuse to do something that I believe the Chinese government is planning to do anyway. However, they will be able to do it, save face at the same time, and do it earlier than anyone expects, as opposed to having the global community heap loads of criticism upon them for what would otherwise seem to be a sudden decision that came out of nowhere. Instead of such an action being viewed as the selfish actions of a nation, it will instead by viewed as a reaction to U.S. bullying, and U.S. Congress will have given the Chinese government the perfect out. In this case, quiet negotiations is the proper way because any other way is bound to bring harm to not only Americans in the future, but to the global economy as well. When I have blogged about governments being chronic liars in the past, certainly the Chinese government or any world government is not immune. While the Chinese government has publicly stated that they will not take any sudden actions that will greatly hurt the U.S. dollar, do you really believe that they want to hold a trillion dollars of a currency that continues to lose significant value every year? Trust me, they are planning to get rid of these dollars as soon as economically possible and behind the scenes, they have a plan in place to offload them. Again, I can tell you why punitive Congressional U.S. measures will not coax the Chinese to assume policies the U.S. wants but only anger them. To begin, Japan is on the verge of replacing America as China’s number one trading partner. If the Chinese choose to bow down to American pressure, they would undoubtedly anger the Japanese who have heavily invested in China and would be adversely affected by the Chinese government’s decision to appease the U.S. Congress. Angering your number one trading partner would be even worse than angering the U.S. And this just in, even as I write this blog, in a report originating out of New York: Today, China called the first of U.S. protectionist measures, tariffs on their paper imports, “unacceptable.” China strongly demands the United States to reconsider this decision and correct it as soon as possible," China Commerce Ministry spokesman Wang Xinpei said in a statement on a government Web site. Secondly, I believe that the Chinese government, despite what diplomatic statements they release to the financial press about being concerned not to enact any policies that will cause the U.S. dollar to fall quickly, desire to unload a significant portion of their $1 trillion dollar of U.S. dollar-denominated reserves. The Chinese government realizes that offloading significant portions of dollars, whether it is to purchase oil and natural gas for their state reserves, or the purchase of other assets, will automatically cause the Yuan to strengthen. They are not going to appease the U.S. Congress now and watch the Yuan strengthen and then see this effect multiply as they unload U.S. dollars from their reserves. I believe that this is how the Chinese will eventually allow the Yuan to strengthen – by merely cutting back on their dollar-denominated assets, something that they want to do anyhow. With this potential trade war, it is important to ignore the preening of the U.S. Congress but to consider the implications of their potential actions instead. U.S. Congressmen are no doubt influenced a great deal by their most important constituents, in this case, large manufacturers. However, in this case, it is not the concerns of the large manufacturers that are most important. Here they serve merely as a smokescreen. Sure, large manufacturers are being hurt right now by Chinese imports, but rather than considering this part of the equation which the financial media gives much attention to, it is more important to consider the other side of the equation that is never spoken of in the financial media. Rather than listen to the complaints of the hurt, seek out what t

Also I’ve seen some drama strongly worded posts floating around recently so I figure I should say this so y’all can make the decision that’s best for your mental health...

This blog may not be a 100% RH-free zone. What I mean is that while I probably won’t reblog RH-centric content, I’m not gonna go out of my way to avoid ALL content that includes RH. So if a meme or gifset or old video clip crosses my dash that he appears in, I may still share it. The same goes about posts that include the Vagabond, like crew pics or aesthetic masterposts or whatever. I anticipate I’ll probably be like 95% RH-free, but I cannot guarantee 100%.

If you want me to tag him so you can blacklist those posts, let me know. If you would rather unfollow me entirely, whether because you don’t want to risk something slipping through your blacklist filter or because you disagree with my approach/stance, please feel free to do so. We all grieve and heal in different ways. What works for me may not work for you, and that’s okay! But I know this is still a sensitive issue for a lot of people, so I want to make sure I’m giving ample heads up so you aren’t blindsided by hearing his voice in an old Minecraft clip or something.