You are everything I aspire to be

If parenting has taught me anything, it is the importance of getting down on your hands and knees and teaching not just facts, but love and enthusiasm for the natural world.

This is my son Q and me. I have dozens of photos like this by now, even though he is just two years old.

Every chance I get, I will kneel down with him and show him the little creatures all around us. Especially when they are frogs. He loves frogs for some reason. No idea why.

It is important that we all see this together. It is beautiful. It is magnificent. We are here. It is improbable to the highest degree. It is fleeting, but it is everything we get. And we can get so, so much of it. If we just get our faces into it and really absorb it.

So that's what l'm trying to do here, I guess. Get all of you to join me in the reeds. And I am so happy to have so many of you along for the journey.

Ok like I'm sorry for all the Elias discourse but stepping off from OGlias for a moment I legit saw someone saying it was a mischaracterisation to assume Jonah Magnus was himself a rich white dude which

uh

Let's leave aside for the moment that Jonah Magnus not being wealthy and privileged utterly sucks the meaning of of a lot of what the podcast has to say about class and exploration because hey, that's a matter of interpretation

What do we know about Jonah Magnus (from all statements mentioning his original incarnation)?

1816: Interacts as at least an equal with Albrecht von Closen, who has at least one family estate and an aristocratic pedigree and thus could be expected to be at least middle class if not wealthy. This is relevant because Georgian class was very stratified and cross-class mixing heavily discouraged, 1816 is probably fairly early in Magnus' career, and Albrecht doesn't address him as one would a social inferior.

1818: Established the Magnus Institute, apparently without external funding partners because he's the only one ever mentioned in connection with its organisation and his friends talk about it as his own project; it certainly isn't associated with an existing university or academy as far as we can tell.

1824: not a lot of additional information, except that again Magnus' friends are all moving in wealthy, upper class circles

1831: In a position to hire professionals for Millbank under good terms. We learn more about Albrecht, he's definitely painted as wealthy old money, which continues to speak to this association

1841: reasonably close friends with Sampson Kempthorne, workhouse designer, who expresses the expectation of Magnus agreeing with him about workhouses and the treatment of the poor through work. At this time, Magnus is living in an Edinburgh townhouse, by which I'm guessing we're talking about one of the New Town Georgian 4-floors-plus-servant's-quarters which that name implies. Those aren't mansions, but they weren't where a clerk or shopkeeper would live - they were built for ship owners, lawyers, doctors, the upper-middle and upper classes, and as the name townhouse implies they were generally occupied as one of several estates, with the usual occupants being likely to also have a country place.

Beyond specific statement letters, Magnus largely crops up via his association with his wee gang, all of whom are wealthy upper-middle or aristocracy (Smirke, Rayner, Lukas)

He has the resources and social clout to devote his time to pursuing what is, effectively, a hobby; his interest in the supernatural doesn't bring in much income and, conversely, often costs him to chase up. He doesn't appear to have a full-time job at any point; he works on Millbank with Smirke but he doesn't appear on the records, meaning this is unlikely to be a paid management role. His friends refer to his supernatural work as a hobby or interest, not a job, and make it clear that at least by the 1830s-40s this is his whole life (he's "rattling around with his books and letters") - ergo he does not have a need to support himself beyond that.

He had the resources and funds to, by himself and for his own purposes, not only shape the building of Millbank but also to set up an independent academic institution which is still running 200 years later

Like, is it explicit that he's a rich white man? Not per se. Would all of this information make sense if he wasn't? I suppose it's possible but it's a reach, and one that I'm not sure why you as a writer would make without making pretty clear. To be able to move comfortably in moneyed Georgian circles without being born to money, and to be able to do the things Magnus does without having substantial disposable income - that would be exceptional, and would surely merit some sort of comment.

(I've talked about the race politics of Georgian Britain as relates to Jonah Magnus before, but just to sum up: in a time before the abolition of the slave trade and during massive colonial expansion into Asia, being a British man of wealth and not being white was pretty unusual. We can see this in the description of Rayner; he's very specifically described as Black, but also his Blackness is notable to a contemporary narrator. so again, not impossible for Jonah to be a person of colour, but definitely unexpected and it would be an interesting choice to write that unremarked)

just by way of historical context, as I say, class was very structured and immobile in Georgian Britain for the most part. It was also, as I understand it, much more discrete. Whereas now, the lines between working class, middle class and upper class are pretty fuzzy, in the 1800s they were a lot more clear-cut - the working class worked for little money, had little to no education past basic literacy and numeracy, and the entire household would work; the newly developing middle class made a living through highly-skilled jobs (artists, doctors, lawyers, clerks, shopkeepers, factory owners, shop owners and pub landlords, for example) and would have enough disposable income to buy property; and the upper class/gentry may work (but only appropriate to their station; academia, law or the church, largely, and of course a lot of them in the 1810s made bank from Caribbean plantations and their imports) but substantially they lived off the profits of investments, ownership and estate management, built off heritable wealth. 

There’s a big range of middle class though, although it was a small segment of society. At the bottom end, you have your grocers, pub landlords, shopkeepers, clerks and so on - they probably own their homes and business and have money to buy things outright rather than renting. At the top end, we have some really pretty substantial wealth - we’re talking multiple houses and estates, large-scale business concerns, tens of permanent staff, and only one person in the family needing to work. The difference between upper middle and aristocracy isn’t necessarily in quality of life, aside from blood it’s really just a question of whether the majority of your income comes from work or from investment and property management. So for example, Smirke is upper middle, but very wealthy - he has a career in a high-profile trade, he’s notable and welcome in high society, but ultimately his wealth is dependent on him continuing to get work. Von Closen may have more or less material wealth than Smirke, but his money is old money and he does not work; he’s very much a gentleman of the upper crust. Particularly with Industrial Revolution and the profit that the slave trade and the expansion of the Empire were bringing in for traders, the middle class was abruptly getting a lot richer in at the start of the 19th century and if anything class was getting a lot more discrete - urbanisation and industrialisation meant the poor were getting poorer (and less able to exist outside a monetary economy) and the working rich were getting a lot richer (until of course after a couple of hundred years the upper middle class almost eclipsed the idle class as the Rich and Powerful)

So the gentry/nobles/old money/upper class were the only class whose wealth wasn’t to a high degree reliant on them working, and so honestly being a Georgian gentleman was stultifyingly boring. That’s why so many comedies of manners crop up from the lower end of the upper class - you have to find something to keep you busy and social politicking is something. But it also meant a lot of gentlemen scholars - men with time on their hands and nothing they desperately needed to be doing, who got really into eccentric hobbies and niche interests (like social engineering, or art theory, or the occult, or unpicking weirdly specific theological concepts, or a bit earlier experimenting with light and lenses, or a bit later investigating the origins of species, or getting super into a specific aspect of the classics). The idle rich weren’t the only ones doing academia or research, but they had the time, money and resources to devote to really deep dives into things without much financial use.

So my personal take is that, given that by 1818 Jonah Magnus had the capital, the social heft and the time to found and run an independent academic institution focused on his relatively niche interests, and to do so with enough resourcing that it still runs 200 years later, the safest bet is that he was born a gentleman. At the very least, all the people he socialises with are securely upper-middle or gentry; he has a visible disdain for the poor; he owned substantial personal property by at least middle age (the Edinburgh townhouse); he had the social clout to get involved behind the scenes in a major social architecture project - it seems like the lowest this could possibly place him is mid-to-upper middle class at birth (he could have made that much money from working and lucky investments, but to get into a position where by middle age you can afford to become the Idle Rich, spending all your money and time on an obsessive personal interest, you would need to have started off with at least the capital and clout to get a high-level education and/or make significant business investments (say, buy a series of factories or build a shipping empire). You could make a case that he could work his way up from being born to a middling-middle-class family - maybe a country vicar or a shopkeeper - but friends can I show you some numbers I googled?

In the 1810s, being mid- or upper middle class (fourth or above) meant you were richer than 94.5% of the civilian population. Upper middle and above (like literally every person we know of who had social ties to Magnus except maybe the architects)? Literally top 1%. (well. 1.25%).

The middle class in Georgian Britain was the elite. They weren’t the elite of the elite, but they had money, land, property, staff, clout and privilege. You can’t project the class politics of 2021 onto 1818 (that is, in fact, why pure Marxism still requires an updated reading, bc in even the last 150 years the specific distribution and attributes of class and wealth has changed substantially (although the same people do stay at the top and bottom)). 

I think our perceptions are altered by the worries and perspectives of popular contemporary authors. For example, Austen characters often bemoan their lack of wealth, and are firmly Middle Class, and compared to the upper middle and the gentry they are living frugally and on a budget, but with “cottages” that are often six- or seven bedroom houses with several parlours and one or two servants, plus a town house, and with only one breadwinner per family and enough invested wealth to live entirely off the interest (that’s what the incomes of these characters are), they are living in a degree of wealth that would be unthinkable to 95% of their contemporaries, and it would be fair to assess them as rich by modern standards.

You can argue that Jonah Magnus wasn’t aristocracy. You cannot argue realistically that he wasn’t rich. Not only does that make no thematic or character sense (again, that’s a matter of interpretation, but it seems to me to be Pretty Key to his character that he’s an examination of inborn privilege) but it also makes no contextual historical sense.

Becoming a Nature Interpreter

When I first enrolled to take this class, I wasn’t quite sure what the course would entail or quite frankly what exactly nature interpretation meant. Although I had some idea, I don’t think I really understood the magnitude that goes into preparing and properly becoming a nature interpreter. There are so many variables that all must be taken into consideration; from being accessible to all or as many people as possible, learning styles, historical significance and more.

Photo taken by myself of a sunset at Koshlong Lake, Highlands East, Ontario (2015).

As a nature interpreter, a belief that I will implement is the importance of living harmoniously with nature. To me, living in harmony with nature means living sustainably. When we are living sustainably, we are meeting our everyday needs of the present generation while not compromising the ability of future generations to be able to meet their needs (Ikerd, n.d.). Through sustainability, we as humans, are able to find harmony amongst each other and within our surroundings. Additionally, for the harmonious sustainable ideology to work, the belief that humans are more than one-dimensional but rather multidimensional consisting of physical, mental and spiritual components that are interconnected (Ikerd, n.d.). If the connection between these components is unequal, it can result in the person becoming unbalanced (or not in harmony). This reconnection can be found through the combination of modern science technologies and traditional indigenous beliefs (Wang, 2020). The merger of these two concepts will aid in emphasizing the notion of sustainable development and environmental education while also increasing social productivity from the perspective of production (Wang, 2020). This belief, I believe, is crucial for being a nature interpreter as it demonstrates the significance of nature and that we are not be greedy but rather appreciative of the endless positive opportunities it provides us with.

This image describes some steps on how to become more sustainable within your everyday life. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=sustainable+living+examples&tbm=isch&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA764CA765&hl=en-GB&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjk0uif3NXvAhUO0KwKHcjdBKgQrNwCKAB6BQgBENcB&biw=718&bih=789#imgrc=sfmc9a2NCB2JnM

A responsibility that I believe is important is being inclusive and respectful to the people who are trying to learn. As we learned throughout the semester, either from reading about the various learning styles in week 2 or from ‘unpacking’ our invisible backpack during week 3, no 2 people are the same and there are an array of backgrounds and challenges that people have to overcome in their life’s. As a nature interpreter I would have the responsibility to make sure that I am approachable. When I say approachable, I don’t just mean that people have the opportunity to come and talk to me, although that is important, I mean that the content I am teaching about is approachable to individuals of all incomes and social statuses. I have to realize and acknowledge my privileges and utilize them to assist individuals who are less privileged. However, this is challenge as it has to be achieved as respectfully as possible. This means educating myself through the help of those I am trying to reach out to and listening to them about how and what is the best way to interact with them.

The additional responsibility that comes along with inclusivity is being accessible to individuals who may have different learning styles or who vary in abilities. Again, I have the responsibility to acknowledge that us as individuals differ amongst our preferred learning styles; some are more visual and thrive off of visual aids while others are auditory learners and thrive when able to listen to speakers. By incorporating these various techniques into my interpretation, I have the chance to become more interactive while also reaching larger audiences. At the same time, as I am trying to support the different learning styles, I have to take into account that not all individuals are fully able. This is important when opportunities arise for nature walks or trips out in nature, these challenges must be recognized and overcome with the accessibility of others in mind.

Image retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/using_diversity_and_inclusion_as_a_source_for_humanitarian_innovation

The final major responsibility I have as a nature interpreter is to be honest with my audiences and peers, however difficult that truth is. Nature is an aspect of human’s life that is presently being harshly exploited and destroyed. This destruction is happening in front of our very eyes through the ample examples of hundreds of species becoming either extinct or endangered every day, the deforestation of rainforests, and the loss of marine biodiversity. It is imperative that I education my audiences on all aspects of nature, whether it is positive or negative. It would not be fair to the individuals to solely speak on the positives of nature or solely speak on the negatives of natures, and how this information is told to the audience is important as well. This is a major responsibility as it relates back to the belief of being at harmony with nature. By expressing the good and the bad, with the adult audiences it may allow them to become more aware of their impact and make substantial changes in their lives whereas with children audiences it may provoke consciousness that they have never experienced before. When we are honest it allows for open conversation to happen which can lead to a sense of appreciation within.

The approach that is most suitable for me would be to keep the interpretation fun and interactive. Even though I stated that I have the responsibility to discuss the negatives that are occurring, this can be achieved through a light and interactive manner. When this approach is maintained throughout, it can allow the individuals to have a greater appreciation for the surroundings.

Photo taken by myself of the ocean in Cocoa Beach, Florida (2017)

This class has also opened my eyes to the intense reality of our relationship with nature. As demonstrated throughout the entire semester, nature is remarkably beneficial to humans and provides us with vast opportunities This course has also helped strengthen my own individual relationship with nature, showing me the impact of nature on humanity. But this relationship can become threatened when it is not appreciated or recognized properly, and I have learned through the various different techniques and lessons that come along with our responsibility to educate others on the significance of this relationship. Overall, I believe I am finishing this course a better and more knowledgeable person.

Thank you for the amazing semester!!

Alyssa

References

Ikerd, J. (n.d.). In Harmony with Nature. http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/HARMONY.html

Wang, Y. (2020). Sustainable human development means living in harmony with nature. Retrieved from https://council.science/human-development/latest-contributions/sustainable-human-development-means-living-in-harmony-with-nature/

Love and Longing--A Mitski Playlist

After what felt like an endless summer of sweltering heat and being trapped indoors because of COVID-19, the long-awaited relief of fall is finally here, which means there has never been a better time than the present to take a long walk through the park and listen to the perfect playlist while sunlight patterns the ground and leaves of red and gold flutter in the breeze. If you’re lucky (which I was yesterday) you might see a deer.

But which artist best facilitates the dreamy, pleasant, peaceful atmosphere that is characteristic of the ideal early- to mid-October stroll? For an answer, one must look no further than the beautiful and talented Mitsuki Miyawaki—more commonly known by her performing name, Mitski—an artist whose feminist energy and lyrics about love, longing, and disillusionment create a unique mix of hope and melancholy, determination and uncertainty, empowerment and helplessness in the listener. 

Among the most substantial of Mitski criticisms is that she only writes about boys (or, specifically, about having her heart broken), but that didn’t stop Taylor Swift from becoming an icon and I don’t see why the same logic shouldn’t apply here. Also, Mistki brings new, far more interesting themes to the table, such as the challenges of being Asian-American in a white-dominated music industry, as well as feelings of self-consciousness and inferiority she has experienced throughout her life as a result of her sub-ideal physical appearance. Myself and many others who fail to measure up to society’s sky-high expectations of what women are supposed to look like love and respect Mitski for addressing these types of issues in a world where very few artists do so.  

1.      Real Men (Lush) 

In this song, Mitski addresses the need some women feel to impress the men around them, and how they tie their own inherent worth to a man’s approval. “Though honestly, sir, all I wanna do is get naked in front of you/So you can look me up and down and tell me ‘well done, girl, you’re looking good.’” This song not only talks about the toxicity of society’s expectations for men--always stay strong, never show emotion, always take charge--it also shows how women can wind up feeling like they only have value as long as a man says that they do. 

2.      Happy (Puberty 2, 2016)

“Happy came to visit me/He brought cookies on the way/I poured him tea and he told me/It’ll all be okay...” So begins what is possibly the best Mitski song to date, of course featuring the theme of disappointment in love front and center. The speaker ties everything to her significant other--her heart, her happiness, her reason for living--so when that person leaves her, she feels like she has nothing left of herself. I love this song because it makes me feel like I’m not the only one for whom happiness can never stay. It only comes to visit, and is just as soon gone--like a butterfly on the breeze. 

Side note: the video is very much worth a watch--but only if you’re not squeamish at the sight of blood. I watched it with a friend once and she screamed at the end. All in all--one of the best songs of the decade!

3.      Abbey

What should I do with my life? What am I meant to be? Who am I? What do I want? These are questions I pose to myself again and again throughout high school and even nowadays in college, and I know I’m not the only one. The feeling that you don’t know who you are or what you want, but that you have a void in your soul that needs to be filled--a deep, all-consuming desire to LIVE--is captured perfectly in Abbey. “I am hungry/I have been hungry/I was born hungry/What do I need?”

I think in the twenty-first century especially it can be overwhelming to have the ability to choose whatever you want to be. Liberating, but overwhelming, and at times even crushing, as this song so clearly expresses. Mitski’s voice is so emotional, there is no way not to sympathize even if you can’t relate. 

4.      Your Best American Girl (Puberty 2)

Mitski wrote this song about someone she was in love with, but couldn’t be with because they were “from two different worlds.” The lyrics “Don’t wait for me/I can’t go/Your mother wouldn’t approve of how my mother raised me/But I do, I think I do” make me think of my own non-white mother, who was strict with who I was allowed to spend time with, when, and where. One of the biggest reasons I love Mitski more than any other pop artist today is because I feel I can relate to her more because of her upbringing. She wasn’t privileged, and a lot of her songs--such as Dreaming Costs Money, My Dear--show that pursuing a career in music was a huge risk for her. I can feel her fear that things wouldn’t work out, and I can sympathize with a lot of what she has been to. 

This song means a lot to me.

5. Nobody (Be the Cowboy)

I usually play this song to annoy my mom, because the word “Nobody” is repeated in a get-stuck-in-your-head refrain no less than forty times. According to the artist herself in this interview, “the chorus ‘Nobody’ was literally me in a semi-fugue state on my hands and knees on the floor just crying and just repeating the word ‘nobody.’ And then I was just like, ‘I don’t know. Let me use this pain and exploit it for my money.’

Which is something I strive to do at all times. Mitski is truly an inspiration. 

Bottom Ten Three Houses Characters

I decided after a while that I couldn’t fulfill an anon request to do a top 10 list for the whole series, because it would overlap too much with ones I’ve already done - lord privilege is a thing that exists, and I’ve ranked those before - and because it’s really difficult to compare so many characters (~600 if we’re being thorough) across so many different games.  Instead I decided to go negative with it, although around 2/3rds of these ought to be totally uncontroversial at least in my corner of the fandom. Starting from the one I dislike least:

(Dis)honorable Mention: Anna, for putting in such a lackluster showing that she doesn’t deserve a spot on this list despite technically being in the playable cast. It’s not only the lack of supports, although that hurts, but also how obvious it is that the writers have no new material for her. Anna’s gimmick worked fined when she was an NPC and perhaps for the space of a single game as a playable character, and Fates originated the meta idea of making her paid DLC so you have to shell out real money to use her, but that’s the extent of her here too. As a unit she’s far from spectacular, and her paralogue isn’t even good for much but a ton of (mostly mediocre) drops and a tiny bit of context for that Pallardó guy from non-CF Chapter 13. Here’s a revolutionary idea: for the next original FE it might be good to have Anna back to being only a wacky dimension-hopping NPC shopkeeper.

#10 Constance - It pains me that she’s on this list, more than anyone else by far. I really wanted to like Constance, and at first glance she’s right up my alley as a haughty impoverished aristocrat coping awkwardly with her diminished status. I like the dark flier class she’s built around, and her default personality is an even louder pre-timeskip Ferdinand whom you know I love. However, it’s that “default personality” bit that sours me on her, because she’s got two of them. What could have been an interesting take on Constance’s struggles with identity and self-esteem in the wake of her family’s disgrace is presented in such an over-the-top comedic manner that it’s impossible to take her very seriously. It’s more reminiscent of FE13′s Noire than anything, and at least she has the excuse of a mother who performed dark magic experiments on her and fractured her psyche. Constance also supports Jeritza and yet somehow they do no more than lightly allude to their personality issues which is as much a missed opportunity as you can get with such a terrible character (see below), opting instead to try softening Jeritza with his fondness for roses. Lovely.

#9 Leonie - Fandom exaggerates her Jeralt fixation, although it does pop up at the worst times (see: her Byleth support right after his death). As I’m not very concerned with Byleth’s nonexistent feelings though this placement more comes down to general indifference. Leonie feels completely disconnected from the rest of the Deer, and although she’s a supposed reflection of the house’s more egalitarian bent there’s nothing connecting her to the politics or larger culture of the Alliance until you learn about her student loan debt. She really is best understood as a Jeralt fangirl first and foremost, which is why perhaps the most surprising thing about her is when reality comes knocking in her endings and it turns out she picked up her mentor’s vices as well. Jeralt himself would be even further down this list were he playable, but as he isn’t I’ll have to settle for side-eyeing all of his adoring fans. Which brings me to....

#8 Alois - Remember that dating sim Dream Daddy that people were talking about a few years ago? The one that willfully misunderstands what the term “daddy” means in gay male spaces to write fluffy dad joke-laden romances intended for a presumably not-gay audience? Alois is the spirit of that game personified as an FE character, which is not something I ever would have thought to know that I didn’t want. He’s got some funny lines here and there, but that’s the most you can say about him when otherwise he’s just passable midgame filler (of a unit type each house including the Wolves already has one of) standing in Jeralt’s imitation Greil shadow. I don’t even mind the platonic S support all that much because it’s still only Byleth, but it occurs to me that just about the only thing that would have made Alois memorable would be if his S support was romantic but he remained married to his wife. I can’t think of a time when this series has allowed the player to indulge in adultery, so even if it had been limited to an option for f!Byleth it would have been a fascinating option.

#7 Cyril - This isn’t about his devotion to Rhea, which is fully understandable given his circumstances. Nor is it about his performance as a unit which in my experience at least is actually rather good for a Donnel/Mozu-style villager archetype. No, what gets me is that he’s a self-righteous workaholic which makes for quite the grating personality trait. I understand that he finds meaning in his work and that he’s got some entertaining supports calling other characters to task for their terrible work ethics or ignorance of the lives of commoners (VW should have really dug more into his back-and-forth with Claude), but the lectures on not interrupting him or telling Byleth to get back to work are as tiresome as they are frequent. It’s petty I know, but one can only hope he grows out of it eventually. At least he doesn’t wear a pot on his head....

#6 Mercedes - Like Constance, she’s the type of character I wanted to like from the start. She’s pious pseudo-Catholic clergy, with a quirky thing with ghosts and some quiet lesbianism with her BFF that I can take or leave but that I know some people really enjoy (and also she’s bi-for-Byleth, but no one talks about that). Unfortunately as I touched on when talking about Marianne in my Top 10 characters list, Mercedes’s appealing points are sharply contrasted against her more annoying ones. The breathy voice acting I can mostly get used to, but her backstory is unnecessarily convoluted - three families and two flavors of evil adoptive father - and as is also true of Constance her association with Jeritza drags her down a fair bit. To this day I still have no idea what we’re meant to make of the Lamine siblings’ dynamic, but Mercedes’s eagerness to overlook her brother’s crimes and unrepentant bloodlust so she can coo over what a sweet boy he is deep down say some pretty odd things about her personal moral code. Maybe it was implied all along with the paranormal fascination that she’s not as orthodox as she appears to be, but the dissonance is real especially in CF where she gets a support line with Jeritza that tries to woobify him and affirms how much she loves him...and meanwhile in monastery exploration she’s wringing her hands over how much she hates the idea of fighting Faerghus and the church. There’s no through line here, and as justification for characters siding with Edelgard go this one is pretty flimsy.

#5 Gilbert - Similar to Cyril, I don’t dislike Gilbert for the reasons that most of the fandom does. Yes, he’s a crappy father, but as I’m pretty indifferent to Annette and to father-child bonding in general I can appreciate the fresh spin he places on the archetype of the devoted knight. In short, he’s a knight who wasn’t devoted and ran away from his duty, and his arc in AM is all about making up for his past failures both to his family and to his liege. This is an angle to knighthood FE doesn’t delve into often, and it makes him an explicit foil of Dedue as explored in their supports. The reason that Gilbert is on this list though in fact has more to do with that opposition, because I am painfully aware that had AM not killed off Dedue by default in service of self-insert romance Gilbert would not have had to be scripted as Dedue’s replacement both as a unit and as a retainer figure. It’s not his “fault” of course, insofar as one can ever blame fictional characters for the actions of their writers, but whenever I’m running AM and have to take those randomized supply run quests from Gilbert instead of the route’s actual retainer I’m reminded of how we were robbed of power couple Dimidue (in AM anyway - CF of all routes delivers on this point). Gilbert could have been father of the year to Annette and freely given Byleth his (grand)daddy dick and it still wouldn’t overwrite the fundamental problem that Byleth screwed over all three AM-exclusive characters in different ways. As to that, well...look at #1.

#4 Raphael - It’s hard to describe just how much wasted potential there is to this guy. Along with Ignatz and Leonie he could have illustrated the greater social mobility of the Alliance and the increased opportunities non-nobles enjoy there, but all three are mostly side characters. He’s repeatedly positive in the face of tragedy and remains motivated by his love for his remaining family, but 90% of his dialogue revolves around either eating or training to the point that he’s arguably the closest FE16 comes to gimmick character writing (something almost every FE is guilty of, but that has come under heavy scrutiny in recent years because of how much Awakening and Fates used it). He has a sweet friendship with Ignatz with even a bit of chemistry that sits in good company with the kind of simply affability he has with almost everyone he supports, but they have a no homo ending involving one of the game’s eternally offscreen characters. He supports Dimitri, but the bara content is thin on the ground and their line stands out as easily the least substantial of the house leaders’ cross-house supports. Even as a unit he’s lackluster, in the same repetitive category as Alois with nothing that makes him really stand out from the other axe-and-brawling guys. Highest HP growth in the game...whee. I’ve seen arguments that Raphael’s simplicity is the source of his charm, and while I can sort of see that he feels like he belongs in a game like the GBA or Tellius titles where characters have a much smaller amount of overall content to their name. In a game like Three Houses the sheer torrent of lines about food and training wear thin quickly.

#3 Bernadetta - see #8 here. To sum up, she’s annoying, her sex appeal falls flat with me and is frankly just kind of confusing, it bugs me that a significant portion of the Ferdibert fandom headcanons her as Hubert’s bestie when the man clearly does not do besties, and the most positive thing I can think to say about is that based on her habit of befriending known murderers among other things she might be a bit of a sociopath. That’s not very flattering, but at least it’s somewhat interesting. Oh yeah, and Edelgard setting her on fire at the Gronder rematch is good for a meme although I suppose that isn’t technically attributable to Bernadetta.

#2 Jeritza - Jeritza sucks. Everyone, apart from the small number of fans into Bylitza for some reason, is aware that he sucks. He’s a bloodthirsty serial killer we’re meant to like because he killed his father to protect his sister and also because he likes ice cream and kittens...and because he’s clearly mentally ill in some way and Edelgard is weaponizing his illness for her war which means all the murder is okay, I guess. Jeritza is like FE7 Karel if he was somewhat important to the plot and that instead of a redemption arc between games he got Karla and some other characters swearing that he’s really sweet deep down and also he can romance the male self-insert - yay. I love the line of thinking sometimes espoused in anti circles that M/M Bylitza is the only non-Problematic™ Byleth ship because he’s their only gay romantic S rank partner who’s not one of their students, a loli, or Rhea who is obviously the most evil character in the game. As I’ve mentioned above Jeritza also makes other characters he supports worse by association, although he’s not quite as bad in that regard as #1. Do I even need to bring up the painfully affected voice acting? It’s ironic that the vocal director for the English localization turns in unquestionably the worst performance among the named cast, and I have to assume he picked the role for himself solely because he sounds like an imposing Death Knight and not because his voice is at all suited to the troubled twunk underneath the armor. Just about the only thing that would have salvaged Jeritza for me would be if he and Hubert got to have an epic competition to determine once and for all which of them is more evil. Hubert would wipe the floor with this poser.

#1 Byleth - see here at the bottom. They fail as a self-insert, they fail to be a properly realized character even more than previous Avatars, they damage other characterizations and arcs all over the place, and Three Houses overall would have been vastly improved if they didn’t exist or at least weren’t the PoV character. In that previous post I listed just two reasons why I still prefer Byleth to Robin as an Avatar, one being that their significance to the plot is set up before the game even begins and the other being that their lack of a voice makes f!Byleth a less obtrusive presence when it came time for me to have her S rank all the guys to fill out the support log...not enough to where I could treat her as a self-insert, but any amount helps. I do however have to add a third small bit of praise for Byleth, in that they apparently drive antis up the wall for the most asinine of reasons which is always entertaining to witness. I recall when this game’s school setting was first revealed that everyone in the fandom nodded their heads and made the easy prediction that there would be teacher/student sex because that’s just how FE rolls, but somehow still there’s outrage over it. Even so, Byleth is horrible by every significant parameter, and it’s a shame we’ll only be able to imagine what FE16 would have been like had the developers not felt the need to write the whole thing around an Avatar.

It was a real privilege to not only attend but have the incredibly high honor to speak at Blend Fest this past year. Such a humbling experience and one of the highlights of my career. Since giving my speech so many people have reached out to me asking for advice & tips on public speaking. I’m no expert by any means but I wanted to peel back the layers & share an in-depth overview of the process that went into putting my speech together.

When the Blend team reached out in February asking me to speak, I of course, said YES! And then promptly proceeded to get to work. I wanted to get started right away because I felt a strong obligation to rise to the occasion & deliver a great product that was worthy of the amazing conference that is Blend. It was incredibly exciting yet incredibly nerve-racking putting this speech together. Symptoms of impostor syndrome were present throughout this whole process but the one thing I took comfort in, was knowing that this wasn’t my first Rodeo. I’d been teaching since 2014 & I’d done 4 talks in the last two years, all leading up to this grand moment. Even though I had 8 months to prepare for this speech I wanted to get started right away because I knew a deadline 8 months away would be easy to procrastinate on. I also knew from the beginning that I wanted to memorize my speech so the earlier I could get it done the more time I could have to practice, revise, & refine my speech. The very first thing I did in preparation for my talk was to start being more observant of the world around me. It just so happened that I was attending Motion Plus Design LA only a week after learning I would be speaking at Blend. So I used this conference to do field research & take notes. I took notes on what captured the audience, what didn’t, what was well received & what wasn’t. The big take away I got from all the talks was that vulnerability really resonated with the audience & made the speaker relatable. Any personal experiences you can draw from to help emphasize the point your making really landed well with the audience. And not taking yourself so seriously was something I noticed worked well on stage as well. Once I got started drafting up ideas & concepts for my speech I decided NOT to start completely from scratch. Instead, build upon past topics I’d given that I knew resonated with audience members & leaving behind the topics that didn’t. That meant taking some of the most successful parts from my F5 Speech as well as my talks at Otis College & Hyper Island. Now a strong part of me wanted to just stop there, take the “Don’t Mess with Success” approach knowing that I already had a solid foundation. But one thing I’ve learned is that past success doesn’t guarantee future results. There’s always room for improvement, I really wanted to push myself on this one, do in-depth research, educate myself more on certain topics & come up with new material that I haven’t presented before. Like I mentioned earlier, I wanted to deliver a unique product that was worthy of Blend. Recycling old material with little revision would save me A LOT of time, effort, & stress but would be the lazy route. One thing about me is that I stubbornly like to do things the hard way. I recently read in Ryan Holiday’s book The Daily Stoic, that you can often find comedians doing small sets at local bars in LA & NY. Well established comedians are constantly testing out new material on local audiences to see what jokes land & what jokes bomb. By the time you see a famous comedian on stage doing their big tour & Netflix special, they are already well prepared because they’ve done a countless number of small gigs refining their material along the way. I share this story because I wanted to use this same approach in preparation for my Blend Fest Talk. I intentionally signed up to be a guest speaker at a Local LA meet up called “Creative Neighbors” in July. I wanted to force myself to have the first draft of my Blend Fest Speech ready to present at Creative Neighbors & use this small intimate environment as my testing ground for some of the material I was writing.

Speaking of comedy, we all know the quickest way to win over a crowd during a speech is to get a few laughs in. I’d be lying to you if I said I didn’t want my speech to be as funny as possible. From my own personal experience, I’ve found that the most memorable talks were the ones that made me laugh the most. Knowing myself, I knew that making my speech funny would require ALOT of work. I must have listened to 2 or 3 standup comedy specials a week in the span of 9 months. Studying not only the material but the delivery & the stage presence of comedians. Some people came up to me after my speech & said that I looked like Hassan Minhaj with my hand gestures which is funny because I definitely tried to mimic his enthusiasm on stage. The more I studied comedy the more surprised I was to learn how formulaic jokes can be. Lots of jokes follow a format that is recycled but just repurposed to align with each individual’s experience. The Call Back Technique probably being the most popular example of this. I tried to use some of these formulas I was learning to write my own jokes based off of my own personal experiences. I even learned that the truth alone isn’t always funny, sharing an exaggerated version of the truth for the sake of storytelling is commonplace in comedy & was definitely a technique I used in my speech. Once I had the blueprint laid out for my speech it was time to rehearse. One thing I failed to do in my talks prior was leave adequate time to practice my speech & it definitely showed. This time around I wanted to have more confidence & stage presence & not rely heavily on my speaker notes like before. I knew taking this approach would require more work of course but again, I wanted to deliver a product worthy of Blend and the many heroes of mines which would be in attendance. So memorizing as much of my speech as possible felt like the right thing to do.

One thing I learned in this cyclical process of rehearsal, revise, refine, was the way that you write & the way that you talk are two completely different things. If you’re writing the script for your speech you have to write it in a way that you would talk, sounds obvious in theory but proves harder in practice. A lot of the refining of my speech was centered around making the scripted part of my talk as conversational as possible. This conversational aspect I kept tweaking all the way up until the night before my speech. It's a weird phenomenon but you don’t really know what your speech sounds like until you rehearse it out loud. The last thing I wanted to do was to sound like I was reading to the audience or giving a lecture. I had to get out from behind the podium and actually speak to the audience as much as I could.

I learned some amazing tips from David JP Phillip’s Ted Talk about Public Speaking. David educated me on the power & influence you have just with your voice & body language. For instance, changing the pace of what you are saying can increase focus, lowering the volume of your voice creates anticipation & strategically placed pauses generate undivided attention. In public speaking, it is said that body language accounts for approximately 55 percent of communication, voice tone 35 percent, and words 10 percent. This was incredibly enlightening for me and a strategy I incorporated throughout my speech. During the times of my talk that I was reading from my script, I would put certain words or phrases in ALL CAPS to indicate raising the volume of my voice to emphasize a certain point & prevent a monotone sounding dialogue. And I would put multiple periods between words........to indicate longer pauses.  I've never memorized a speech before so I looked to the internet for some creative tips to help me besides the typical brute force method. I've come across multiple articles that reiterate a common theme when it comes to memory, our brains are really good at visualization. We remember pictures of things that are meaningful way better than we remember abstract concepts. If we attach a meaningful image (or drawing) to a concept we're more likely to recall that memory later on. I used this method to help me memorize my talk by drawing symbolic images on index cards to help me remember the first 9 minutes of my speech. The goal going in was to have my whole speech memorized but I only got to 11 out of the 20 minutes down (first 9 & last 2). Even still memorizing half of my speech was a major accomplishing I'm definitely proud of, especially considering the fact that I'd never done that before. I was able to get that much memorized because I dedicated the last 3 weeks leading up to my talk to practicing around the clock.

I was very surprised at how well the talk was received at Blend. I knew I had some solid material but I would have never guessed how much of an impact my talk would have on so many people at the event. It's incredibly humbling because hearing all the positive feedback made all the hard work that went into this speech so worth it. Some people went as far as comparing my speech to a Ted Talk or a sermon on Sunday, which is some of the highest compliments I could ever receive. Leading up to it, I was incredibly afraid because throughout this entire process I was completely out of my comfort zone. I knew I was taking a big risk by stepping away from the podium & in doing so removing my safety net, but it was so rewarding being able to deliver a speech that I knew I was capable of. I’m definitely not a natural when it comes to public speaking. I’m an introvert by nature so I had to really tap into an alter ego to deliver this prepared speech. If I looked comfortable on stage its largely due to the fact that I put a substantial amount of time, effort, research, & practice into my talk. 

You can catch some highlights from my talk here on my Instagram stories. If you weren't able to attend Blend but you're still interested in seeing a recording of my talk then email me, I'll set up a private screening for you.

Discussing Mr. Paracelsus, Who Are You?

daisymum: “Okay, now that I'm sitting down with the time to write something substantial, my mind draws a complete blank. (Doesn't it always work like that?)

“Anyway, I'm a big Michael Rennie fan & came across this VHS tape of mystery. The guy that found it originally picked it up at a used book sale because it was labelled as a Sherlock Holmes spoof. It's a pristine example of classic late 60s camp and a complete tour de force for Dean Stockwell. He plays a milquetoast undergrad in turn of the century Boston who gets possessed by an immortal 16th century alchemist. Horrors! Stockwell goes from being completely virginal to an out of control seducer (and sorcerer nonetheless) while vamping his way all around the town, in a blink of an eyelash. ‘He's either drunk or been smoking hashish’ is how one character describes him. (How's that for a subtle drug reference?) He kidnaps orphans & sells them into slavery! He marries his fiancee & makes a less than honest woman out of his secretary! He snows his parents & then trys to take over the board of directors at his father's life insurance company! He casts spells using various potions & other nefarious means to further him along his path of complete & total local domination! ‘It's a bit beyond the long arm of coincidence, wouldn't you say?’, is how Michael Rennie's character describes it.

“Michael Rennie himself is terrific & gets to do things you normally wouldn't associate with him, but he's very very good at it nonetheless. He plays a Sherlock Holmes-type professor with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and then later he gets to don several different disguises while spying on Our Villian. The comedic timing is dead on perfect & they obviously had a lot of fun filming it. I strongly believe it was filmed sometime between 1966-68. It's very high camp, in a good way, and Screen Gems spent some money on filming it; there are relatively elaborate sets and costumes, exploding glue factories, dangerous battles to the death, etc. A lot of work went into the production & I wonder why it was shelved. The pacing of the plot is a trifle uneven (when they try to cram in a little too much of the plot into one scene instead of spreading it out over several scenes. That's not a very good description, but if you've ever watched Lost In Space you know exactly what I'm talking about), but it's nothing out of line for what was being broadcast at the time, and could have easily been remedied. In fact, it holds up remarkably well...it's an incredible lot of fun, lo, these almost 40 years later. And like I said, the comedic timing & the overall acting both are perfect as perfect can be. I really do wonder why nothing ever came of it.

“Anyway, most of the credits are missing so not a lot is known about the production. The names on what remains of the credits are all from Screen Gems, which was in high cotton back in 1966/7, with Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, The Flying Nun, and especially The Monkees all currently in production & making them a ton of money (and a good deal of money was spent on this as well). Like I said earlier, the dialogue is straight out of Batman, and liberally peppered with drug references galore. I've been searching Variety beginning at the end of 1966 for any kind of information, but no luck yet. Harry Ackerman, the producer, was mentioned several times as one whose fortunes were on the rise, and the pilot viewing season for the network executives had ended in March of 1967, and there's no mention of it there either. So maybe it's from the Summer of '67, perhaps? Does anyone know what Dean S. was up to in the Summer of Love? His hair on the tape is a little long (think Victorian mod), so maybe it does date from somewhere around then? What do you guys think?”

daisymum: “Anyway, if you like Dean Stockwell, you're going to LOVE this. He's prominently featured in the entire thing & spends his time possessed for the most part. He sashays his way around the sets, kind of like a vampish Ellis Dee from The Producers, I kid you not. He pulls it off, though, & the whole thing is really fun to watch.”

Jill: “Well, I have just had the privilege of watching Dean in the tape of 'Professor Queed' and what a treat it was! (thanks, daisymum!). Dean hams it up outrageously in Top Hat and a Cape -- I swear, I haven't seen him act up like this in anything else other than Quantum Leap – and I've seen a lot of Dean in a lot of stuff. In fact, it's a bit disconcerting -- there is all of the comedy schtick from his turn on QL, but in a very young and agile man's body, as he leaps and twirls all over the place. This is not the cool demeanor of Wilbur Whately of Dunwich Horror (which is another over-the-top performance, but not purposefully comedic), nor even the weirdness of the Werewolf of Washington. This is more like "Dave" in Psych-Out. If that director had told Dean Stockwell and Jack Nicholson to REALLY play their parts in Psych-Out for maximum goofiness -- well, then, 'Professor Queed' might have been the result -- provided, of course, that we change Haight-Ashbury into Edwardian times.

“And the dating of this film, which looks very much like an unaired TV pilot, as daisymum said previously, is truly a mystery. Because – Dean supposedly wasn't acting for 3 years (in some interviews, he even says 5.....). And yet, 1966-67 really seems to be the date of this show. Daisymum is thinking late 1966, and I think she's more right than she is wrong.

“1965 is too early, because this isn't the Dean Stockwell of Rapture. Besides, his hair is a bit too long in the back in 'Professor Queed.' Not a lot, but the waves are there at the nape of the neck. His face is very much like 'Dave' in Psych-Out (1968), though not much like the 1968 photo we have of Dean from a UK television show of '68 (where he has a mustache and sideburns). I COULD say it's 1968, like I originally thought........but the film quality itself says earlier than that. It just doesn't look like a 1968 TV pilot to me.........it looks a tad bit older than that.

“Okay, here are my clues, Daisymum (and the rest of you can play along, too). One BIG thing I noticed..........the sound effect when Dean performed 'magic' was the same as when Samantha twitched her nose on 'Bewitched.' And this was produced by the same person, I believe? (Harry Ackerman). So we're at Screen Gems, on ABC. Bewitched first broadcast in color during the 1966-67 season.

“A young Juliet Mills is in the cast. I didn't know if she made TV appearances before 'Nanny & The Professor' of 1970, but upon looking her up at IMDb.com, I noticed she started doing American TV appearances in 1965.

“When I was watching this film, I felt that it was influenced by 'The Great Race' (1965) and 'Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines' (also 1965). I definitely see the villain of The Great Race (Jack Lemmon) in Dean Stockwell's performance. Since it always takes TV a year or two to get on the bandwagon of a popular trend, that would put this Edwardian pilot in 1966 or 1967 (with a nod to other popular Edwardian films of that decade - 'My Fair Lady' -1964, and 'Mary Poppins').

“What this means to my 'timeline' of Dean's life...........well, it could mean that Dean had not completely 'dropped out' of acting for 3 years, as is often claimed. And this performance was much more than just 'making money to put groceries on the table.' This pilot required a lot of effort on Dean's part.

“By the way, as much as I like it, I can also see why this pilot didn't sell. The campiness isn't crazy enough to be laugh-out-loud funny, but if you take it seriously it will make you shake your head and go "huh?" In fact, I need to watch this film several times before I truly understand the story -- and even then, I'm not sure I'll completely get it. Also, Dean was the 'guest star,' so I assume the series was meant to showcase Michael Rennie, not Dean. But Dean is in the film so much, that it ends up being about his over-the-top insanely portrayed character, and you can't sell a series on that much weirdness from a guest star. I don't think.” 

[Me: For what it’s worth, I’ve narrowed down the timing for the filming of this to the first half of 1966.]

On June 19th  1566 King James VI was born  at Edinburgh Castle.

The only child of Mary Queen of Scots, it was a difficult birth for her, and her son was born frail.  Rumour soon spread which would haunt James for the rest of his life. The first of these rumours was that James was not Lord Darnley's child but Bothwell's. This can be dismissed by the fact that at the time of his conception, Mary was still infatuated with Darnley, and by the child's resemblance to his father. Secondly, there is a theory that James actually died at birth and was replaced by one of Erskine, Lord of Mar's child. This is substantiated by the remains of a baby skeleton found within the walls of Edinburgh Castle in the 18th century. This again is highly unlikely.

James was baptized Charles James in a Catholic ceremony at Stirling Castle. It is not unusual for monarchs to take another name when they ascend to the throne, the last case being King Robert III who was baptized John but  thought it was an unlucky name as evidenced by John Balliol, King of Scots. 

At the baptism were representatives of the French king and the Duke of Savoy who were the Godfathers and the Countess of Argyle, who attended in lieu of Queen Elizabeth, acknowledging she accepted being godmother to the Prince. 

The next year in June the Protestant lords rebelled.  They had become increasingly unhappy with Mary (James’ mother) after her marriage to Bothwell. They arrested and imprisoned Mary in Lochleven Castle where she was forced to abdicate the throne of Scotland.  James, was only a year old when he became James VI, King of Scotland.

Because of his young age a regent was appointed to act as head of state.  In fact, during his minority a succession of regents were chosen to rule in his stead.  The first regent was Mary’s half brother, James Stuart, Earl of Moray,  Upon the Earl’s death in  1570, Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox, who was James grandfather, became the second regent.  His regency didn’t last very long, as he died in 1571.  The third regent was James’s guardian, John Erskine, the first Earl of Mar whose regency also didn’t last long, he died in 1572.  The fourth and last of the regents was the very powerful James Douglas, Earl of Morton. Douglas survived long enough to see James reach an age to which to ruled himself, however he was later executed in 1581 for his part in the murder of the King’s father Lord Darnley. 

In spite of the catholic baptism James was brought up in the Protestant religion. He was educated by men who had empathy for the Presbyterian church. His marriage to Anne of Denmark, a protestant country, no doubt pleased his Protestant subjects.

James was considered to be an intellectual and did write several books. The most famous, or infamous was on witchcraft. He also foreso that smoking was an unhealthy practice writing it was a “A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the the pit that is bottomless.”   Without a doubt, James did not like smoking and made it quite plain what he thought about the “loathsome” habit!

Another interesting writing was The True Law of Free Monarchies in which he states that “the sovereign succeeds to his kingdom by right from God.”  He believed that subjects owe absolute obedience, and that his rights as sovereign could not be attacked nor limited. Though he believed in the divine right of kings his Parliament most definitely did not.

He authorized a translation of the bible which is now known as the King James Version.

James married Anne Oldenburg of Denmark on 23 November, 1589. Anne was the daughter of Frederick II, King of Denmark and Sophia von Mecklenburg-Gustrow. It is said that Anne and James were at first quite close but after several years of marriage they drifted apart.  They had quite a large family, eight children in all, of which only three survived.  In fact, after the death of their daugher Sophia, Anne and James lived apart.  Anne, eventually converted to Catholicism.

On 25 July, 1603, in Westminster Abbey, James and Anne were crowned as monarchs of England.  The two kingdoms were now united under one crown. However, they were in fact, two separate kingdoms each with their own legislatures and own administrative bodies.  Being under one crown, they could not go to war with each other, they could not take opposing sides in foreign wars.  Nor could they make any hostile agreements.

James misunderstood the differing powers of the two parliaments and conflicts arose especially in the areas of taxation and religion.  There were also diametrically opposite opinions on Spain. England adamantly believed Spain to be its enemy and, therefore, a country to be defeated.  On the other hand, James believed in resolving differences with Spain, he preferred to talk of peace rather than going to war. 

He had enough troubles at home without picking fights abroad, these included,  the anger of Roman Catholics, resulting in plots to remove the King.  One such plot was the Gunpowder Plot another was the Bye Plot.

A Catholic uprising in 1588, and a conspiracy in 1600 led by John Ruthven, Earl of Gowrie.

He wanted  free trade between Scotland and England but it was denied. His selling of honors and titles to shore up the debt-ridden treasury. His dissolution of the second Parliament called the Addled Parliament whose purpose was to obtain new taxes.  Ultimately, this Parliament failed to pass any legislation and failed to impose taxes.  After the dissolution he ruled for seven years without a parliament.

Arranging the marriage of his eldest son to the daughter of the King of Spain hoping for an alliance with Spain didn’t go down well  greatly angering the populace.  

His execution of the well-liked, and admired Sir Walter Raleigh further hurt his popularity. And of course interference in Kirk matters didn’t help, the Five Articles of Perth were interpreted as being too Catholic and Anglican-like therefore a threat to Scottish Presbyterians. (The Five Articles of Perth:  (1) kneeling during communion, (2) private baptism, (3) private communion for the sick or infirm, (4) confirmation by a Bishop and (5) the observance of Holy Days.)

It was written that... 

“The reign of James the First of England and Sixth of Scotland, ‘the wisest fool in Christendom’…, was a complete failure, and a time of gathering storm which burst upon the country in the reign of his son.  His ideas of kingship and prerogative turned Parliament against him, and began the long duel between king and people which resulted in the execution of Charles the First.  Parliament defended its privileges; secured the right to discuss all affairs of state; overthrew monopolies; and by the impeachment of Bacon and others made good the principle that ministers of the king ought to be held responsible for their acts.  James’ hatred of extreme parties caused him to persecute the Puritans and Roman Catholics, and set them against him.  His foreign policy was also a failure.  In his desire for peace and a Spanish alliance he sacrificed Raleigh, and refused to help his Protestant son-in-law in Germany, greatly to the indignation of the English people.  Finally, however, he declared war with Spain, and married his son to a French Roman Catholic princess.  He left his people angry and defiant, and only a very tactful conciliatory successor could have avoided conflict.”

It is said that his wife Anne was the one who brought art and culture to the court of King James.

James had his court favorites, and considering he was an intelligent person, he strangely relied on these people for advice on government issues even though their qualifications were questionable.  These favorites apparently had lots of personal charm but not much in the way of talent or intelligence. In 1584, James was visited by Fontenay, his mother Mary’s french emissary who had the following to say regarding the young James’ character and traits:

“I have been well received by the king, who has treated me better in reality than in appearance.  He give me much credit, but does not show me much kindness.  Since the day of my arrival he has ordered me to live in his house along with the earls and lords, and that I shall have access to him in his cabinet just as the others have… . To tell you truly what I think of him – I consider him the first prince in the world for his age. … . He apprehends and conceives quickly, he judges ripely and with reason, and he retains much and for a long time.  In questioning he is quick and piercing, and solid in his answers. … He is learned in many languages, sciences, and affairs of state. more so than probably anyone in his realm. In a word he has a miraculous wit, and moreover is full of noble glory and a good opinion of himself. Having been brought up in the midst of constant fears, he is timid and will not venture to contradict the great lords; yet he wishes to be thought brave. He hates dancing and music in general and especially all the mincing affectations of the court … . From want of proper instruction his manners are boorish and very rough, as well in his way of speaking, eating. dress, amusements and conversation, even in the company of women. He is never at rest in one place but takes a singular pleasure in walking; but his gait is very ungainly and his step is wandering and unsteady, even in a room.  His voice is thick and very deep as he speaks. … He is weak of body … But to sum up, he is an old young man. … He misunderstands the real extent of his poverty and weakness; he boasts too much of himself and he despises other princes.  In the second place, he disregards the wishes of his subjects; and lastly, he is too idle and careless in business and too much addicted to his own pleasures, chiefly hunting. … He told me that he really gave greater attention to business than he seemed to do for he could get through more work in one hour than others could in a day. …  

James ruled Scotland as James VI from  24th July 1567;  James ruled in England and Ireland as James 1st from 24th March, 1603. He died 27th March, 1625 at Theobalds House, and his remains lie in the Henry VII Lady Chapel in Westminster Abbey.

so after watching ODAAT s3 I noticed a lot of people thinking that Penelope x Schneider/Alvareider is dead in the water and/or that the writers “course corrected” and retroactively decided not to pursue it in the storyline, which was really surprising to me because I thought this season further cemented that the writers have been planning this from the start.

First: I genuinely think that Penelope and Schneider, as of at least the first two and a half seasons, are fully platonic. Their relationship has deepened and developed over the seasons, from comfortable acquaintances to best friends and confidants, but there were hang ups along the way to get to this point. Schneider has his obvious issues – he’s an addict, he grew up lonely and treated horribly by his father, and is often immature and lazy and frivolous because he can be – and Penelope is extremely goal-driven and focused on her immediate concerns (her family, career, money) while unable to commit to her relationships (Ben because she’s hung up on Victor, Max because she doesn’t want more kids, Mateo because she feels no spark or passion for him). Their relationship could never develop beyond friendship in season 1 because they are so focused on their needs that they don’t care to really get to know each other beyond the exterior, especially Penelope (who we know has a tendency to be a bit judgmental).

Even though Penelope cares about Schneider, we know she views him as immature, privileged, and lazy at times and it leads her to not see beyond that exterior, even when Schneider becomes her best friend and main confidant starting in season 2. She trusts him with her children, he visits her apartment almost daily, and turns to him when dealing with a crisis whether it’s with her romantic relationships, her family, and her own problems. In season 3, she continues to receive this support and acknowledges publicly that the person she turns to in a crisis, who helps her calm down and feel safe, is none other than Schneider. She doesn’t truly begin to understand him until season 3, when she meets his father and sees what he grew up with, and sees how Schneider threw away his relationship with his father because he valued her and her family more. She even lets out a breathless “Really, you didn’t have to do that” as if she can’t believe he would give up substantial financial gain for their sake. We also finally see her reciprocating the love and support Schneider gave her, and seems to actively take steps to be a more supportive figure in his life. It’s almost as if she doesn’t realize how important he is to her, and it’s something she won’t really feel until something major happens (Schneider moving in with Avery, a medical emergency, etc).

Schneider, on the other hand, knows he loves the Alvarezes and understands Penelope better than she realizes, but he doesn’t know his own worth and settles for so little because he doesn’t think he deserves better. He has explicitly said that he buys things to try and make him happy, that he sleeps with people as a substitute for addiction and affection, and has very little self-worth even through season 3. It’s not until Penelope tells him that she likes him just as he is – something he’s probably never heard before – that he stands up to his father and accepts that he shouldn’t want and doesn’t need his father’s approval. He hides his drinking from Penelope because he knows that she won’t trust him anymore, and by his own words she is the first person to truly trust him, ever. Unlike Penelope, Schneider knows how much Penelope means to him, and both of his major decisions over those two episodes (confronting his dad and hiding his relapse) are at least partly the result of his relationship with her. He then desperately seeks out Avery at the end of season 3 because he knows she is one person who cares about him in a romantic way and feels she understands him because of their shared quirkiness and familial wealth.

Until the end of season 3, there’s no feasible foundation for them to have a relationship because they are both wrapped up in their own issues and priorities to really see each other, but by the end of s3 this changes. Schneider, desperate for validation and romantic love after his relapse, is eager to be with Avery again because she is the first relationship he’s had that is genuinely loving and reciprocated. It’s hard to say if the relationship will turn out badly (we don’t actually know Avery very well, and the beginning of their relationship was dishonest on both ends, not to mention the relationship fractures quickly upon his relapse and only amends when he's a month sober) or lead to Schneider gaining self-confidence, but it will inevitably end and hopefully leave Schneider in a better place than he was. Penelope, on the other hand, finally accepts that she may never find a “great love” like her parents; maybe she’ll have many, or she may have none. But her subconscious is telling her not to accept less than what she wants, and makes her question what she’s looking for in the first place. It feels like Penelope, now single without any romantic prospects, is on the brink of seeing Schneider in a new way in season 4.

The realizations in the last episode follow on the heels of episode 11 and 12, which subtly – but directly – connect Penelope’s desires in a partner to her relationship with Schneider. In episode 11, Nicole tells her all the things she loves about Victor (also an addict) despite not being perfect: he makes her laugh, he makes her feel safe, she can’t imagine something bad happening to him, and she can’t picture her life without him. Penelope realizes, in this same episode, that she doesn’t want to be with Mateo just because he’s nice and easy to be with and it’s at the end that she discovers that Schneider has relapsed. One of the first things she says in the next episode is “I couldn’t sleep last night” because of Schneider’s relapse, and spends the entire episode solely focused on helping him. And all this happening immediately after her conversation with Nicole in episode 11 is incredibly pointed. Schneider is not perfect by any means, but he makes Penelope laugh and she enjoys being with him, he makes her feel safe when she’s in a crisis and is her go-to support, she loses sleep and panics at the thought of Schneider relapsing before she even knows it’s true, and – tying into Penelope not yet recognizing how important he is to her – she will soon realize that she can’t imagine her life without him.

Another thing to consider is the direct parallels and contrasts between Schneider and Penelope’s significant others. This post explains it all very well, but I’ll summarize briefly:

Schneider and Victor (S1)

Victor: exhibits toxic masculinity, little self-reflection, prioritizes his pride over even his family, struggles with trauma and addiction but won’t seek help

Schneider: does not exhibit toxic masculinity, is constantly self-reflecting on his behaviors and relationships, prioritizes other people over himself, and also struggles with (emotional) trauma and addiction and seeks help

Schneider and Ben (S1)

Ben: supports Penelope through Elena’s coming out, respectful of Penelope’s boundaries

Schneider: supports Penelope through Elena’s coming out, respectful of Penelope’s boundaries

Schneider and Max (s2)

Max: spends his time helping others (paramedic), is family-focused, is willing to have a casual relationship but wants more, earns the respect of Penelope’s family. Penelope breaks up with him because he wants children.

Schneider: spends his time helping others (the Alvarezes, his other tenants), is family-focused, is willing to have casual relationships but wants more, earns the respect of Penelope’s family. Tells Penelope that he’s “never thought about” having children while walking in with a cute baby, suggesting he really hasn’t thought about it or isn’t interested.

Schneider and Mateo (s3)

Mateo: friend of Penelope’s who she looks at differently upon seeing how they connect on superficial levels (Latino, overprotective, nice), Penelope breaks up with him because she realizes she doesn’t feel passionate about him

Schneider: dates someone upon seeing how they connect on superficial levels (”family money” rich, quirky and eccentric, understands his father’s world)

All these connections are not “stretches” by any means and the connections between Schneider and Max & Victor are the most direct, which is interesting considering they are both Penelope’s most passionate relationships.

So, yes, at the moment Penelope and Schneider are platonic – and truly see each other platonically – because they are not at the right point where they a) see the other person in that way and b) are both in the right place for that relationship to happen. Penelope, who is now single and has finally become a nurse practitioner, and Schneider, now developing self-worth through accepting his baggage and his first real relationship, are both primed to make some big realizations next season. My theory is that through Schneider’s relationship with Avery, he becomes self-confident and healthier, dropping many of his more harmful habits (excessive spending, obsessive ever-changing interests, laziness, over-eagerness to seek validation from other people) and will be able to deal with their inevitable break-up in a healthy way while maintaining his elevated self-worth. Penelope will note this change and start to see him differently; he’s not just her best friend and landlord, but someone she finds attractive as a partner and member of her family for all the qualities he already had but are now made clearer with his heightened self-worth. Schneider may not reciprocate initially; not because he doesn’t care about her or doesn’t have the capacity to (I wonder if, at some point, he ever had feelings for her and just shut them down for aforementioned reasons) but because he sees Penelope as unattainable and can’t see her being interested in him. By the end of season 4, we may see explicit confirmation and (hopefully) reciprocation on both sides, though I imagine it won’t immediately lead to a relationship.

Some final observations:

Another hint that Penelope will come to know Schneider better in s4 is the reveal of his first name – only to her, in an AA meeting she attends with him – when he introduces himself as Pat. To me, this foreshadows Penelope calling him by his real name in the future, which I feel will come with a significant change in their relationship.

They still haven’t said “I love you” in any context. Yes, Elena said “we love you” after Schneider relapsed, and Schneider clearly loves the Alvarezes, but they never say this directly to each other even though there have been many opportunities to. They have progressed in what they mean to each other (friends to best friends to “i’m here for you” and “you don’t have to do this alone”) and I get the feeling the show is saving this exchange for a Big Moment.

A lot of people are commenting on the “sister” comment Schneider makes about Penelope; I don’t put much stake in this for my aforementioned belief that they just aren’t in the right place yet to even consider each other romantically and Schneider not seeing Penelope as attainable but having no other label for their relationship. Plus, it was said as a joke.

I also don’t think Avery (or her being played by Todd Grinnel’s IRL wife) is a threat or shoots down the possibility of them getting together. IRL couples playing love interests is a common trope in sitcoms (for ex. Will Arnett played Amy Poehler’s date in an ep of Parks and Rec when they were still married), and I really think it’s inevitable that Avery and Schneider break up because this is his first real relationship and we don’t actually know Avery that well (a la Ben in s1), but their connection as we know it is somewhat superficial (they’re both rich, they’re both quirky, they both were disingenuous at first). Schneider NEEDS a healthy relationship like this before he would ever be able to date Penelope, because he still needs to take steps to learn what that kind of relationship is like as well as building his self-worth (as mentioned above).

The Valentine's day ep ends with Schneider and Penelope making strides with their significant others, but the blocking of the scene at the table shows them sitting next to each other, with Alex and Elena weirdly seated far apart with an empty space where a chair would be between them, the positioning not only blocking view of the SOs but clearly emphasizing Schneider and Penelope as the focal point of the frame.

There’s probably a lot more I could say on this (there really is a LOT of content supporting these two) but I’ll stop there. Of course, there’s no way to tell if the writers will pursue this (based on the groundwork over the show and specifically what is laid out in eps 3x9-3x13 I’d be...very confused if nothing comes out of this) but it is clear that regardless of if their relationship is romantic or platonic in the end we’re sure to see some major developments between them in s4 as we have in each season so far.

EDIT: This post is wonderful, it touches on some of the things in this post and a lot more!

“DON’T STOP TIL YOU’VE HAD ENOUGH : AN ARTICLE ON THE QUINCE JONES MJ TRIBUTE DEBACLE.” – SYL MORTILLA, @WordPress .

“You know how sometimes people get offended on behalf of others? Well, right now, I am seething. Positively livid. Absolutely outraged, and do you know the worst part? I am not even directly affected by what has happened here. It’s not my money involved, but I am truly appalled for you and I guess it could happen to any of us so we should not stand for it. Let me explain.

I was in London recently, deep in the underground rabbit warren, climbing up an escalator the size of Everest. As I ascended the cold metal steps, I noticed out of the corner of my eye, one of many promotional posters for forthcoming shows. Despite keeping my ear to the ground, my finger on the pulse and some say, my head in the clouds, I hadn’t heard of this one.

In fact, I was temporarily bamboozled by it. I had heard some time ago that Quincy Jones would be playing a show at the O2 Arena, but this bore no resemblance to that event.

It was still Quincy, but it contradicted my recollection that it was to be a celebration of the work of the late Michael Jackson.

Originally, this “world exclusive concert” had promised not only “three iconic albums played back to back” but went on to nail its colours to the mast by actually naming them: Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad.

I remember at the time thinking that this would be quite the spectacle, but the ticket prices were utterly exorbitant – well in excess of a hundred pounds a pop.

The new poster was so different that I questioned whether it was even the same event or if I had already missed that one and now this was the follow up show.

I felt like I was in Animal Farm, staring in disbelief at the board previously displaying the motto “four legs good, two legs bad,” adjusted to read “four legs good, two legs better,” leaving me questioning my own memory of the original.

I have since read something that confirms that I hadn’t been imagining things after all and rather than being a feverish cheese dream, the content of the concert HAS been altered to remove all remaining traces of Jackson.

Now, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to whether or not this was the right thing to do in the light of recent allegations (arising from a “documentary”) and I am not here to have that debate.

What I take issue with though is that when you substantially deviate from the original advertised line up that people have paid handsomely to see, they should be entitled to receive a full refund.

What wound me up most was the arrogant stance taken by the promoters. Disgruntled fans have received a response from them explaining: “the show’s content has not changed. Songs from the three Michael Jackson albums will be played, alongside tracks which celebrate era-defining music. Therefore, we are unable to offer refunds.”

Now, let’s just think about this for a second. They’re claiming that it’s the same show as before. I mean, I guess they have got a point – after all, it is still Quincy Jones and seats are every bit as expensive as they were before, but the actual music? Well, that could not be more different.

The show appears to have shrunk in the wash and its colours have run. Now, in its place we have “Soundtrack of The 80s” featuring “iconic songs and defining albums.” I’m genuinely surprised that Sara Cox isn’t billed to host it.

Get your magnifying glass out though and look carefully at the small print at the very bottom of the poster and any fears you may have previously had will be swept aside.

See – it IS EXACTLY the same concert as before. O yea of little faith. Look, there’s all of Jackson’s biggest hits… Rock With You… Man In The Mirror… er, Yah Mo Be There…

I appreciate that there are bigger injustices in the world right now, but the principle of this stinks and the precedent it sets is utterly unacceptable.

This is like professional gaslighting. Maybe the organisers of the event are in a state of traumatised denial after this significant transformation to their show.

The last time a promoter was this cheeky was back when people who had bought seats to see Michael Jackson at his O2 residency for his ill-fated This Is It farewell tour were offered hologrammatic “souvenir” tickets instead of their money back.

When people buy tickets for Glastonbury, they do so without knowing what the line up will be in advance. People know that they are getting on board before the bands are announced and if they aren’t satisfied when the poster is unveiled, they are free to cancel.

Line ups are subject to change all the time, but usually, when someone drops out, the promoters arrange for someone equally impressive to stand in. Sometimes, the replacement is actually better than the act originally scheduled, so it works in the fans’ favour.

Occasionally, issues arise where, for whatever reason, artists are unable to fulfil their original obligation due to their personal situation or circumstances beyond their control.

I was crushed one Summer when Irish girl group B*witched were due to headline a Nineties nostalgia concert, but were sadly unable to make it in time due to problems with their flight. To be fair to them, they offered a full explanation and regular updates throughout the course of the evening by virtue of regular Skype updates. These things happen. C’est la vie.

There is sometimes a disclaimer attached to shows warning in advance of possible alterations. It covers the promoter’s back, acknowledges the reality of the industry and manages fans’ expectations.

I have studied the Quincy poster quite closely under my musical microscope and I don’t see anything anywhere that states: “please note: the advertised content is subject to change at any minute – in fact, it might have already changed beyond recognition by the time you buy tickets. Those who wish to take a complete leap of faith do so entirely at their own risk as even if we move the goal posts so far apart that they end up being in completely different countries, we reserve the right at all times to not only refuse entry but also refunds.”

I am no mathematician, but I am genuinely curious as to how much of the original advertised content of a concert you have to depart from before it can be considered a “change.”

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you bought tickets to see The Manic Street Preachers on their current tour, encouraged by the promise that they are going to be playing your favourite album of theirs: This Is My Truth, Tell Me Yours in its entirety. Imagine turning up, feather boa warming your your neck, looking forward to hearing songs from that album, only to be told that instead you are going to be treated to two hours of singer James Dean Bradfield’s side project.

Furious, you rush to the box office for a refund. “Ah,” says the woman behind the counter, “but this is the same concert.” “HOW is it?” you wail. “James will still be playing songs from This Is My Truth,” she says, “alongside era-defining music.”

Faced with no alternative, you return to the show to hear James playing George Benson’s Give Me The Night. “But this isn’t even one of theirs!” you scream, throwing back your head in terror, at which point you see a sign on the ceiling above you that says “NO REFUNDS.”

The addition of extra songs doesn’t make things better, it makes them considerably worse, as it has the effect of diluting the overall quality. It makes it considerably less likely that you will get to hear the songs from those albums that you paid good (Bad?) money to hear.

Maybe before the show, you could go into the O2 branch of Nando’s and order a plate of peri peri chicken, before tucking into it and immediately realising that something is wrong. Rather than your spice of choice, it has an altogether milder, tamer flavour, like someone has seasoned it with lemon and herb. It doesn’t even look or taste like chicken. Closer inspection reveals it to be pigeon!

Incensed, you storm up to the counter and demand your money back. “I’m sorry, Sir,” says the Manager, “but there are no refunds because that is the same meal as the one you ordered.” Then they chuck out a corn on the cob and throw some spicy rice in your face in an effort to placate you with era-defining side dishes.

Where exactly will this madness end? If you go to a tailor and after getting measured up and paying for a brand new suit, he then proceeds to lop the legs off the trousers and stitch a floral pattern into the lapel, can he still expect you to be happy with that?

We live in a time where people are expected to pay for the privilege of printing off their own tickets at home, and don’t even get me started on the fulfilment fees – exactly who or what are these fulfilling other than corporate pockets?!

Fans increasingly find themselves forfeiting booking fees, administration charges and the like when concerts are cancelled by the promoter. These would appear to be regarded by them as little more than curiosity taxes.

It’s all very caveat emptor – buyer beware – if you have gone to the trouble and expense of organising transport and arranging accommodation to see a show which is then pulled, well, then, that’s your problem.

By all means, go ahead and adjust the content of a concert – you’re the promoter, it’s your show, you can do whatever you like, but if you do, don’t hoodwink ticket holders into thinking that nothing has changed. Don’t flummox your customers. If they aren’t happy with the alterations you’ve made, they should be entitled to receive a full refund as the show they bought tickets to see is no longer the one that will be staged.

Believe it or not, this piece originally started out as an advertisement for the forthcoming Quincy Jones concert in which I heaped praise on the promoters for their courageous actions and argued that the concert remains fundamentally unchanged. They cannot take issue with any aspect of the final version because this is exactly the same article as before…alongside era-defining sarcasm. “

-Written by Andrew Timms .

The problem is: the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is itself radfem rhetoric.

There is not under any circumstances a group of people who meaningfully and consistently directly oppresses another group; oppression is meant to talk about statistics, not people.

So, yes, men oppress women. A man does not oppress a woman because that isn’t how society works. Men (on average) benefit from a set of things that are consciously or unconsciously reserved for men, and women (on average) don’t have as much access to those things. A man is not taking that from a woman by accessing it when she can’t. They’re just part of a bad system.

So when you talk about “our oppressors” that gets really dicey - I don’t have the same “oppressors” as you in the first place, but also, again, it’s not people, it’s systems. Let’s skip intersectionality here, because the fact that some people don’t have full access to their privilege categories is mostly irrelevant.

This is why it’s so easy for people to write off bigotry. Because people say someone is doing sexism, when really they’re just participating in a system that privileges men and disprivileges women. If a man interrupts a woman when she’s speaking, he’s being an asshole. If a woman interrupts a man when he’s speaking, she’s also being an asshole. The sexism is that men make around 90% of the interruptions. Without sexism, that should look more like 50%.

That doesn’t mean that the man is motivated by sexism, or even that any opinions he holds informed whether or not he made an interruption. (Mostly, it’s that the speech patterns taught to boy-assumed children and the speech patterns taught to girl-assumed children are different, and become strongly reinforced by societies’ preferences for homosocial groupings.) Even if one particular man interrupted one particular woman exclusively because she was a woman, if the overall pattern looked 50-50, that wouldn’t be sexism, because it wouldn’t be a systemic problem.

(While it’s not that uncommon in our society, most interruptions don’t happen because someone sees women as inferior. If motivated by sexism, it’s more likely to be a gut reaction that women are less competent or knowledgeable than men, or just that men tend to feel like they have more right to talk than women tend to feel. Most men will not say ‘I feel that women are less competent/knowledgeable than men’, and will often be offended by the suggestion that some people do think that. Rather, they statistically exhibit this subconsciously held belief. Also, most men will espouse the belief that men do not feel like they have more right to speak, even though this opinion is not statistically supported.)

Systemic problems don’t happen all the time. Many men, including very sexist men, listen quietly while women talk (some call it ‘chivalry’). Any given man, including men who are usually very prone to interrupting, will sometimes have conversations where he listens to a woman rather than speaks. Any given woman, even one who gets interrupted substantially more than average, will have conversations where a man listens to her instead of interrupting. Many women have rarely been interrupted by men over the course of their lives, and some women have only been interrupted by men in the same circumstances that a man would statistically be interrupted.

Asserting that problems are universal is a radfem watchword. (Other groups have used this as well, but it’s always an essentialist platform.)

Asserting that “the oppressor” always performs the bad act, and that “the oppressed” always has the bad act performed on them, is a way of ensuring an us-versus-them mentality, and a way of inciting anger and hatred, and a way of turning people’s eyes from abuses perpetrated by those internal to the group. It’s also a way of making it difficult to talk about different facets of identity, such as the ways in which black men and white women have different types of access to hegemonic privilege, and can use that against each other.

Additionally, the classes are not easily identifiable categories, but rather amorphous groups with shifting boundaries. One of the common ways in which men have privilege over women is by being responded to faster in correspondence, or being considered more readily in hiring (by resume). However, the typical way in which this happens - because people aren’t doing it on purpose - is by reaction to the name. This means that women named Ryan, Kyle, and Shaun have access to this type of male privilege, while men named Leslie, Alexis (in the US), and Mackenzie don’t. Another way in which men have privilege over women is by getting quicker and more courteous service. However, this is typically judged by body shape and clothing. A woman wearing a men’s suit who has facial features people read as ‘masculine’, such as a broad jaw and large nose, will often be read as a man, and treated accordingly. A man wearing brightly colored and form-fitting clothing who has an hourglass figure and facial features people read as ‘feminine’, such as wide eyes and full lips, will often be read as a woman, and treated accordingly. Any given way in which some group has privilege over another group has outlier members, as well as situational and intersectional reasons it may not apply.

The oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is really harmful. It encourages the idea that “the oppressor” can never be helpful, which gives people an excuse to attack “the oppressor” over their other marginalized identities, as well as discouraging “the oppressor” from trying to improve themselves or better the situation generally. (This is especially harmful since most people within the privilege category are only willing to listen to other members of the privilege category speak on the issue.) It also encourages the idea that “the oppressed” can never harm anyone, which leads to people using their identity as an excuse when they do harmful things (”I’m x, how could I hurt a y!”), as well as excusing or erasing abuse between members of the oppressed class, and acting as if “the oppressed” could never contribute to the oppressive system. (Most oppressive systems require some support from the oppressed class as well as the hegemonic class to keep running.)

We don’t need to use that dichotomy. It makes learning murkier, which makes it more difficult for people to understand the situation they’re in and what they can do to improve it, regardless of their social position. It makes it more confusing for people to describe their personal experiences, because they have to make it adhere more to the standard narrative, or pose it as a counterpoint, calling the standard narrative false, and either way often get accused of lying. It also means it’s harder to teach people, since the oppressor/oppressed narrative suggests people are willfully committing oppression, rather than just existing within a system that encourages it and hides itself.

We don’t need it.

Looking For Car Repair Details? This Is For You

Do you need to be much better at coping with motor vehicle maintenance difficulties? It might appear to be tough to do vehicle improvements your self, but as soon as you get it done, you will discover it is a satisfying practical experience. You cut costs and increase the lifestyle of your respective auto. Read this post to discover some superb tips about how to perform automobile restoration your self, as well as some tips on the way to find the finest technician for larger troubles. Confirm that any potential mechanic has gained an A.S.E. accreditation. These kinds of certification tells you that anyone who will likely be working on your auto features a few many years of practical experience and contains passed a test. When a technician has this recognition, you might be assured that a certified individual is repairing your car. Conserve gasoline by driving a vehicle like you possess a window of water on your dashboard. This practice helps you steer clear of jack rabbit starts and swift prevents. Each time you speed up swiftly, the generator of the automobile uses much more gasoline than it could if you were to accelerate with a gradual rise in speed. You can find no standard warranties on maintenance. Make sure you are aware of what your warranty addresses and that you get it on paper. Warranties could possibly have restrictions such as deductibles, miles, time, companies approved to do the warrantee function or specific actions needed to get reimbursement. Know your guarantee privileges. Take transmission service in Olathe of the indications a potential auto mechanic offers to you personally. If he could not offer you eye-to-eye contact, rushes his words and phrases, or prevents addressing any questions you have for him, he could be trying to conceal anything. Possibly he does not actually know what he or she is doing or perhaps is telling lies about something else. If it is the way it is, go along with yet another technician. If you want to buy your auto fixed following any sort of accident, you ought to contact your insurance to get a set of accredited technicians. Planning to an approved auto mechanic signifies your insurance coverage will cover a number of your expenses. In addition to, you are more likely to find a good certified technician if you visit an expert chosen by the insurance provider. In case your automobile seems to be leaking body fluids, begin by swapping the gaskets and closes. The most prevalent location for leaks is how diverse pieces sign up for collectively. You may possibly not will need an expensive repair when the drip stems from one of these brilliant effortlessly replaceable regions. In case the drip persists right after substitute, maybe you have a far more substantial leak. Be sure your automobile specialist is capable of focus on your unique vehicle. Engine cars are complex machines and each company has special attributes. Some manufacturers need particular tools, parts, and procedures. A lot of common car technicians either deficiency these items or dont get them readily available. Without the need of these materials, they can't resolve your automobile. Sometimes you will discover a great mechanic who performs with their home car port. It's about the experience, not the place, and somebody that uses their own personal locale can be a great deal less than a shop. You'll have the capacity to conserve quite a bit of dollars and will assist them to a bit since you won't be working with a big spot. You can actually fix scratches on your own. You will need to load the scratch having a primer that matches the shades of your automobile, utilize some fresh paint as soon as the primer is dried out and yellow sand the whole location. Get started with a great beach sand pieces of paper and raise the grain significantly just before waxing. Usually do not get worried if you locate a puddle water below your vehicle. Puddles tend to be caused by condensation from your air conditioning process. You need to get worried for those who have not been utilizing your air-con method or if you find puddles of water below your car consistently. Though car dealership aspects might be costly, most of the time they feature the very best encounter. The dealer's specialists specialize in the model to make of your vehicle. They could identify problems rapidly and therefore are well trained for problems present with your car's make. These aspects can also be subject to instruction courses routinely. Just before making your car for the diagnosis, question the repair center about any costs connected with it. The auto repair shop definitely has the ability to cost a diagnosis charge, in reality it's pretty standard. Even though, if it appears from series with some other price ranges in your town, you may want to check out one more shop. If some part in your vehicle needs to be replaced, ask the technician provided you can hold the older one particular. When they refuse, this might imply that they didn't swap anything. Ask your technician to have an clarification if you notice this warning sign. Keep close track of your transmission. If it's carrying out badly, it may be the specific part, a plugged filtering, or possibly a disconnected hose. Have your mechanic examine the simple points initially since restoring transmissions can be high-priced. Frequent concerns to take into consideration are no reply or perhaps a late answer when switching from natural to drive or reverse, hard or sudden changes between your gears, failing to change in the course of velocity, and slippage when accelerating. You should repair little chips within your windshield as soon as possible. A small chip or fracture can get even bigger when your review a hit or support a small collision. Search for a very good windscreen repair center and it will be easy to correct a little chip without having to spend big money. Being aware of car tires will make the difference in life or passing away for you but for the family members who drive along normally within your vehicle. Obtaining tires rotated and maintaining them full of air might appear to be easy points, but if they are forgotten, it can be a significant security matter. Should you be using your automobile on the repair center for support, be sure you know how it costs for that function being done. Many outlets charge a level price for most careers, but other individuals fee based on how much time it requires to complete a restoration. Although each strategies can be quite legitimate, it is actually necessary to know which strategy your retail outlet is using to assist you to foresee final expenses. One of the better approaches to save money is actually by becoming informed about vehicle routine maintenance and repairs. Some technicians take full advantage of people that have little auto expertise. Utilize the advice you figured out right here either to perform fixes your self or be greater armed against dishonest mechanics. It will save you many spanning a life time.

Cryptocurrency Trading - Sow How Does It Task?

Do you want to operate cryptocurrencies? It is not necessarily as simple as it could reliable. In order to make a substantial profit from the sale, although the market for digital assets is less predictable than other financial markets, it is governed by certain laws that are worth understanding and for more information about cryptocurrency trading, check my blog.

Trading cryptocurrency needs expertise

The operate criptomonedas can be quite a rewarding organization, so long as devote consciously and intelligently so. Financial investments designed “blind” are associated with a heavy risk of accelerated decrease in capital. So that you are in the position to afford to pay for dangerous, you have to have acceptable finances in the accounts turn out to be emotionally ready for easy lack of success. Also, you should know a little bit about necessary cryptocurrencies and swap components. 

Whenever you don't can take a look at a bitcoin chartor they don't recognize how CFDs operate - don't invest. To begin with, secure associated comprehension by adding varieties of educative material (we boost you to ultimately read the publications located on our internet business). No, in fact, the requirement to know anything and everything about blockchain technology to invest - you don't will be needing this awareness.

However, if you are interested in trading cryptocurrencies , you must learn the basic principles of this type of payment system. The highest quality accepted of your cryptocurrencies on the planet Bitcoin (BTC), but you should also be informed on other cryptocurrencies including Rizado (XRP), Ethereum (ETH) or Litecoin (LTC). Any seasoned opportunist checks value of the cryptocurrency that will they possess place their extra money, and just based on the above mentioned observations make picks. Just What Is Cryptocurrency Trading And What To Look For To Create Orders?

Trading cryptocurrency being source of income

Since Bitcoin's start up, cryptocurrency has exploded in global popularity and eventually became a prevalent phenomenon. The Turnovervalue is much higher, although nowadays, nobody is surprised by the investments in this market. Likely this is often mainly because that irrespective of their ever-increasing global recognition, cryptocurrencies also remain on the margins within the universal investment economy. It is actually quite likely that into the future they are going to certainly upgrade conventional extra money. It is a very likely circumstance, considering the added advantages that virtual cryptocurrency equipment feature. For now - cryptocurrencies for many individuals are more of an investment object than a means of payment, however. Some privileged forex traders made few mil Us dollars. News experiences about these spectacular ventures in a short time dispersed and recommend new users buying cryptocurrencies.

Important things about online digital foreign currencies

Cryptocurrencies are intended in reaction with the new realities of which funds started to feature with global growth and development of the web. The web based habitat allowing the development of an important methods for settlement, which is governed by different policies in comparison with old-fashioned currencies. Principal, no expertise techniques fiscal guidance through it. Every single consumer can access an archive of all the transactions and payments which were prepared around the body. The cryptocurrency networking is decentralized: middle finance institutions don't get it available at this site. The issuance of subsequent "coins" is, in a manner, a natural result of the tasks of a so-named as " bitcoin miners ", which happens to be, expert machines that attend resolving intricate encryption undertakings.

The report coming from all matters accomplished is openly on hand and is also not susceptible to transition. We should remember the fact that of the ordinary financial program it will be the banking institutions that have extensive control over these files. Approved persons can restrict the archives into the data source at any time. On this good sense, cryptocurrencies present larger safety measures.

In the case of the key benefits of make use of BTC among other cryptocurrencies, it actually is unthinkable not to mention rapid cost system. As established interbank exchanges can take as high as a couple of days, with respect to the extroverted and incoming treatments, the move of electronic digital currencies develops instantly. In order to transfer funds, you simply need to know the public address of the wallet recipient.

How you can make money from trading cryptocurrency?

Now, there are many on the self-proclaimed experts available for purchase supplying financial commitment advisory providers. It cannot be denied that the cryptocurrency market is very unstable - in the face of stable financial markets, though not all of them lack of competition, of course. Basically, it is actually not possible to calculate with a hundred percent assurance that the price of a forex will increase or autumn in a specified certain period of time. These crooks prey on the gullibility of newbie brokers, demonstrate their skills and talk about their prophecies driven by specific computer data, for just a rate. These predictions often turn out to be wrong, but the money is no longer refundable. So be careful when using such services.

Technological and standard studies

Each one investing will be subject to further assumed upfront. The cryptocurrency you should spend money on is not going to retain the comparable charge for a long period of your energy. Electronic belongings constitute perhaps the most uncertain sell in the market. The value of cryptocurrencies could go down or up from a single week to the next, you will never know by what amount. The history of Bitcoin, the world's most preferred cryptocurrency, demonstrates that the trade premium can alter tremendously, even during a couple of periods. This is why a basic assessment of active developments is very crucial.

We can easily identify two kinds of exploration across the world of economic fundamental, markets and technical. The first is according to the presentation of existing trends and stock graphs. As you can imagine, the capability to analyze is an important talent, without ever which we are not able to obtain considerably. Candlestick maps for example should be thought about as they include more details.

Technical study is normally done for shorter-expression investment strategies. But be wary of your deception - it may possibly not forever energy. In certain cases the analyzes contradict each other well depending upon the viewpoint together with the requirements put to use. Fundamental analysis allows evaluating a specific investment in the context not only of economic processes, but also the condition of companies operating in the market. This requires more effort, but generally better results. It is usually administered in the event of long term especially, investments and where warning would have to be considered.

Just how do you exchange sensibly? The advantages of dealings

Cryptocurrency trading is actually subject to anxiety. The danger of losing money rather quickly owing to leveraging is kind of excellent. In fact, you never know if the investment is going to work or not. You may manage for generations - endure is no problem. A considerable percentage of retail industry person accounts for losses attributable to CFD trading (approximately 76.4Percent). A superior chance of dropping funds also comes with investing contained in the new, devoid of undertakings. Committing to a digital foreign currencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple or Litecoin, one example is, gives you lots more freedom. Each and every single new cryptocurrency according to blockchain know-how is a fantastic puzzle.

Trading cryptocurrency: what are CFDs?

Cfd for cryptocurrencies, or commitments for discrepancy, are derivative instruments using the sensation of monetary leverage. The Owner (the issuer of our get) confirms to shell out the investor an volume similar to the differences amongst the actual the value of the digital foreign currency plus true worth that your currency would have on the day the contract is recognized (regarding a negative benefits, the buyer compensates the vendor ). CFDs are intricate equipment and also carry the chance of getting rid of moolah quickly. Do not make personally the proprietor this asset which is the issue of this arrangement (that you are not the law seller of this). So before you start thinking about CFDs, ask yourself if you understand what CFDs are and if you can afford the risk.

Long term or fairly short-words financial investments?

Long-term investments are safer, according to experts. To your predicament, its easier to make a detailed predict of swap amount variances. Cryptocurrency prices are relatively often subject to rapid changes in a short period of time, as we have already mentioned. Even so, a handful of the brokers in the final result inside the operations under the influence of the emotional baggage, without the need of policy, place their budget in peril. In cryptocurrency , "impulsive" actions constantly ends in financial collapse. Particularly, beginner buyers sin outside of overconfidence - as a substitute for starting with paying for a small amount, they plunge profound and make an investment, by way of example, half their investment capital on a show having just joined market trends in fact it is unheard of whether or not it will develop.

A concept is paramount

Regardless of whether you choose to put in long-term or very short-duration, you should employ a transparent plan in advance. It is vital to create a specific agenda. It is not worth the risk of losing your funds if the goal is reached. Quite a few purchasers get emotional and abandon their prior wish to make precarious decisions following the initial dream may be attained. This is simply not the suitable plan of action, and is particularly without doubt easier first of all less expensive hazard investments.

Stay focused

To maximize your chances of great success, you will want to take care of what exactly is transpiring available. It is strongly recommended to every so often browse the news web-sites specifically for cryptocurrency trading, or even continue with the blogging sites of prominent shareholders. Analyzing the moves of an skilled professional dealer is the best idea for anybody who seriously wants to initiate making an investment. It is also value by using useful and educational materials used, which is often successfully found online. Most of the "advisors" manage a documented specialist, comprising organizing classes on securing the stock market - you can easily take full advantage of a proposal, however the Internet service is stuffed with totally free tutorials and guides.

Abuse is Complicated

I’m writing this after having read Moses Farrow’s article.

What I’m about to say might cause offence (especially if interpreted unfavourably), or else it might seem ill-intended or unsavoury in some way. It strikes me that on its own, none of these is ever a good reason to shut up.

All I can do is insist that my aim is broadly to help rather than harm, regardless of how clearly and carefully I manage to express what I mean. For what it’s worth, I’ve tentatively concluded that my view here isn’t being obscured by any privileged blindspots, at least to the best of my ability (given the optical disabilities potentially conferred by said blindspots). And perhaps most importantly, I’m willing to listen to contrary views and I’m open to changing my mind.

After writing the above disclaimer, I must say that the forthcoming post doesn’t feel quite as controversial as it did initially. I dunno, maybe it is. In any case, the subject of abuse is certainly (and rightfully) a sensitive one.

Whatever the status of Moses Farrow’s article in relation to the accusations about Woody Allen, when it’s considered in wholly abstract terms I think it’s an important contribution to the conversation about abuse. It speaks to the care and critical thinking with which claims of abuse and abusive situations ought to be treated.

This reminder is two-fold and bidirectional. First, it should remind us to be wary of confirmation bias. E.g. we should be careful not to believe Moses Farrow’s version of events primarily because we want to enjoy Woody Allen’s films without guilt. Such motivations are often tacit and easy to deny (or to repress, for that matter).

Second, and from the opposite direction, it should also remind us of just how complicated abusive situations often are. Generally-speaking, it’s too easy and self-serving to immediately jump into firmly advocating for x, where x is the simplest story that initially rings true for us, or fits with our anecdotal experiences or sociopolitical agendas.

In particular, one complication that the article raises (whether or not it’s relevant to the specific case of Mia Farrow vs Woody Allen) is the following rather counterintuitive fact:

falsely accusing others of abuse is a prominent characteristic of abusive people.

Needless to say, this fact alone serves to massively complicate outsider interpretations of abuse claims, even though the informal benefit of the doubt should probably lie with accusers rather than the accused, for broadly pragmatic reasons (and contrary to the legal presumption of innocence, which itself exists for broadly pragmatic reasons). Of course, it’s also the case that truly accusing others of abuse is, by logical necessity, a characteristic of targets of abuse or people speaking on their behalf. However, unlike the above, this fact is hardly a counter-intuitive one.

Given that making false accusations of abuse is a prominent characteristic of abusers, why is it somewhat counterintuitive? In part, I suspect it’s counterintuitive just because it implies that in many cases of alleged abuse, appearances are not merely deceiving but exactly the reverse of what is true (or, to be more accurate, the negation or contradiction of the truth). Such pills are always going to be hard to swallow. Separately, I suspect it’s counterintuitive partly because we’re falling prey to something that usually serves us well—namely, our empathy—and that our empathy is letting us down in two different ways.

First, I suspect that our empathy is letting us down because it makes it hard for us to imagine that some people are wired very differently from ourselves. Automatically, we tend to try to explain other people’s behaviour by using ourselves as a model, and projecting onto other people our own most likely reasons for the relevant behaviour. Because of this, it can strike us as the height of implausibility that someone would make a false claim of abuse, merely because there are very few possible contexts in which we imagine that we (or people relevantly like us) would have a compelling motivation for doing so. (Why would they lie? It’s too risky! Why would they risk the humiliation, invasions of privacy, victim-blaming, character assassinations, and negative attention unless they were telling the truth?!)

Let’s put aside the fact that there are people who are psychotic to varying degrees, and therefore might firmly and inflexibly believe things for which they have absolutely no evidence. Even so, there‘s a substantial chunk of the population (approximately 10 in every 100 people) who not only lie frequently, but also have pathological motivations for lying that would seem bizarre to a person who was relevantly psychologically healthy, and would be difficult for such a person to comprehend.

Indeed, this is a large part of the reason that making false accusations of abuse is a prominent characteristic of abusive people in the first place. Broadly-speaking, lying to get what you want, and compulsively shifting the blame at any cost, are themselves abusive behaviours. The personality disorders that dispose people to abusive behaviours also dispose them, inter alia, to impulsive risk-taking, psychological projection, lying, confabulating, creating drama for it’s own sake, seeking attention (sometimes even if it’s negative), and compulsive blame-shifting. Thus, in effect, such disorders dispose people to making false accusations of abuse, in circumstances in which no healthy person would have any motivation to do so, and even in circumstances in which doing so would be not just risky but inevitably self-destructive. If you don’t suffer from one of these personality disorders then unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) you have very little hope of grasping the mindset and motivations of such a person. In lieu of this intuitive understanding, you simply have to take into account, as a brute fact, that approximately 10% of people (and probably slightly more) can have pathological motivations for falsely accusing others; motivations that would seem bizarre or prohibitively counter-productive to you.

In effect, when it strikes you as implausible that a particular accuser would be lying, it does so only because of your tacit assumption that the accuser is unlikely to be pathologically abusive. However, this assumption could easily come from the fact that you’re also tacitly assuming the wrong reference class—namely, the general population. A random member of the general population is rather unlikely to be pathologically abusive (since this is only true of roughly 10% of that population). However, the general population isn’t the correct reference class. The correct reference class is the population of people who’ve made accusations of abuse (whether true or false). To oversimplify slightly, a member of the general population will have made an accusation of abuse if and only if she either has been a genuine target of abuse, is a spokeperson thereof, or is actually a pathological abuser herself. Overall, this makes up a relatively small percentage of the general population. However, since making accusations of abuse is a prominent characteristic of pathological abusers, pathological abusers make up a sizeable proportion of those who’ve made accusations of abuse (whether true or false). In other words, pathologically abusive people are drastically over-represented within the correct reference class (the population of people who’ve made accusations of abuse, whether they be true or false). Accordingly, while it might seem implausible that a particular accuser would be lying for pathological reasons, it also follows from the mere fact of the accusation that the likelihood of such pathology is actually relatively high; indeed much higher than one might intuitively expect. By extension, one ought to expect the likelihood of an accusation’s falsehood to be much higher than one would expect on the basis of intuition (assuming that the relevant intuitions arise from familiarity with the general population, tacit beliefs about the average person, or tacit beliefs about people who’ve been selected completely at random).

The second way in which I suspect that our empathy is letting us down is far more straightforward. Simply put, we’re more likely to believe and want to comfort and defend those who are presenting to us as victims of abuse, and more likely to want to disbelieve, condemn, and punish those who are presenting to us as perpetrators of abuse. Generally-speaking, of course, these are good inclinations to have. However, it’s important to remember that abusers are good at exploiting those very inclinations for their own benefit. Indeed, this speaks to many of the reasons that abusive people make false accusations in the first place—namely, to garner sympathy, save face, avoid responsibility, get attention (even if it’s negative), shift the blame onto others, devalue and discredit others, punish others, force others to remain in their lives (rather paradoxically), and so on. Indeed, in genuinely abusive situations, it’s terrifyingly common that the real abuser appears to be a sympathetic victim, while the real victim appears to be an unhinged aggressor or crazy person (usually the result, in part, of trauma from having been abused).

I should reiterate, at this point, that I‘m not intending to suggest that Mia Farrow’s accusations about Woody Allen are false or pathological; nor am I intending to challenge the informal social practice of erring on the side of accusers rather than the accused, when it comes to the benefit of the doubt. It’s just that if Moses Farrow’s article is true, then it would seem to imply that Mia Farrow’s false accusations are indeed pathological in the relevant way. And, as is typical of such cases, it would seem that the personality disturbances from which the false accusations arose would have originated with Mia Farrow’s own traumatic experiences as a target of abuse. In this way, Moses Farrow’s article raises the issues that I’ve discussed whether or not it happens to be completely true.

Regardless of what you might tell yourself, you’re not siding with or protecting victims of abuse by ignoring complications of this kind, in order to settle for a simplistic narrative that just so happens to support your existing prejudices or accord with your confirmation bias. Instead, you’re actually providing aid and protection to abusers—specifically, those abusers who are counting on the fact that you’ll ignore the possibility of their own abusiveness, while they set about destroying other people’s lives. Abusers can only count on this because the possibility of their own abusiveness is not always immediately obvious, because this possibility complicates matters (and we prefer our matters to be easily digestible and outrageous, rather than indefinitely uncertain and emotionally confusing), and perhaps because they know that we’re wary of contributing to the very real problem of victim-blaming and invalidation, which genuine targets of abuse so frequently face.

I guess what I’m saying is that these things are pretty complicated, and we should always be wary of a simple and emotionally-resonant explanation, whether it resonates with us because it soothes us or because it horrifies us. In fact, it’s precisely when things are at their most emotional and confusing and distressing that our hard-won critical faculties are most important. It’s when we’re feeling a powerful emotional push towards believing something, or when things just seem self-evidently one particular extreme way, that we should be most careful to engage in self-questioning and scientific reasoning, and to recall what we know about our own cognitive biases and misleading intuitions.

There are good pragmatic reasons for resolving to err on the side of accusers, rather than on the side of the accused. But in light of Moses Farrow’s article, one is forced to ask: which of the accusers, exactly? By themselves, surely all of the following are relatively bad answers to this question: ‘the one who first made an accusation’, ‘the one who made the first accusation that I heard’, ‘the one whose accusation, if true, makes me feel better about watching certain films’, ‘the one who’s accusation fits with the kinds of abuse with which I’m most familiar, or fits with my uninformed preconceptions about what is likely or plausible’, ‘the one whose accusation pertains specifically to sexual abuse’, ‘the one whose accusation pertains specifically to the abuse of children’, ‘the one whose accusation would most horrify me if true’, ‘the one whose accusation pertains specifically to the abuse of someone of gender A by someone of gender B’, ‘the accuser who is gender A rather than gender B’, etc.

I admit that prior to reading Moses Farrow’s article, I erred on the side of believing that Woody Allen must have done something abusive. I’m sure that this belief involved some countervailing of the potential for confirmation bias, since I do like Allen’s early films. I’m also sure that the appearance of Allen’s guilt wasn’t helped by the social oddness of the relationship between Soon-Yi and himself, along with the very real potential for exploitation or an asymmetry of power there. Also, you know, it’s tempting to think that where there’s smoke there must be fire (a belief that’s justified roughly in proportion to the number of independent scientific verifications of smoke, together with the average amount of smoke thus verified). Also, if Allen did even some of the alleged stuff, then that would be really bad. And so on. Of course, by itself, none of these is a particularly good reason.

I’m not sure where I stand now, after having read Moses Farrow’s article. Many of the details seem convincing to me. But who the fuck knows (apart from the people who are directly involved). And I guess that’s the overall point, as unsettling and unsatisfying as it might be.

Regardless of how one should err pragmatically, perhaps the surest belief that one can form, upon hearing a claim of abuse, is that some instance of abuse has almost certainly taken place, even if it’s not the particular instance that’s asserted by the claim.

Right to Information in India: Deriving Sustenance from Ancient Indian Culture & Promoting Democracy in India-Juniper Publishers

Introduction

While the ever-rising wave of popular awareness towards one’s self and consequent desire to participate and share in the social, political and economic life of a country taken together is causing widening and deepening of democracy all over the world, the so expanding democracy is again rekindling the quest for information as well as knowledge among all including common masses to lead towards self-creation of a perfect cause and effect relationship between the two - information and democracy.

As obvious, people need information for obtaining better access or greater knowledge of the working of the state or political system so as to accomplish the best of their political selves including all other aspects of life as well, they’re so-accrued information and knowledge will not only consolidate the spirit of democracy by arousing their common desire of participation into the day-to-day political affairs of the state but will also strengthen and consolidate the deep rooted ancient cultural moorings and traditional ethos spawning its glorious past evolving through over hundreds of thousands years of antiquity. And that injects strength and obvious sustenance to the so-evolved traditional cultural heritage and gives vigour & vitality and justification and substantiation to its continuing utility and relevance.

Obviously the glorious past of a country pertains to its commitment for upholding eternal, immutable, universal and ethical-moral moral values because these are the offshoots of the nature - or the divine commandments or pious prescriptions of the almighty God - which bespeak of both internal and external balance and all that is beautiful, good and pleasure- giving in the metaphysical and spiritual sense, thereby establishing a happy union not only within different constituents of nature itself but also between the nature and human beings too.

Hence the Right to Information has not only its temporal connotation and significance as regards expansion and deepening of democracy as well as ensuring transparency, responsibility and accountability in this material world but it may reasonable be infused with the potential to engender the metaphysical instincts and such spiritual inquisitiveness among people at large and even among a normal human-being who can thus ensure one’s both ends - temporal and spiritual - meeting in a normal course of leading his or her usual life, as well explained by a Church father St. Aquinas in the 13th Italy, passing through the deep pangs and volcanic intellectual upheaval of the first renaissance and consequent reformation in Europe.

Thus the much talked about Right to Information in India has had the unique distinction of heralding the country into an era of not only strengthening and consolidating Indian democracy in the country but also engendering to thoroughly revive the distinctive and unparalleled ancient Indian cultural attributes and such humanistic traits of eternal and moral significance which are unfortunately fading and getting diluted to become a little blurred and also meaningless thereby losing its true meaning due to powerful onslaught of the West’s fast expanding materialism and consumer culture including the prevailing extremely vulgar depiction on the internet in all over the world.

Go to

Right to Information

It is in this respect the successful passage of the much-awaited Right to Information Bill - 2005, had created a land mark in the history of Indian democracy though many countries have already passed this right as a law in the past decades even much prior to India. While this act was to ensure transparency, responsibility and also accountability besides ensuring greater interaction and deeper penetration of common man or people at large into the functioning of public or government authority, thereby consolidating the pith and content of the democracy in India, but its actual practice since its inception has not yet achieved the desired result of building a well-informed and exploitation-free society in India, particularly because there are still a huge crowd of illiterate and uneducated persons in the country who always wish to remain disinterested in knowledge seeking exercise and hard work besides the Indian government’s continuing adherence with its anachronistic practice of using and upholding the British government’s logic of official secrets act on grounds of maintaining social solidarity, good health and national security.

Although “democracy” is the best form of government in allover the world, but its long practice has proved it quite otherwise, particularly in India where the socio-political system is still working in a feudal - monarchic manner even after seven decades of its successful experiment with democracy. In fact, the system is very haughty, arrogant, insensitive and even hostile to the desires and aspirations of the common people who are hapless lots as against privileged few as Rajas, Rajkumars, Rajkumaris, Kunwars, Nawabs etc. who still run parallel governments in their areas and grace their people (as loyal subjects) as their ancestors used to do during their sovereign rule before independence of India.

Added to this is the unholy alliance between money and muscle power and also politicians and criminals and also terrorists, besides rampant corruption in the entire polity as well as society leading to a grave crisis of character in the Indian society as the former Chief Election Commissioner Late T, N. Seshan used to worry over fast erosion of classical ethical moral values among Indians as well as in the Indian Society. Obviously Indian democracy continues to be in shambles despite being based upon the strong foundations of ancient India’s distinguished rich traditional culture heritage.

Go to

India’s Cultural Uniqueness

Perhaps no other country in the world occupies such a unique and distinct cultural identity as that of Bharat (India), which has all along been the focus of spiritual and metaphysical attraction and inquiry as well as academic investigation for all the grown up and advanced European and American countries since the dawn of civilization. When a highly acclaimed Indologist and a noted historian, A L Basham [1] attempted to study the historical and cultural uniqueness of ancient Bharat or India since ancient times, he perhaps became spell bound and got overwhelmed to write the title of his study as a famous book The Wonder that was India.

While there are other ancient civilizations like the Mesopotamian, Chinese, Greek etc. to name a few, yet the unparalleled traits and all-pervading remarkable features having global vision - particularly internalizing, practising and also upholding eternal moral values and universal ideals like ‘vasudhaiv-kutumbakam’ or ‘sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramayh…’ and ‘sahanavavatu, sahanaubunaktu, sahaviryam karvavahai, tejasvinavadhitamastu, ma vidwishvahai’, (May God protect us both; may God nourish us both; may we work together with energy and vigour; may our study be enlightening, not giving rise to hostility) and ‘aasharma vyavastha’ or ‘purushartha chatushtaya’ or ‘unity in diversity’ etc. - of Indian culture emphasizing internal as well external balance and harmony and also a sense of belongingness of all living or non-living creatures with each other and also among themselves on the mother Earth while expanding to the entire cosmos, are some of the rarest of the rare features which are unavailable in any other civilization. While the entire cosmos is still unknown to us yet the two fundamental elements in the world - as a part of the cosmos - viz. spirit and matter constitute the primary units of enquiry or analysis, either rational-objective or subjective-faithful. In fact, both spirit and matter control life and the quality of life depend on these both; but no quality is permanent, and it continuously undergoes transformations.

Similarly, human life consists of two aspects: spirit and matter - or spiritual and temporal. In fact, it is the Indian philosophy which associates each body with the eternal soul. What is perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the ancient Indian culture is its emphasis on gyaan or knowledge - or know thyself - which can only liberate an individual self-i.e. the soul, from the mundane world to get union with the Eternal Self or the Supreme Divinity or God or the Brahman. Thus, Indian culture lays emphasis on acquiring knowledge - as the highest end of human life to ensure one’s salvation. The human life, while itself demands knowledge of the temporal self and the material world to achieve worldly pleasures and progress on the one hand, it ultimately craves for true knowledge or the spiritual knowledge or Theology to realize the supreme end of this worldly existence, on the other.

While the supreme end of the human life upon earth is salvation, it may possibly be accomplished in this material world with the help of understanding theology or philosophy or metaphysical discourses meant to explain the desired course towards salvation. Thus, the human life is an endless journey to acquire or gain knowledge from the material world to the spiritual world - or from the worldly knowledge to spiritual knowledge - to finally attain divinity or salvation. As obvious, perhaps there exists none other such a humane and humanitarian culture in the world than that in India.

As human beings undergo this journey in the world while living on the earth which is organized in the form of states; and that is described as the best political organization or school or koinonia (in Greek) - a beautiful partnership in all best human qualities - in the unforgettable words of the great political philosopher Aristotle of ancient Greece. And out of all available political organizations, democracy is undoubtedly the best form of government, though it is indeed a way of life as well. In fact, it was very much praised as a ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’ by an ancient Greek philosopher Cleon, whose immortal words were later reiterated by a former & highly revered and popular American president Abraham Lincoln. A famous English novelist and thinker George Orwell had also eulogized democracy as ‘ours is an age of democracy’.

This is so because it provides ample opportunities to all human beings to participate and run the affairs of state and government themselves and thus, they get the opportunity to know and operate almost each aspect of the political organization as per their own wishes and aspirations. In fact, it is in a democracy wherein the state must ensure transparency, responsibility and accountability for its people to serve and protect their common interests by making them aware about the polity and its functioning; and that, as obvious, allows them to know the society and about the worldly existence. Unfortunately, these extraordinary peoplefriendly features are unavailable in all other forms of political organizations.

Thus, both Indian culture and the democracy operate on the same plane and on the same wave length with the same purpose to let the people know or keep possessed with knowledge - both spiritual and temporal. Obviously the right to know about political organization may be considered to a reasonable extent in creating an socio-economic environment of material progress providing worldly pleasures and such satisfactions which may eventually help to lay the foundation or background upon which an individual may proceed ahead for his or her ultimate goal of knowledge i.e. salvation, as propounded by the Italian the Sainted-Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, during middle ages.

The present article attempts to explore the extent of degeneration that has cropped up in the functioning of Indian Democracy against the wonderful and glorious background of India’s ancient, moral and universal value-based ethos and soevolved rich cultural heritage coming down unabated since the dawn of civilization. While such an amazing cultural roots do inspire faith as well as confidence among Indians about the existence of supreme reality or the Almighty God, its gradual decline over the years due to excessive western influence and soinspired consumerism or consumer culture, has unfortunately inculcated a sense of faithlessness among them about their own selves as well as the God, obviously due to utter ignorance or lack of knowledge - both temporal and spiritual; and that has already shattered the very core of the eternal and universal human values and ideals in many Indians thereby creating violence, chaos, utter lawlessness, corruptions and many more such things and thus degenerating the spirit of democracy in India.

As a way out, the article suggests that while people’s awareness about the Indian Polity and hence Right to Information can only help in reforming and strengthening the spirit of Indian democracy, its continuing and prolonged practice may also helpcontribute in strengthening and consolidating the country’s ancient cultural roots and its rich heritage by help-evolving all that is good and pleasurable in the human beings life in present times.

Go to

Criminalization, Corruption and Politicization of State & Administration

The growing criminalization of politics in India and politicization of crime and criminals pose gave threat as many criminals have already entered politics in the past few decades, encouraged by political parties who wanted candidates strong enough not to be intimidated by rivals. From a trickle of complaints about a few criminals entering legislature in each state, there is now a horrible situation where a huge bulk of honourable parliamentarians and legislators of both Parliament as well as state assemblies in India are suffering the stigma of criminal records.

According to an old Election Commission study in 1997, there were 40 sitting members of Lok Sabha and around 700 of the 4072 members in various state assemblies who had proven criminal records to their credit. Indeed, it is perhaps only in Bharat (INDIA) that criminals stand a higher chance of being elected than noncriminals. The situation continues to be so dire that the former President of India K.R. Narayanan, felt compelled to plead with political parties in January 2001, for not nominating criminals for public offices. Then there is rampant corruption and misuse of government power along with looting of public money particularly by the ruling classes and people’s representatives at all levels of governance. In fact, the Tehelka Tapes had provided an audiovisual proof over the electronic media about the well - entrenched corrupt practices even in army where officials in collusion with political masters and bureaucrats were more interested in lining their pockets rather than giving the best equipment’s to the Army Jawans.

Today the situation is far more painful and worrisome with unearthing of so many big scams like Bofors Howitzer, 2-G Spectrum, Adarsh society allotment, Coal scam, Augasta Wasteland scam to name a few, involving billions of billions hard earned public money. In fact, the bribe - culture in almost all government offices at levels has become the order of the day in the country. Even Indian Judicial system is not immune from the virus of corruption as the former Chairman of the Law Commission B.P. Jeeva Reddy had already deplored that corruption had crippled the Indian Judiciary. The politicization of state and administration is another serious problem. Similarly, a noted Political scientist Paul R, Brass [2] had aptly described the Indian State as an ‘institutionalized riot system.’

Should the People of India not know all these murky dealings going unabated in the Indian polity as well as society? In fact, these are only few tips of the iceberg. The cumulative result of all these factors is fast erosion of Indian democracy which is unable to develop the rule of law in the interest of all. There are several other colossal challenges too attached with the system where politics itself has become a ‘means without ends’; and this poses ominous portents to the future of democracy in India. Hence what is needed is a complete overhauling of the social, economic and political system in India. An important aspect of this process should be total decentralisation of administration providing for maximum popular participation along with clear accountability from top to the bottom [3].

There is an urgent need to reform and update various rules and procedures including criminal procedure codes. Strengthening the criminal justice system to ensure speedy resolution of disputes is also the need of the hour. The representatives be made accountable to their electorates by introducing the system of recall. The Lok Pal Bill must also include the Prime Minister, ministers and senior officers within its purview. Nevertheless, these macro-reforms need to be matched by the reformist policy for ensuring that the right people are at right jobs, and they have the freedom to act without fear of revenge and reprisals. But none of the above is likely to happen to any significant degree unless people themselves become active, responsible and enlightened citizens [4,5].

Hence what comes out to be most important is the requirement of transparency, responsibility and accountability in governance and administration and in the entire functioning of the government. Thus, information and its smooth flow/circulation among people at every nook and corner, assumes considerable significance. Consequently ‘right to information’ becomes a sinequa- none of a modern system of democratic governance. While information here only pertains to the material world, yet it shall to a considerable extent lay the foundation for the onward journey towards realization of the spiritual world too.

Go to

Information and knowledge

Naturally the question arises as to what is information. Information may be a set of coherent and consistent data which are used for communication and that leads to production of knowledge in the temporal world, because knowledge is innately inherent in all human beings as Swami Vivekanand opined. A noted scholar Porat operationally defines information as ‘data that has been organized and communicated.’ Information provides knowledge which gives opportunity and capacity to exercise freedom of choice and provides confidence and effectiveness in making of decisions. The Freedom of Information Bill, 1997 defines ‘Information’ as any material relating to the affairs, administration or decision of a public authority and includes any document or record relating to the affairs of public authority [6].

Information which is required for daily living in a society are: information of laws, services that human being make use of, the different functions of government, tax benefits, scholarships, social welfare services etc., has till recently, only been available in print, as government publications or as verbal communications from government offices and press briefings as direct written communication between state and individual. Without free access to such information, a modern society would experience great discomfort and would gradually enter chaos and disorder. In fact, the information deprived societies slide downwards into an ignorant mess or worse into excessive controlled economies.

As obvious it has now become an established fact that openness and accessibility to information about government’s functioning is an essential ingredient of democracy. The hitherto traditional curtain of secrecy which had long overshadowed the activities of governments is gradually waning and this has created a salutary effect on functioning of governments in all free societies. In most of the democratic societies, the right to know is now a well-established right created under law. It is a right that has evolved with the maturing of the democratic form of governance in all over the world. Democracy is no longer perceived as a form of government where the participation of people is restricted merely to periodical exercise of the right to franchise, with citizens retiring into passivity between elections [7].

It has now a more positive and dynamic content with people having a say in how and by what rules they would be governed. Meaningful participation of people in major issues affecting their lives is not a vital component of the democratic governance but such participation can hardly be effective unless people have information about the way government business is being transacted. Thus, democracy means choice and a sound and informed choice is possible only based on knowledge which obviously has two aspects: temporal and spiritual.

As for knowledge, seeking of information is a pervasive human activity which has a large social dimension in the modern social context. We collect information through a series of sources: universities, libraries, media and now internet to increase our knowledge both for practical reasons and for comfort. In fact, we want quality information. Evidently, knowledge is not only good for us but is an essential requirement because our very survival depends up on it. Therefore, western countries have already enacted the legislation for freedom of information. Similar trends have been also appearing in the developing countries as well. Even in Pakistan, a Freedom of Information Ordinance was promulgated few years ago. The new South African Constitution specifically provides the right to information in its Bill of Rights, thereby giving it an explicit constitutional status. Malaysia too operates an online data base system, known as Civil Service Link, through which a person can access information regarding functioning of the public administration.

Unfortunately, prior to the present Freedom of information Bill, the Indian citizens did not have a constitutional right to freedom of Information - even if that information was linked to his or her survival. There are a plethora of laws, rules and regulations which make it impossible for the ordinary citizen to get access to basic information relating to vital areas such as health, safety and environment. A worker working in an atomic plant does not have the legal right to see the medical report on all levels of radiation; a villager living near a chemical factory need not be warned of possible air or water pollution even if there is danger to his fields and a woman being tested for side effects of a contraceptive has no right under the law to results of the research [8].

Even victims of state atrocities have no right to know about the government’s findings on the case. For instance, the family of a person tortured to death in a police lock up or killed in a fake encounter does not have a right to see the magistrate’s enquiry report. They do not even have the right to look at the post mortem report too. Then there are specific laws which make it legal for the government and government servants to withhold information. Perhaps the earlier was the Indian Official Secrets Act passed in 1880’s, and the amendment of the Commissions of Enquiry Act. In addition, there are innumerable rules and regulations which make it illegal for even government servants to publish an article, or speak at a meeting, or give an affidavit in a public interest litigation.

Go to

Need of Openness and Transparency

All these led to realization of the importance of openness and transparency at all levels. There have long been demands for greater openness and transparency in administration which have gained momentum in the past particularly by the happenings at Ajmer in Rajasthan where villagers fed up with corruption in the panchayat system, started demanding copies of bills, vouchers and muster rolls relating to expenditure incurred by the panchayats. Under the banner of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) they organised jan sunwais (public hearings) between Dec. 1994 and April 1995, where these muster rolls and vouchers were read out to the whole village, which revealed to utter dismay of villagers, that many of the works that were supposed to have been undertaken in the village and for which bill-voucher existed, had in reality never been carried out [9].

The news of this experiment spread across the country which strengthened the local people’s resolve for ensuring transparency in public expenditure [10]. The slogan they adopted was: Harmara Paise, Hamara Hisab (our money, our accounts). Motivated by the happenings in Rajasthan, a national campaign on the right to information was launched which worked with other groups and an initial draft bill for the right to information was formulated. Subsequently, the Press Council of India formulated its own bill, using the earlier bill of the campaign as a base and involving members of the national campaign committee in the drafting work. This bill was presented to the Government of India which, in turn, setup its own committee to examine the bill.

The committee had come up with a report and another draft bill which incorporated many of the suggestions made in the Press Council Bill [11]. These various draft bills were discussed across the country and recommendations for additions and amendments were sent to the government of India. Reportedly this issue received support from political parties too. A consensus also emerged in the Conference of Chief Secretaries held in November 1996, on the need for an early enactment of the law on Right to Information. This conference also urged for incorporation of specific provision relating to transparency in the draft code of Ethics too the Civil Services and the initiatives to formulate Citizen’s Charter in various organizations under the Government.

The terms of reference establishing the above-mentioned Working Group formally recognized the need for legislation to affirm the right to information which had received judicial recognition in 1982 [12]. Nevertheless, there is also a cogently expressed theory of government accountability in parliamentary democracy: Increasingly, the trend is towards accountability in terms of standards of performance and service delivery of public agencies to citizen’s groups they are required to serve. Such accountability is possible only when the public have access to information relating to the functioning of these agencies. The group highlighted the importance of transparency and openness which have a cleansing effect on the operations of public agencies. As it noted, ‘sun light is the best disinfectant.’

Go to

Conclusion

Thus, transparency or openness is a primary requisite for the good political health of a democratic state like India having distinguished cultural identity based upon eternal moral values and universal ideas and ideals. And that appeals to the people at large who wish to know about the polity as well as society in the temporal world and about their selves and ultimate purpose of life and divinity in the spiritual world. While democracy is a participative from of government in which people are expected to play an active role in their governance, their effective participation will be possible only when they have prompt and adequate access to information pertaining to the state. In fact, too much of secrecy in a government leads to arrogance and defective decision making [13].

In a free society it is therefore very necessary to maintain a reasonable balance between people’s access to information and preserving confidentiality where disclosure would be entirely against public interest. Hence there is a close nexus between democracy and the right to information in this temporal world. Without this right no democracy can ever succeed, as the right is the hinge upon which alone can democracy smoothly rotate and become dynamic and vibrant. And that may pave the way for the country’s unmatched cultural uplift and civilizational progress to revive the ancient India’s glory in the present times which is, unfortunately, witnessing massive upheavals and tumultuous changes, heinous crimes and macabre terrorism and such many more things beyond imagination and description, thereby ensuring hitherto unexplored material and spiritual benchmarks simultaneously [14].

Because it is, indeed, India’s unique message to the entire humanity founded on its ancient cultural ideals and the legacy of peace, solidarity and brotherhood in the world which firmly believes the whole world constituted as a family i.e. vasudhaivkutumbakam. Obviously what else can be the global vision not present in the Indian culture which does not promote the very spirit of democracy in the true sense of the term. And that continues to grow and march from strength to strength with the help of providing the required thrust for expansion of education at every nook and corner of the country so that “We, the People of India” may become well-versed in the working of government to governance thereby contributing towards accomplishing the greater enrichment of democracy in India. Obviously, this may also pave the way towards better realization of the human self in a more humanitarian perspective and congenial environment to proceed towards sublimation for the ultimate attainment of salvation. This is possible as nothing is beyond human endeavour.

https://juniperpublishers.com/asm/ASM.MS.ID.555593.php

For More Articles in Annals of Social Sciences & Management studies 

Please Click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/asm/index.php For More Open Access Journals In Juniper Publishers 

Please Click  on: https://juniperpublishers.com/index.php

To know More about our Juniper Publishers linkedin 

Please Click  on: https://www.linkedin.com/company/juniper-publishers