#Master of Public Policy Online | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

luxlisbons · 4 months

Text

Voulez-Vous? - part i

Mencken's ego takes a hit when Harriet's eye wanders to the newly elected French president. In response, he engineers a grand state dinner, turning diplomatic affairs into a battlefield of jealousy.

part of the "before there's hell to pay" universe: part i - part ii - part iii

pairing: jeryd mencken x original female character. 4k

warnings: affairs, unhealthy relationships, dubious morality, explicit language, age difference, smut, religious imagery & symbolism, unprotected sex, pov first person, the french

a/n: lmao so... this idea came to be thanks to @rxgirlie and i's obsession with a current french actor known for playing a lawyer in a film (iykyk), so picture him as marcel reynaud (who will make his appearance in the second part). thank you so much to Kels and my friend Lu @nyheartbreak for proofreading and encouraging me to post this.

Read on AO3.

It all started with an online poll. The Buzzfeed type of crap you read while waiting for the clock to strike 5 pm in your crummy little open space office.

“The definitive list of the 10 hottest presidents”

Usually, despite his very alienating politics, Mencken would place number one. What can I say? Everyone loves a bad boy, especially one they can fix with sex. Attention was brought to his steely gaze, the danger and confidence he exuded in his speeches, and his past as a 90s rock band member:

“Okay but 90s Mencken??? Twink goals, honestly😍”

“Mencken got me like 😱🔥”

“I never thought I'd say this, but Jeryd Mencken, you're kinda hot 😅 “

“He is such a silver fox zaddy 🦊”

His unofficial title became “Silver Fox in Chief”, and it gave us tabloid fodder for when we wanted to deflect from his racist dog whistles and controversial actions in D.C., which was a lot of the time for very obvious reasons. We were like puppet masters pulling the strings, orchestrating this wild media circus around Mencken. It was a classic ATN move, redirecting attention from the messy stuff and instead shining the spotlight on Mencken's supposed charm.

We brainstormed catchy hashtags and encouraged people to share their favorite Mencken moments online. It was all about creating a narrative that suited our agenda – making him this irresistible figure, a distraction from the serious issues at hand. We knew how to play the game, and damn, did it work. The internet ate it up, and suddenly, Mencken was not just a president; he was a phenomenon.

The internet had found a new obsession; fancams flooded the internet– from the way he adjusted his tie to the subtle glances he threw at the camera during press conferences. TikTok became a breeding ground for creative edits, with old concert footage seamlessly synchronized to modern pop hits, each video racking up millions of views and fueling the ever-growing fandom.

Twitter experienced a constant Mencken presence. Anytime the president made a public appearance or donned a new suit, his name would surge to the top of trending lists. The online obsession transcended political boundaries; even those who vehemently disagreed with Mencken's policies found themselves unable to resist his allure.

His press conferences were now attended not just by political journalists but also by entertainment reporters eager to capture the latest juicy details about the "hottest president" phenomenon. Mencken, bemused and enjoying the attention, tried to redirect the conversation to policy matters, while also stoking the fires with quips and acknowledgments of his sex symbol status.

His fanbase (which consisted of both ironic and genuine fans) even created a nickname for themselves: the “Mencken Fuckers”. They organized themselves into a formidable online community. They created fan art, fan fiction, and even fan-made music videos that further propelled the president into pop culture stardom. The group's ironic name didn't deter their dedication; they wore it as a badge of honor, unapologetically reveling in their unconventional admiration for the leader of the free world.

One such video caught my undivided attention while doomscrolling through TikTok late at night. It was one created with candid moments in which I appeared beside him, laughing and talking with Lana Del Rey’s song “Let The Light In” playing in the background. The chemistry between the both of us, set against the dreamy soundtrack, fueled speculation and excitement among the Mencken Fuckers. It both amused and mortified me how close to the actual truth they were.

Caption: "Is it just me, or are these two looking like the ultimate power duo? 👀💼💫 #CloseEncounters #PoliticalChemistry"

Comments:

1. @ShipperSupreme: Move over romance novels, this is the love story we didn't know we needed! 😂❤️

2. @CuriousMinds: Are we witnessing the birth of a new power couple? 👫💫

3. @LaughingWithLana: Lana Del Rey's song just makes this whole thing even more iconic! 🎶🔥

4. @Daydreamer_Deluxe: I ship it! 😍💘 Who needs reality when we can have this fantasy?

5. @RealityCheck: Wait, are we calling them #Menkenriet or #Harren now? 🤔

6. @CupidInTheComments: My arrows of love have found a new target! 💘🏹

7. @PoliticalLoveAffairs: Move aside, political drama; we're here for the romance! 🇺🇸❤️

I couldn’t help myself, I sent the link to Mencken, who after some technical wrangling on his part “I’m 54, of course I’m not gonna have Tik Tok installed for fuck’s sake” finally saw it.

The ringing of the phone cut through the silence of my empty apartment, startling General Meow from her nap and sending her scurrying toward the living room. I sighed, muttering to myself about the timing, and picked up after the first ring, feeling like a good little lap dog.

"Hey there, Mencken," I greeted, smirking to myself as I imagined his perplexed expression on the other end. "Ready for a little adventure in the world of internet?"

Mencken's voice echoed through the line, confusion lacing every word, "Harriet, what in the hell is going on? Why are people shipping us? Are we supposed to be getting something delivered?"

Suppressing a laugh, I explained, "No, Mencken, it's not about deliveries. It's a term they use on the internet when people want two characters or real people to be in a romantic relationship. They call it 'shipping.'"

There was a brief pause before Mencken asked incredulously, "Shipping? Like cargo and ships?"

I chuckled, covering my mouth to stifle the laughter. "Not quite. It's short for 'relationship.' They think we're the ultimate power couple, Mencken."

"Is this some kind of secret code or a new political term I missed in my briefings?" Mencken's confusion was palpable.

I couldn't help but tease, "No secret code, just internet slang. They're imagining us as this influential and glamorous duo."

Another pause, then Mencken's voice returned, this time more incredulous, "You're telling me there are people out there who think we're having an affair? With each other?"

"Yep, that's the gist of it. Welcome to the world of shipping, Mencken. It's a strange place," I replied, my grin growing wider. “And they've even given us a ship name – #Menckenriet. Catchy, right?" I couldn't help but enjoy the absurdity of it all.

Mencken sighed on the other end, probably shaking his head, "I can't believe this is happening."

"Embrace the fame, Mencken! Who knows, maybe we'll start a new trend in political shipping," I teased, still grinning.

There was a long-suffering sigh from Mencken. "I don't have time for this nonsense. I have a country to run."

"Your loss, Mencken. #Menckenriet could've been the political love story of the century," I quipped.

As I prepared to hang up, he interjected with a serious tone, "Wait, do they actually know about us... you know, being intimate?"

My playful demeanor faltered for a moment. "No, Mencken. It's just speculation and fantasy. They don't know anything for sure."

Mencken sounded relieved, "Good. Let's keep it that way."

But before I could end the call, he added in a soft voice, "Clear up your schedule. I'm gonna drop by during the weekend."

Since Rome, Mencken's hard veneer had chipped away. He made more time for me, wasn't as mean – well, still an asshole, but, as he put it, "Your asshole, sweetheart.”

“Well, aren't you so romantic,” I mused mostly to myself, a wry smile playing on my lips.

“Yeah, well, I figured life's too short to be a constant jerk. Besides, dealing with you is marginally less irritating than dealing with most people," I couldn't suppress a laugh. High praise, indeed. Looking forward to the weekend then.

As the call concluded, I imagined Mencken shaking his head and muttering, "I'm too old for this." I let out a loud hyena cackle which leaves General Meow staring at me with her wide green eyes.

______________________________________________________________

And then the French presidential election happened.

It was a tight race between three players, each one from a widely different part of the political spectrum. On one hand, the far-right candidate, the heiress of the National Rally, Marine Le Pen, was Mencken's pick. On the other hand, the incumbent President, Emmanuel Macron, stood as a centrist, aiming to maintain stability and balance in turbulent times. The third contender, Marcel Reynaud, a charismatic socialist from the left, caught the attention of many with his passionate speeches and a boyish yet distinguished appearance, with graying hair that hinted at wisdom beyond his years, reminiscent of a Dostoevsky prince.

As the campaign unfolded, Marcel Reynaud's popularity soared. His fiery rhetoric and genuine connection with the people resonated across various demographics. The public, weary of the traditional political dichotomy, found in him a fresh and appealing alternative. The French, tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, began to rally behind Reynaud, drawn by the promise of a new era and genuine change.

Reynaud's physical presence added an extra layer to his appeal. Imagine a man with rugged charm, grey tousled hair that hinted at rebelliousness, and piercing blue eyes that conveyed both intensity and empathy. His speeches, delivered with conviction, echoed a vision of a more inclusive and socially just France.

Election day arrived, and the people of France turned out in record numbers. The results trickled in, each update intensifying the suspense. When the final count was announced, it was Marcel Reynaud who emerged as the victor. The socialist left candidate had secured a historic win, breaking the stronghold of the traditional political forces.

As the news of his victory spread, so did the memes, fan art, and adoring posts dedicated to Marcel Reynaud. Internet users affectionately dubbed him the "French boyfriend," and hashtags like #ReynaudRevolution and #MarcelMania trended worldwide. He quickly dethroned Mencken as the hottest president online, captivating not just the French public but garnering attention on the global stage.

The internet was flooded with swooning comments about Reynaud's “elf” vibes, and fan accounts dedicated to his every move and policy decision multiplied. Memes comparing him to heroes from literature circulated, portraying him as the embodiment of a modern-day romantic lead. His charisma had transcended politics; he had become a symbol of a new era, both politically and personally.

______________________________________________________________

Mencken was not impressed. Despite being in his mid 50s, he still was a petty child underneath it all, mad about the spotlight being taken off him and given to a soy boy from France of all places.

The ping of random texts, accompanied by a distinctive ringtone reserved exclusively for him, never failed to jolt me with a thrill, whether I was immersed in work or drifting off to sleep – a Pavlovian response he found pathetically endearing.

M "Just saw another damn article about Marcel Reynaud. 🙄 Apparently, he's the new poster boy for socialism. What a load of crap."

H: "Oh, Mencken, you're just jealous that Reynaud's stealing the limelight. 😏”

M: "Another day, another interview with Reynaud. 📰 Can't escape the guy. Do you think he practices that brooding stare in the mirror?"

H: "Maybe he's born with it, maybe it's political strategy. 🤷🏻‍♀️"

M: "Thoughts on Marcel's new hairstyle? 💇‍♂️ Trying to figure out if he's attempting a political rebrand or just desperately needs a barber."

H: "Maybe he's channeling the winds of change through his hair. 😂 At least he's keeping things interesting. You should try it sometime."

M: "Harriet, tell me you didn't fall for the hype. 🤨 The French might adore their 'heartthrob,' but I know you have better taste."

H: "Of course not, Mencken. I only have eyes for the 'old and grumpy' type. 😉

To that last text he replied with a hilariously outdated “fuck yea” meme, highlighting how out of touch he could be sometimes.

______________________________________________________________

In one of our romantic getaways, (if you can call secretly meeting in a pre-swept room with Secret Service agents hanging outside the door romantic) he once again brought up le problème.

We had dinner from Dorsia’s to-go in my apartment, with General Meow eyeing our food from her own seat at the table. I tried to make conversation but Mencken's answers were clipped, a subtle giveaway that something was amiss. I took it all in stride, already accustomed to his mercurial moods. I knew that he was stressed about something and that once we fucked, he would relax and the tension would dissipate.

Wanting to make up for missing a couple of our dates, he takes me for a drive around the city in a sleek black car with tinted windows, a partition separating us from the chauffeur. The sound of muffled traffic and a bossa nova playlist was our soundtrack, as we furiously make out like teenagers on their way to prom. He’s quiet except for the sighs that escape his lips. I get needy and he likes it, petting me the same way he does my cat. The similarity does not escape me. His hands begin to go lower until they eventually find my hot center and he smiles against my mouth as he realises I’m not wearing panties. Mencken's voice, low and husky, breaks the silence as he whispers, "You always know how to keep things interesting, Harriet."

I respond with a teasing smile, my voice a breathless whisper, "Well, Mr. President, I aim to please."

His fingers continued their exploration, tracing patterns of fire on my clit. “Mr. President? You're playing a dangerous game," he murmured, his lips trailing hot kisses along my neck as he slips two fingers into me.

The combined sensation sends shivers down my spine. I cry out of pleasure and I am thankful for the soundproofed privacy the partition offers us. Eager to reciprocate, my hand instinctively moved toward his belt, but Mencken halted my advance with a gentle yet firm grip.

“Not here, better in the hotel room,” he whispered, his breath warm against my ear. The promise of what awaited us hung tantalizingly in the air.

Our destination was a high-rise hotel he had booked, soaring 68 floors into the city skyline. It was quintessentially Mencken, reveling in the sensation of being the most powerful man even during sex. The car eased into a lull inside the hotel's basement parking lot, providing a moment for me to compose myself while awaiting the Secret Service's assurance that the coast was clear.

Mencken eyes me mockingly. “You do realise they all know what we’re just doing in here and what we’re about to do in that room”.

I roll my eyes and reply, “A girl has to keep some secrets. Adds to the intrigue, doesn't it?"

He smirks, a glint of amusement in his eyes. "Well, let them think what they want. It's not like we've ever been ones to play by the rules."

With a final nod from the Secret Service, Mencken opens the car door, ushering me out. The hotel's opulent lobby awaits us, and I can't help but feel a rush of excitement. The atmosphere is hushed, with the discreet professionalism one would expect in such an establishment.

He is rough, manhandling me immediately after we cross the threshold of the room.

The door closes behind us, and the plush interior of the room envelops us in a cocoon. The dim lighting casts a sultry ambiance, amplifying the energy that crackles between us.

Mencken turns to face me, his eyes filled with a hunger that matches my own. With a swift move, he captures my lips in a kiss, his hands roaming possessively over my body. In the intimate space, he pins me against the door, a delicious urgency in his touch. His kisses travel from my lips down to the curve of my neck, igniting a cascade of shivers. The feeling lights me whole like a star. He grabs my hand and leads towards the floor to ceiling windows, the quiet city completely unaware of what is about to unfold. Mencken's eyes lock onto mine, a silent communication passing between us. With a heated intensity, he guides me onto my knees, the plush carpet beneath feeling cool against my skin.

My hands find their way to his belt, fingers working deftly to release him. His cock is already half hard, forming a wet patch on his boxers. I pull them down to spring him free and my tongue reaches out in anticipation. In that moment, the world outside seems to fade away, leaving the two of us suspended in time. His fingers tangle in my hair, a silent encouragement to continue the exploration. As my lips inch closer to their destination, I can feel the heightened tension in the room. His arousal is palpable, the air charged intensity. I wet my mouth, preparing to take him in, and our eyes lock as my lips envelop him. A shiver runs through Mencken's body, and the room echoes with his moans of pleasure.

As the sensations escalate, Mencken's husky voice breaks the silence. "Harriet," he says, a blend of urgency and pleasure in his tone. I smile at him, as much as one can smile with a mouthful of cock. Yet, he knows—I look at him with such adoration as if I were in prayer and him my patron saint. The city outside may slumber in blissful ignorance, but within these four walls, I hold the most powerful man in the world in my grasp.

I alternate between licking his length and kissing his tip, his skin flushing to a delicious shade of pink. “Adorable” is definitely not the best adjective to describe him, nevertheless it is the word that comes to your mind. Yes, this man who can be quite vicious and spew the most hateful vitriol can also exhibit a human side. In those rare moments when it's just the two of us, away from the public eye, I get a glimpse of a softer side that few get to witness. This only eggs me on, and I fasten my maneuvers until he can barely keep standing still.

Just when I’m about to finish him off, he jolts me up and pushes me into the bed, covering me with his body, engulfing me. He stays still for a few seconds and places his wedding band covered hand protectively over my neck. He stares at me deeply and suddenly feeling self conscious I look away.

"Harriet…” he murmurs, his voice a low rumble. His hand moves towards my chin and commands me to look straight at him. “Look at me, please”.

And I do. His thumb brushes gently over my cheek, and he leans down to place a soft kiss on my lips. "You're incredible, you know that?" he whispers, his words a mixture of admiration and desire.

He seems more expressive tonight, a departure from his usual sour demeanor. “Yeah, I am very well aware of it, thank you for the reminder.” I decide to inject a bit of humor into the situation. While I appreciate this more open side of him, it's honestly weirding me out a bit.

He rolls his eyes, “Don’t get cocky.”

“Shut up. Quick, kiss me again, old man.”

He smirks, leaning in for another kiss. Our lips meet, and the intensity between us reignites. We make quick work of our clothes, and he has me on all fours facing the window. I try to push away the thought of him imagining fucking the city in that egomaniac head of his. As he roams my body, I focus on the sensation, letting the pleasure wash over me. The position lets him get in much deeper, which combined with one hand pulling my hair and the other spanking me on the ass, makes me go crosseyed and incoherent.

“Oh shit, fuck! Oh my god”, I gasp in between moans. This goads him into increasing his thrusts and to reply with possibly the most cliche response ever.

“Nope, just me”, he snarls.

“Ugh, just shut up and fuck me, you asshole”, I groan out both in pleasure and cringe.

He pulls me up while still inside me so my back is against his chest. His calloused fingers come to rest on breasts and my clit, both rotating and pinching me in exquisite pleasure. Inside I get hot white and my vision goes out as the tautness that has been growing explodes. Mencken follows closely, my pussy milking him until he comes inside of me.

The soft glow of the bedside lamp bathes the room in a warm aura as Mencken and I fall in tangled limbs. With the air thick with a heady mixture of contentment and the smell of sex, Mencken, typically stoic post coitus, couldn't resist diving headfirst into banter.

His eyes wandered to the ceiling, contemplating the subject that had crept into his thoughts. "You know, I can't help but think about the French election."

I turned to him, raising an eyebrow, feigning innocence. "Oh, so now you feel like talking. Do tell. Is there a particular candidate you find captivating? Is this why you were so broody this evening?”

Mencken's lips curved into a smirk, his eyes glinting with mischief. “Marcel Reynaud, the so-called heartthrob. I fail to see what the fuss is about."

I propped myself up on an elbow, ready for the snarky exchange that was bound to follow.

"Well, Mencken, not everyone can appreciate his charm. Or perhaps, you're just not into the whole 'French boyfriend' craze?"

Mencken scoffed, dismissing the idea with a wave of his hand.

“Oh, please! He's just another commie with a mediocre appeal. Looks like he belongs in some sad Eastern European gay porn."

I couldn't help but burst into laughter at his blunt assessment.

"Oh, Mencken, you have such a way with words. I suppose, in your eyes, only right-wing politicians can be easy on the eyes?"

Mencken grinned, his snarkiness unwavering. "Exactly."

Teasing him further, I continued, "Well, you can't deny he's got a certain je ne sais quoi. Maybe you're just jealous that the internet's boyfriend title slipped away from you."

Mencken scoffed again, feigning indifference, “Jealous? Hardly."

Chuckling, I replied, "Of course not, Mencken. Your appeal is far too sophisticated for the masses."

“Wait, you really find him hot? You have the most powerful man in the world in your bed but you still are thinking about some third-rate European lefty? He isn’t even a full president, he has a fucking prime minister!”

“Woah there, I thought you weren’t jealous.”

“I’m just disappointed in you. Really, what happened to your taste?”

He has a plane to catch the next morning. So when he has enough rest, (“I’m an old man, remember?”) he fucks me once again after eating me out, another habit he has picked up from Rome. During the week I have to wear turtlenecks and scarves to cover up the love bites he left over my chest and neck. Immature asshole.

______________________________________________________________

His administration suddenly became very interested in US-France relations. I could practically see the cogs turning in his mind, the wheels of diplomacy greased with a hint of jealousy. The irony wasn't lost on me—the leader of the free world, concerned about a romantic rival from across the Atlantic.

One evening, as we lounged in my apartment with General Meow resting on his lap, Mencken couldn't resist poking at the issue. “Any thoughts on how we can improve diplomatic ties with France? Perhaps organize a state dinner, or maybe I should visit him on a diplomatic mission?”

I exhale a sigh, knowing exactly where he was going with this. “You're the President of the United States. I'm pretty sure there are more pressing matters than cozying up to Marcel Reynaud just because your lover thinks he’s hot.”

He grinned, a playful glint in his eyes. "Well, I just thought it would be a shame if our relations suffered due to my charming French competition."

And so it was decided, a state dinner was on the horizon, orchestrated not just for diplomatic reasons but also as a subtle way for Mencken to flex his presidential prowess in the face of a perceived rival. It was not lost on me that, deep down, this was more about asserting dominance. Men and their petty egos.

In the weeks leading up to the state dinner, Mencken's text arrived, a blend of formality and subtle suggestion. "Pick something nice, my dear. You'll be seated with me and Marcel. Let's make it a spectacular evening."

#succession #jeryd mencken #jeryd mencken x reader #succession fanficion #succession fanfic #justin kirk #succession hbo

30 notes · View notes

cowboygreeting · 3 months

Text

art © starparkdesigns

task 001. 𝚖𝚞𝚜𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚎𝚛.

last updated 02/20/2024

BASICS.

𝐍𝐀𝐌𝐄 seth hiroshi masters — seth hiroshi from birth, masters 1996-onwards, following his legal adoption.

𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐍𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐒 cowboy greeting professionally, apparently; gnomerodeo if you know him from online. believe it or not, it is a coincidence.

𝐅𝐀𝐂𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐌 will sharpe

𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐈𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐄𝐒 thin scar cutting through his eyebrow, healed-broken nose, occasional facial twitch/spasm

𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐎𝐎𝐒 / 𝐏𝐈𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒

japanese maple (right shoulder); canada goose in flight (right bicep); soot sprites (left forearm); kermode bear [spirit bear] (crook of left elbow); pistols pointing down (matching, both hips); portuguese water dog [his childhood dog sam] in play (left calf)

pierced right ear, small gold hoop

𝐀𝐆𝐄 / 𝐃.𝐎.𝐁. 38 years old / 2.2.1986

𝐙𝐎𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐂 aquarius sun: unconventional, abstract, boundary-pushing, roots for the underdog; scorpio moon: intense, passionate, dramatic, struggles to let others in; sagittarius rising: independent, optimistic, confident, charismatic yet blunt and critical

𝐇𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐍 powell river, b.c. / brampton, ontario

𝐅𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐘

ellen and rod masters (parents); mackenzie irish (sister); brandon irish (brother-in-law); june irish (niece)

kaiko mcintyre-masters (daughter, lives with her mother) — his favourite person on planet earth, hands down, would do anything for her, keeps several pictures of her in his wallet, will not be letting anyone here who doesn't already know she exists know about her.

𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑 / 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐍𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐒 cis man, he/him

𝐒𝐄𝐗𝐔𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 gay

𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐒 single, never married.

enjoys hookups and casual relationships; has dated on-and-off; last serious relationship ended several years ago; says he's prioritizing work and his daughter, truly has no interest in committing to the people he meets.

𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐓𝐒 thoughtful, considerate, loyal, obedient

𝐍𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐓𝐒 timid, disconnected, tendency towards disinvestment, capacity for fixation/malicious compliance

𝐇𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐓𝐒 vaping, compulsive gaming, more-than-occasional drug and alcohol use, late night wandering, not texting back

𝐇𝐎𝐁𝐁𝐈𝐄𝐒 gaming (particularly world of warcraft and rust, social games); bass guitar; powerlifting; cooking; rec-league rugby

𝐏𝐄𝐓𝐒 (𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐌𝐄) tobiko — tiny crusty white mutt. sometimes known as tobi or toebeans. currently being cared for by his parents.

THE FOUNDATION.

𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐅𝐅 𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐋𝐄 jr. researcher

𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐎𝐔𝐒 𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍(𝐒) jr. researcher for the reintegration department; field analyst doing site evaluations on a number of mtfs — some might call this "glorified operative hall monitor", which he would resent

𝐋𝐀𝐒𝐓 𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐆𝐍𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 last worked for the anomalous entities engagement division (aeed), researching the efficacy of humane containment procedures and enrichment programs against more traditional methods of containment — some might describe this as "glorified scp babysitter", which he wouldn't necessarily object to

𝐒𝐊𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐒 / 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐅𝐈𝐂𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐒

formal credentials include: a b.a. in psychology, with a focus in cognitive and behavioural psych; a masters of social work, with a focus in public policy and family systems; several years of experience writing policy in the non-profit sector, several years of experience working with vulnerable clients in the field

informal credentials include: an impossibly high tolerance for bureaucratic bullshit, an iron stomach, thicker skin than you'd imagine, genuinely sense of care for those around him, not caring whether or not he personally gets fired, fluency in boardspeak

EXTRAS.

𝐁𝐈𝐎𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐏𝐇𝐘 to be added.

𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐍𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 to be added.

𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐄𝐑 / 𝐍𝐀𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐒 to be added.

𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 gideon nav, the locked tomb; dr. wilson, house; antigone, jean anouilh's antigone; camilla hect, the locked tomb; oh dae-su, oldboy

𝐌𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐒 to be expanded upon. for the time being, see my cg tag.

#fhq.task #fhq.seth #seth.task #LOTS I STILL NEED TO ADD I KNOW I JUST WANTED . SOMETHING UP #least unsettling list of character inspirations /s

9 notes · View notes

dessertgeek · 4 months

Text

I wanted to throw out some thoughts on the US not voting discussion as someone with relevant training.

So I don't talk about it a whole lot on here nowadays, but I have a Master of Public Administration, also known as the 'government cat herding' graduate degree. And I am all for Land Back and doing what we can to survive now. So let's talk surviving while voting and Biden.

First, local elections - and local political events - matter a ton. Most of the things that affect your day to day aren't coming from the President, they're from your governor, mayor, and city council. And some of the most effective folks at making change I have ever seen are semi-retired and retired folks who care about one thing and attend every last relevant small town hall and mayoral coffee meeting possible. Government staff have to listen to them disproportionately because they show up.

Can't show up? Then can you work on making these events accessible, or on ways for folks who can go instead of you to show up? We need more online town halls desperately, but also childcare and support for folks who want to attend but can't otherwise. (Local mutual aid orgs and voting groups might be working on some of this, but very few work on disability stuff when bringing back online town halls could change the game.) Same to fighting for mail in ballots, since more people could vote then (though we will always need in person options for some folks, this will help a ton).

Like I said over on Mastodon, they've tracked most school book bannings in the US to less than a dozen people, and most garbage Seattle area policies come from one horrible dude. You can absolutely overwhelm them.

Second, don't want Biden in the primary? Then it's time to start calling/writing his office and your representatives now to tell him to not run. While he will likely push for running as incumbent, going in super unpopular is Just Bad Strategy. If all everyone hears is that their constituencies won't support him, that's going to matter. And we don't have a whole lot of time, these gears are already turning.

And as a bonus, if you ever want a quick summary of a major political issue so you can talk effectively at events, likely the Government Accountability Office has already written a nonpartisan summary, along with a one page executive summary and recommendations, all available for free. They also do huge analyses and draft recommendations on various topics, also free. If anyone takes anything from this, it's that the GAO's out here doing the research you don't want to. (In theory elected officials read these too, but really most only read the first page/column. If you read two pages you likely know more than they do.)

#like yes absolutely support Palestine #but also help support the trans kids and immigrant families who might not survive another year of Trump #us politics #and I didn't get into unions or mutual aid group joining #but yes please join unions and mutual aid and affinity groups

6 notes · View notes

the-peculiar-bi-tch · 9 months

Text

CW: extreme transphobia, political violence, Don't Say Gay, trans genocide, 2024 election

I was made aware today of the GOP's "Mandate for Leadership" document today, which is a giant policy wishlist for conservatives and business execs for the first 180 days of a Republican presidential election victory in 2024. What they want is beyond extreme. This article from Dame Magazine covers it, and I'll put it below the break because it really is as bad as the CW makes it out to be. tldr, conservatives quite literally want all trans people locked up or dead, if you're an adult in the U.S. and can vote, vote blue no matter who. idc what arguments you make, you vote blue to stop this from happening.

Conservatives are trying to build off the anti-woke culture war that has proven broadly unpopular and has shot the leg off DeSantis' campaign. Some of the biggest conservatives policy orgs and think tanks are pushing this and it is the most threatening, unconstitutional shit imaginable.

They are fully embracing the "unitary executive theory", where the president has total power over the executive department and its agencies (anything labelled "Department," the EPA, etc) with no Congressional oversight whatsoever. It's a ridiculous, flatly illegal doctrine to try and act within, but conservatives have shown they do not care about the law and are going to do whatever the hell they want if they can. They want to use this total power over the executive branch to politically influence the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the courts into prosecuting political enemies (revenge for grand juries charging Trump with well over 100 felonies over crimes he provably committed) and forcing blue states to turn over all trans people they are sheltering for prosecution. Prosecution of what? Anything. Sex crimes applied to trans people existing in public, whether in person or online, because "what if a minor sees this perversion?"

States like California and Maryland have enacted safe harbor laws, meaning any trans people fleeing a red state, say, Texas, will not be extradited back to Texas for wearing makeup around a child. It means that these states will not recognize efforts by other states to essentially kidnap trans people. This document shows that conservatives want to use a political DOJ to threaten district attorneys in those states into turning over any and all trans people they're harboring. Stuff like this would be made way easier with KOSA (Kids Online Safety Act, S.1409), requiring Internet service providers to share a lot for personal data with the federal government. The Republican Senator who introduced it, Blackburn, has said it would be used to target trans people. While I have reached out to both my senators about this and Warnock and Ossoff have both told me they are no votes, it's still far too widely supported in the Senate. (Btw fuck Sen. Blumenthal, he's been on this anti-privacy bent for years and I hope he gets primaried and made completely irrelevant just for introducing this bill.)

What does this mean for trans people in 2024? Simple. If you value trans rights, and you are eligible to vote in the U.S., vote for the Democratic Party.

Greens stand less of a chance in defeating any Republican presidential nominee than I stand swimming across the Pacific. 2024 cannot be a "I don't like either party" election, it cannot be a "both sides" election because while I curse Blumenthal and other Democrats for going along with stuff like KOSA, they are not actively genocidal and many rail against the attacks people like DeSantis and MTG have levied against us. This cannot be a "let's just do a revolution" election cycle because yeah you're just going to organize a proletarian revolution in 400 days, overthrow the U.S. government, and install a functioning proletarian-focused queer-protecting government without it immediately backfiring from any number of potential fuckups that come with revolution.

Vote Democrat. Tell your friends to vote Democrat. Vote down the ballot. Phone bank, canvas, hell join a campaign. I made calls in 2020 with a nonprofit to get out votes for GA senate runoffs, those orgs were vital in those campaigns. When it comes to political pragmatism for this issue, the 2024 presidential election is the best way to affect the change we want.

Trans people cannot have our rights stripped this completely from us because a few hundred thousand people in a few key states go "oh yeah I like cornell west, my vote doesn't matter anyways so what's the harm voting third-party?"

“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

There's your fucking harm.

#politics #us politics #trans genocide #don't say gay #christofascists #vote blue no matter who

16 notes · View notes

samsi6 · 8 months

Text

Ihr kennt ja die Situation, man schaut so nach 11 Jahren wieder ins Portemonnaie, guckt aufs Haltbarkeitsdatum des Ausweises und, Upsi, der Verfall liegt in der Vergangenheit, weil die Dinger aus unerfindlichen Gründen nur 10, nicht aber 20 oder 40 Jahre gültig sind. Dabei ist das Photo noch frisch und der Ausweis sieht auch noch okay aus. Jedenfalls war es soweit, aus unterschiedlichen Gründen musste ich meinen Weg zurück in die ordnungspolitisch verbriefte Existenzberechtigung antreten. Schließlich gilt selbst die Abofahrkarte für den ÖPNV nur, wenn der Ausweis gilt, selbst wenn das Ticket ordentlich bezahlt wurde. Doch vor dem Erhalt des Ausweises und der damit ordentlich dokumentierten Zweifelsfreiheit des Daseins liegen Hürden, die es zu überspringen gilt. Das amtliche Photo machte mir eine Angestellte einer örtlichen Drogeriemarktfiliale. Aaaaaaber... den Termin für einen Besuch der für mich zuständigen Behörde zu vereinbaren, das ist hier, in Frankfurt am Main, gar nicht so einfach. Denn irgendwie kann man nicht etwa um 16 Uhr einen Termin im Internet buchen. Das geht, warum auch immer, höchstens etwa vor Zwölf Uhr mittags. Versucht man es später, sind in allen Bürgerämtern keine Termine mehr zu finden. Morgens um Sieben sind dann wieder Termine für die kommende Woche buchbar. Ich glaube, Deutschland ist das einzige Land der Welt, dass es schafft, sogar das Internet in einen Behördenmodus zu pressen... Nachdem ich all das aber meisterlich bewältigt hatte, mich sogar am Eingang registriert hatte, um mir dort meine Terminbestätigung bestätigen zu lassen, ja, wir sind hier schließlich in Deutschland, danach jedenfalls erfolgte eine pünktliche, sehr unterhaltsame und absolut professionelle Erledigung meiner Anliegen, so dass kaum noch Wünsche offen standen. Die wenigen offenen Wünsche erfüllte ich mir bei einem Essen in der Wunderbar. Jetzt bin ich gespannt, in welch eiliger Zeit mir meine neuen Dokumente zu Verfügung stehen werden. Ich habe QR-Codes erhalten, die mir Auskunft werden erteilen können. Sollen sie jedenfalls. Man wird sehen...

You know the situation, you look in your wallet again after 11 years, look at the expiry date of the ID and, oops, the expiry is in the past because for some unknown reason these things are valid for just 10, not 20 or 40 years. The photo is still fresh and the ID card still looks okay. In any case, the time had come; for various reasons, I had to make my way back to the right to exist that was guaranteed by the regulatory policy. After all, even the subscription ticket for public transport is only valid if the ID is valid, even if the ticket has been properly paid for. But before you can receive your ID card and thus properly document your existence without any doubt, there are hurdles that need to be overcome. The official photo was taken by an employee at a local drugstore branch. Buuuuut... arranging an appointment to visit the authority responsible for me is not that easy here, in Frankfurt am Main. Because somehow you can't book an appointment online at 4 p.m. For whatever reason, this only works at around twelve o'clock in the afternoon. If you try later, you won't be able to find any appointments in any citizen's office. Appointments for the coming week can be booked again at seven in the morning. I think Germany is the only country in the world that manages to force even the Internet into an official mode... But after I had mastered all of that masterfully, I even registered at the entrance to have my appointment confirmed there, yes, we are finally in German, we also confirm still confirmed appointments. After that, my concerns were dealt with on time, in a very entertaining and absolutely professional manner, so that there was hardly anything left to be desired. I fulfilled my few unfulfilled wishes with a meal in the Wunderbar. Now I'm excited to see how quickly my new documents will be available to me. I have received QR codes that can provide me with information. At least they should. We will see...

#frankfurt #buergeramt #citizen's office

10 notes · View notes

marsiansweeney · 2 months

Text

Russia/Ukraine After Virality: What Happens when the West Loses Interest?

The memeification of politics has been accelerating at a fevered pace since Trump’s 2016 electoral upset, with multiple internet-based candidates vying for president in the years since and the national consciousness dragged around by the nose by the internet “discourse” and it’s suckers in the non-digital press, only to be exacerbated further by locking everyone inside with their phones for two years. People’s understanding of politics is now not just mediated by memes and cursory readings of the titles of articles, it consists primarily of the memes themselves. The drive to participate in the current ideological fashion trend has crowded out real politics and incorporated political movements into the technical apparatus of the internet and its owners. When this collective schizophrenia of Western public attention shifted its paranoid gaze from race war and the COVID-19 Pandemic to the war in Ukraine, it seemed, perhaps most acutely to the Ukrainians themselves, that a deeply hidden moral fiber had been discovered and activated within the keyboard warriors of the memetic mob. Little did they know that neither the Western World’s screen-addicted populace nor our cynically calculating leaders have any deep concern for anything but entertainment and security. Now, with the war turning in the other direction and American politics shifting toward passionate endorsement and condemnation of xenophobia and genocide, the Ukrainians are left without any clicks in the attention economy.

Ultimately, the optimism of the Ukrainian people that westerners truly had a humanitarian concern for their nation is understandable, but it was also a deep error spawned from a misunderstanding of what the West seeks to gain from a conflict in Eastern Europe. Viewed through the prism of Euroskepticism and pro-Europeanism, it seems like a black and white ideological battle between tolerant European liberal democracy and reactionary Russian autocracy had opened up a flashpoint with the Maidan Revolution, a potential moment of rupture in the status quo out of which something new could be born. The reality, however, is far bleaker. The geopolitical situation, namely an oil-rich, heavily nuclear armed nation whose key regional subjects have been peeling away from it since the ’90s, along with an ever extending military alliance (NATO) whose sole purpose in existence was originally to counter that nation, leaves little room for the consideration of EU regulatory policy or Ukrainian election integrity. Much as the US once used Afghan mujahideen as a tool in the fight against the Soviet Union without regard for the interests of the Afghan people, they are now using the Ukrainian people as an anvil on which to place Putin’s Russia. The crippling sanctions regime and open calls for regime change in Russia, along with the constant implicit threat of nuclear apocalypse on both sides, are the hammer. Because media consumers and Ukrainians fell for the propaganda about the nature of this conflict, the puppet masters behind the scenes in Washington and Moscow have been able to escalate the new “geopolitical era” and reignite the Cold War between Russia and the US, while memetically smuggling in new ideological justifications to replace the old communism vs. capitalism angle in the minds of regular people. It has created a great opportunity for the US defense industry, and for terminally online Twitter “activists” looking for a new flag emoji to put in their display names, but it has also wreaked yet-untold horrors upon the people of Ukraine.

As the meme economy shifts its attention to the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians, they too hold some hope for change-from-above, or more correctly, change-from-the-West, in their struggle. I firmly hope that a new stage has been reached in the propaganda battle around the Palestinian question, but I am cautious in trusting the same people who have previously cared passionately about Ukrainians, the elderly/immunocompromised, black victims of police violence, Trump’s “kids in cages”, and many other suffering victims of the US Empire who continue to suffer without even the slightest palliative measures taken to help them. When faced with a seemingly impassable threat, it will always seem wise to call on the power of the Great Satan, but the Faustian bargain must be repaid, and the attention span of Twitter liberals is the collector of the devil’s due. If an empire has its boot on your neck, another empire’s “support” is the last thing you need.

#foreign policy #russia #ukraine #imperialism #propaganda #Palestine #media criticism

2 notes · View notes

khaleesiofalicante · 1 year

Note

your work sounds amazing!! if you dont mind telling can you share what you studied in college to do the work that you're doing now?

Thank you!

Interestingly enough, I actually didn't study anything related to my work. I did psychology in uni and yes of course it does help when I work with people - especially everything I learned about doing research to study people and perspectives.

But in local unis here, gender is not a subject that is available at the undergrad level - even now. Besides, when I was uni, I didn't know I wanted to do this! I wanted to be a forensic psychologist ha!

My learnings are mainly from the field - by working with different people and projects. I also do a lot of free online courses on this topic and used to attend various training programs on the topic because not many in this field have an academic background in what they do so there are a lot of free learning opportunities.

I do intend to do my masters in gender tho so there is that :)

If you are interested in work like this, some courses/areas you might want to focus on uni include - gender, international development, public policy, social work, law, etc. Also, it's important to think about your specific areas such as child rights, immigration or digital rights etc.

PS - It really doesn't matter what you study because this is a field where learning is encouraged and you learn as you work. Almost everyone in my teams has different backgrounds including business, law, IT, chemistry, etc. It really helps us understand what we do from different perspectives.

If you would like to do some online courses, let me know your niche interests, and I'll share some resources with you!

#work stuff

12 notes · View notes

cmanateesto · 2 years

Text

A War of Misinformation

Public School taught me that the Mexican-American war was an intervention. To save the country from a dictator, Santa Anna. The US Army rallied to save the oppressed people of Mexico as Santa Anna had taken Texas by force.

Counterpoint: The Mexican-American War was a war supported by false and misconstrued information.

Santa Anna had rallied an army to take Texas. These 300 families of Austin would not stop importing slaves into Texas. The problem is that slavery was illegal in Mexico. Yet these American immigrants insisted upon it despite Mexico's stance.

Mexico would offer opportunities for emancipation. They banned the purchasing and selling of people in 1823. Mexico also passed a law that gave blacks born in Mexico automatic citizenship. This meant that these Anglo-Texan immigrants wouldn't be able to own a slave's child. A custom often practiced in the United States. Yes, if you were a slave and had children, they weren't your children. They were your master's children.

If you're familiar with Reactionary sentiment, they don't take too well to the word "no." So to make concessions for these adult toddlers, Mexico exempted Texas. Texans could own slaves until 1830. The abolitionist sentiment was prevalent within Mexico. It was so prevalent that slavers would force slaves to sign contracts. "No, no they weren't slaves. They were working to pay their debt off."

What I am saying is that if you had to report the crime rate in Texas around the 1830s. White American immigrants would be the biggest sources of crime. They were a backward group of people. While Mexico progressed and attempted to dismantle slavery, White Americans would insist. They would insist upon their draconian and archaic customs despite their surrounding conditions. Would defy the face of a modernizing world in favor of their Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny, a crusade against non-Americans. The goal is to gain exclusive ownership of land by any means necessary. Yet it was Mexico who needed an intervention?

I'm only pointing out that some more Conservative media outlets will demonize Mexicans. Some older sources would demonize Catholics. Yet it was Mexicans that founded a country that would abolish slavery before the US.

Slavery was a practice that was becoming irrelevant in the mid-19th century. A practice that would become an issue that killed millions of Americans in a civil war. Yet Mexico needed the intervention?

Because American immigrants were becoming the biggest source of crime in Mexico. Mexican Congress took action to enforce its abolition policy. Congress would reintroduce property taxes which discouraged further immigration. Import Tariffs would slam down on American-imported products. If you're going to insist upon your archaic practice, you can at least pay for it. It's not like you're paying your slaves.

In response, the Texans would declare independence from a country they immigrated to. So yes, Santa Anna brought an Army to suppress an insurrection in Mexico’s country. If Mexicans tried to do the same thing in Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, the response would be just as forceful. Tucker Carlson would be freaking out in an “I’m not racist but” line of dialogue.

Douglas Hales, "Free Blacks", Handbook of Texas Online, accessed 12 Aug 2009

Douglas W. Richmond, "Vicente Guerrero" in Encyclopedia of Mexico, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn 1997, p. 617. Santoni, "U.S.-Mexican War", p. 1511.

After Santa Anna had taken the Alamo, the Texans would defeat and capture him. This was what these terrorists explained to Santa Anna. Sign the treaty to confirm Texas' sovereignty or get shot. Under duress, Santa Anna would sign the treaty. Now, remember: U.S. propaganda portrays the Mexican Army as bloodthirsty or cruel. They would never surrender or see reason. So Santa Anna signing the treaty is quite uncharacteristic to what the US said. James Polk insisted that the bloodthirsty Mexicans came over to shoot them. That they only wanted war and conquest, like their Conquistador ancestors. I'm joking, I doubt most Americans could pronounce Conquistador.

Santa Anna brought this treaty back to Mexican Congress. Congress denied this treaty. Now, if you're following American propaganda, of course they denied it. Those bastards will never give up. They're sneaky and two-faced and only want American blood...no, that's not what Congress said.

Yes, many express frustrations about rebels taking Mexican territory that wasn't theirs. The main reason are the conditions in which the treaty took place. Santa Anna signing the treaty was not the negotiation of two nations. Santa Anna signing the treaty had done so ONLY by threat of force. You'll find the United States using this method for many more "treaties." This treaty was not a treaty validated by two nations, this was a hostage situation.

On top of that, the Texas Revolution wouldn't stop in Texas. These militias would send excursions into Arizona and New Mexico which. The Mexican Army had thwarted. Oh...and as far as Santa Anna being this totalitarian snake who ruled Mexico with an iron fist.

The Presidency had changed 4 times, the War Ministry 6 times, and the Finance Ministry 16. Mexico was a volatile country at this point. Politics were getting heated and it was affecting the people living within it. One thing that did unite Mexican politicians was the cession of Texas. They weren't willing to do it. As far as they're concerned, the militias are terrorists fighting for slavery.

Donald Fithian Stevens, Origins of Instability in Early Republican Mexico (1991), p. 11.

Rives, George Lockhart (1913). The United States and Mexico, 1821–1848: a history of the relations between the two countries from the independence of Mexico to the close of the war with the United States. Vol. 2. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

James Polk decided that the U.S. should go to war with Mexico. It was not a popularly-supported decision at the beginning. Many members of the Whig Party were abolitionists. They knew that by accepting Texas as a part of the United States, Texas would come in as a Pro-Slavery territory.

The Democrats held a strong belief in Manifest Destiny, citing it as a reason to take Texas. The Monroe Doctrine was a policy motivated by Manifest Destiny. This doctrine would claim dibs on North America. This was in response to European powers encroaching on modern-day Oregon. The United States didn't want to contend with European Empires for the land they wanted. Manifest Destiny was a sense of entitlement for these White Americans. God himself had defined this land as theirs. This nationalist mythology would set the West Coast as the final destination. As the world knows, that wouldn't be the end of American exceptionalism.

The Whig opposition to the war wouldn't last. Senators like John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln would debate the validity of the war. Lincoln went as far as to ask Polk for the exact location of the skirmish. Can Polk point out on a map where the Mexican soldiers shot the Texan settlers? If these was to be a cassus beli, the least he could do is provide proof. Polk couldn't produce the proof, so him and his War Hawks turned to more misinformation.

Despite the anti-war rhetoric, the Whigs would vote for the war. Good to know that politicians voted for war even back in 1840. It's a relief to know that politicians then weren't any different than now. So when one says "this is the worst it's ever been" it wasn't. We have fancier toys, but the human condition is still the same.

There were some principled people against the war and they weren’t politicians. Law enforcement arrested Henry David Thoreau for refusing to pay a tax for the war effort. He wrote an essay known as Civil Disobedience, an influential work.

See O'Sullivan's 1845 article "Annexation" Archived November 25, 2005, at the Wayback Machine, United States Magazine and Democratic Review. https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html

“I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.”

I'd recommend further reading. In another part he compares voting to wishing for change to happen instead of being the change. This essay would influence Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi. It would also influence lesser-known figures like Alice Pauls. Pauls had campaigned for Women's Suffrage in the United States. This essay also influenced Tolstoy when he wrote War and Peace. It inspired Upton Sinclair when he exposed the lack of sanitation in meat packing.

Maynard, W. Barksdale, Walden Pond: A History. Oxford University Press, 2005 (p. 265). .

My point on leaving this on Civil Disobedience. Many feel limited by their surrounding conditions. It's very easy to do. The United States would commit the public to a war of annexing Mexican territory. It's because they didn't do enough to counter the misinformation. It's because we fear we'll waste our time. We treat our nations as if we have no stake in them. We treat the politicians as another body separate from the people. We slump our heads thinking the nation will act with or without our consent The process of revolution is not narrowed down to a single war or battle. You can achieve a meaningful difference with a holistic approach. Revolution isn't only cannon fodder and blood. Revolution is a mindset. This is why nations try to censor information. This is why Propaganda exists. It doesn't exist to inform, but rather the opposite. If the collective knowledge of the public wasn't important it wouldn't receive funding. The United States defunds its education while pouring money into News outlets. Europe enacts vehement scapegoating of Reactionaries while riling anti-Russian sentiment. They depend on our fear for us to do their bidding. Knowledge is an axe to these intentions. Debate is a grindstone to sharpen our axe. Groups and communities are the forges that provide us with the tools we need.

You are all capable of action. You're all brilliant in your ways. You'll devise solutions that nobody else can think of. Thomas Paine didn't fight one battle in the American Revolution. John Adams didn't have the Military career Alexander Hamilton did. It was Adams who chartered recognition from European powers.

American Council of Education. (2019, March 11). White House proposes significant cuts to education programs for FY 2020. News Room. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.acenet.edu/News-Room/Pages/White-House-Proposes-Significant-Cuts-to-Education-Programs-for-FY-2020.aspx

bureaus, M. V. I. A. T. T. E. A. U. with A. F. P. (2022, March 11). 'get the hell out': Wave of Anti-Russian sentiment in Europe. Barron's. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.barrons.com/news/get-the-hell-out-wave-of-anti-russian-sentiment-in-europe-01647018307

Camera, L. (2022, March 9). Congress set to cut funds that made school meals free - US news & world ... US News. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2022-03-09/congress-set-to-cut-funds-that-made-school-meals-free

Conte, M. (2021, December 8). US announces funds to support independent journalism and reporters targeted for their work | CNN politics. CNN. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/blinken-summit-democracy-journalism/index.html

Rob Portman Press Release. (2016, December 23). President signs Portman-Murphy Counter-propaganda bill into law. Senator Rob Portman. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/president-signs-portman-murphy-counter-propaganda-bill-law

Ferling, John E. (1992). John Adams: A Life. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 978-0-87049-730-8.

Thoreau argued against any revolution coming “too soon.” Be realistic, what can you finish? Acting reckless without real support does nothing but cause unnecessary risk. Finding truth outside propaganda is our responsibility. We'll inevitably fall prey to one form of propaganda. There are many factions we're a part of. This will come with many biases. Instead of denying bias, be cognizant of it when you approach a topic. Find out what's supported by fact and what's propped by bias.

Thoreau acted when the surrounding society wouldn’t substantiate his belief. This doesn’t make him wrong. You don't owe apathy a consideration. You don't owe a palatable approach to those that have a problem with your conviction. You will take the time to consider all angles while they only accept their confirmation bias. The time for apathy needs to meet its end. We can do so via a fervent pursuit of truth. Do not let them discourage you, keep marching. They'll pick a tune and flag to march to in the end.

Also, let me recommend Howard Zinn’s book People’s History of the United States. He does more justice to American history from the people’s perspective than I ever could.

The Chapter referring to the Mexican-American war is “Thank God it wasn’t taken by Conquest.”

Origins of Instability in Early Republican Mexico (1991), p. 11. Rives, George Lockhart (1913). The United States and Mexico, 1821–1848: a history of the relations between the two countries from the independence of Mexico to the close of the war with the United States. Vol. 2. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

See O'Sullivan's 1845 article "Annexation" Archived November 25, 2005, at the Wayback Machine, United States Magazine and Democratic Review. https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html

Maynard, W. Barksdale, Walden Pond: A History. Oxford University Press, 2005 (p. 265). Ferling, John E. (1992). John Adams: A Life. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 978-0-87049-730-8.

22 notes · View notes

jonhoel · 1 year

Text

First Reformed and interpassivity

This last term, I spent a lot of time writing about Paul Schrader's haunting 2017 film First Reformed. In the wake of his new film Master Gardener's impending wide release, I have rewatched it again, in addition to his more recent film, The Card Counter. First Reformed has developed quite the following online in the six years since its initial release, and even some fairly trafficked memes, which really speaks to the breadth of what is so captivating about the film.

This post is thinking through ideas about agency and personal responsibility with regard to climate anxiety, namely an anxiety that attempts to satisfy guilt, through interpassivity, which satiates the individual, but does nothing to benefit any substantive material action to combat climate crisis.

One of the key theoretical throughlines between contemporary neoliberalism and conservative ideology is the prominence of possessive individuality. The environmental journalist Martin Lukacs lays out two principal objectives of neoliberalism as scaffolded by the likes of Reaganomics and Thatcherism: (1) to dismantle barriers to the exercise of unaccountable private power and (2) to erect those private powers to the exercise of any democratic public will. We see this through the nonchalance of a constant reshuffling of privatization laws throughout the last four decades, particularly with regard to the oil sector, but certainly applicable to other forms of energy commerce.

What’s more prescient though to this essay, is how neoliberalism has come to shape the modes and affects of its subjects and their everyday lives:

[Neoliberalism’s] trademark policies of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts and free trade deals, with atmosphere like a sewage dump, has hamstrung our ability, through the instrument of the state, to plan for our collective welfare. […] Studies show that people who have grown up under this era have indeed become more individualistic and consumerist. Steeped in a culture telling us to think of ourselves as consumers instead of citizens, as self-reliant instead of interdependent, is it any wonder we deal with a systemic issue by turning in droves to ineffectual, individual efforts? We are all Thatcher’s children. […] Neoliberalism has taken this internalized self-blame and turbocharged it. It tells you that you should not merely feel guilt and shame if you can’t secure a good job, are deep in debt, and are too stressed or overworked for time with friends. You are now also responsible for bearing the burden of potential ecological collapse.

Lukacs deems it eco-consumerism, but the term we have adopted more recently is green capitalism, a recapitulation of the tragedy of the commons, whereupon we (collectively and individually) overuse resources, but specifically resources that hurt the ecosystem. The important takeaway though, is that while these are unethical individual actions, they pale in comparison to the true threat to the planet, which is imperial militarism. Individual impacts are practically irrelevant; every person and factory on the continent could cease all emissions and the climate war would rage on, because the US military is the primary belligerent. The American military produces high enough greenhouse gases to render the entire globe in continual climate crisis. Individual environmental impact becomes more of a hyperbolic categorical imperative than an ontological urgency.

Schrader’s film First Reformed, contemplates environmental responsibility through its narrative about the life of an Upstate New York Protestant minister named Ernst Toller (Ethan Hawke), who struggles with staying devout amidst a cancer diagnoses, shrinking service attendance at his church, and a crisis of faith. At first, Toller looks inward, seemingly finding solace in the writing of the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, but eventually seems to come to terms with his moral responsibility to engage with the outside world. One of his congregation members, a pregnant woman named Mary Mensana (Amanda Seyfried) approaches him about her husband, Michael Mensana (Phillip Ettinger) an anti-natalist growing more and more detached from his life. Michael is enamored with radical climate activism and would probably be deemed by most film viewers as an ecofascist. Mary finds a suicide vest in Michael’s workshop and at first, Toller condemns Michael. However, following Michael’s suicide later in the film, Toller becomes more and more empathetic to Michael’s philosophies as he pours over the research on Michael’s laptop and becomes familiar with the realities of the climate crisis.

First Reformed (2017 dir. Paul Schrader)

At a glance, it is not a film about climate war directly: its primary focus appears to be the specific story of a man who is pushed beyond his ethical limits and spurred into action. This is methodic narratively for Schrader, who often pens screenplays with protagonists driven to no longer function in their circumstances. His screenplays—Taxi Driver, Rolling Thunder, Bringing out the Dead, and recently, The Card Counter)—would never be accused of formulaic writing, but tend to depict protagonists in this same way. Toller fulfills the Travis Bickle archetype, although arguably considerably less unhinged at the start, by the end of the film he regularly consumes a cocktail of Pepto-Bismol and Whiskey, a telltale sign of mental instability. The film climaxes with a standoff between Toller and Edward Balq (Michael Gaston), a millionaire CEO who financially benefits the church, but also owns a large polluting factory nearby and invests in oil companies. While the church celebrates its 250th anniversary, with a full attendance for service, Toller plans to wear Michael’s suicide vest and kill everyone including Balq, who is attendance. At the last minute, Toller changes his mind. He sees Mary entering the church, which compels him to forgo the suicide bombing. Instead, he wraps himself in barbed wire and prepares to drink a glass of drain cleaner. First Reformed through its narrative is wholly consumed with the environment and the extrinsic anxiety of interpassivity, of contribution that does nothing to resolve actual conflict. How can we understand ecological interpassivity and its anxieties?

Interpassivity by Robert Pfaller. Edinburgh University Press, 2017.

What is interpassivity? German critical theorist Robert Pfaller coined an aesthetic theory of delegated enjoyment which he called interpassivity. Using an Althusserian framework, Pfaller catalyzes the peculiar phenomena of detached passivity misconstrued as interactivity. Since the concept’s origin in 1994, interpassivity has accelerated into a vibrant scholarship taken up most notably by Slovenian philosopher and internet meme Slavoj Žižek, who credits Jacques Lacan’s Seminar VII as interpassivity’s conceptual heritage. In that seminar, Lacan muses on the virtue of The Chorus in Greek tragedy. Pfaller sets substitutional proclivities as the central nature of interpassivity. Nonautonomous inaction will satisfy; it is all that the individual needs. On the topic, Žižek wryly asserts that the interpassive individual’s psychological interior can think about whatever they want, no matter how obscene or incriminating: “To use an old Stalinist expression: whatever I am thinking, objectively I am praying." (p. 32).

The discourse of interpassivity first begins in the early 1990s, when much of culture studies and psychoanalytic theory was consumed with ideas surrounding interactivity, both in art and in technology. In more recent years interpassivity has seen much scholarship surrounding the phenomena of streaming content, whereupon the viewer is no longer purveying agency through ludonarrative in playing a game themselves, but passively, watches someone else do it, and thus, achieves the same pleasure principle. Pfaller’s second full-length book on interpassivity is titled On the Pleasure Principle in Culture: Illusions Without Owners. The framing of interpassive interactivity as the process of self-assurance through illusion is precise. It captures the illusory nature of the act of interpassivity, especially regarding environmental activism. We believe that we are conducting ourselves altruistically but in reality, we are not. One cannot help but recall Žižek’s famous proclamation that not only do we not really know how things are, but we also don’t even know how things appear to be.

Let us anticipate that the neoliberal environmental nonprofit industrial complex for interpassivity, is much the same as Louis Althusser casts the sports industry for ideological apparatus. They are both reliant on socialized principles of self-abandon; the central desire is to forget. Environmental neoliberalism is ideological because it reproduces the conditions of production of labor forces and the social relationships of that production. Under its present media surveillance, the nonprofit sector ensures that people will work in the same way next year as they do this year, and that they will integrate expectantly into society. What is astounding about this reproduction through ideological practices is that everyone starts participating by themselves without having to have their own secret government entity forcibly harassing them the whole way. The readiness to act spontaneously cannot be achieved through violent means; violence and repression serve at best, to make people passive. According to Althusser, the fact that people are active without being coerced is an outcome of ruling ideology (pp. 232-273). Contemporary neoliberal life is often an exercise in puritanism: the guilt that surrounds the personal responsibility of eco-consumerism is the centralizing affect for the drive to recycle, to consume ethically, and be on the right side of every controversy. In this way, interpassivity is the ultimate failsafe. For the neoliberal bicameral mind, donations to the environmental nonprofit excuse away subsequent anti-environmental acts that could be incurred and gives a sense of fulfilling one’s societal expectation, thus relieving two anxieties at once. Consider the patron who, when ordering a drink at Starbucks, puts two dollars into the collection tin for an environmental nonprofit. The patron experiences slight discomfort or anxiety and attempts to assuage the affect by what they believe is action, against passivity, through altruism. In reality, this is interpassivity at work. The subject allows the nonprofit complex to act as proxy and they feel temporary elation, like smoking a cigarette to ease the anxiety of nicotine cravings, which ironically strengthens the addiction.

Pfaller offers a defense of interpassivity in the 2017 introduction to his book on the subject:

“…If we take seriously Althusser’s idea that becoming a subject is one of the key mechanisms of ideological subjugation (see Althusser, 1971), then becoming an active subject cannot be turned into any universal political solution. […] The ‘theoretical anti-humanism’ of the concept of interpassivity has from the very beginning united all who have been interested in this perspective. As a result of this, though not exclusively so, the theory of interpassivity was enthusiastically received. And so, just as Althusser was a theoretical anti-humanist, we were theoretical interpassivists. However, the question of whether one should also feel sympathy with the practices of interpassivity or not was a wholly different and open matter at that time. (p 4-5).

Here we see the return of a familiar structural Marxist claim, rejecting notions of human essence and transcendentalism and further cementing the notion of hegemonic systems of socio-economic ideology. Within the theoretical lineage of Lacan->Althusser->Žižek, Pfaller can readily problematize the idea that inaction is amoral, if action itself is not inscrutable (a rudimentary concept in the realm of antihumanism).

Whether or not interpassivity as it was originally envisioned in relation to interactivity by Pfaller in 1996, can be qualified as a moral or sympathetic act, remains to be seen. One could potentially have more sympathy for this concept of interpassivity in other avenues than how this essay recalibrates the term toward the neoliberal act of interpassive activism. Interpassive action is so applicable to our contemporary lives, even in progressive circles. An oft-hastily muttered epigram we hear frequently: there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism, as the justification for all kinds of questionable purchases. This phrase has no clear etymology, although internet historians have traced it back to several meme accounts on Twitter and Tumblr. We can imagine it however that it is a likely descendent from readings of Adorno and Horkheimer, among others. This ends/means justification is precisely the kind of nihilism that the interpassive act thinks it is counteracting, when in reality, it is an extension of that nihilism:

In interpassive behaviour, people take up selective contact with a thing in order, in exchange, to entirely escape that very thing – and indeed, not only as we have established to begin with, with regard to an identification with an illusion. Interpassivity is thus a strategy of escaping identification and consequently subjectivation. Precisely there, where it is suggested that they become self-conscious subjects (through interpellation in the sense of Althusser [1971]), people seize interpassive means to flee into self-forgetfulness. (p 7-8).

Sokoban, Hiroyuki Imabayashi, 1982.

At first, this definition flummoxes, because we think of the altruistic act of activism, particularly in the spectra of nonprofits and social media as a supremely self-conscious endeavor, one that is all about being witnessed by others: ‘look how benevolent I am!’ In reality it is as Pfaller describes: an act of anxious desire to escape the thing, to no longer conceive of, or participate in, the anxieties of climate change. Althusser reflects on the “teeth-gritting harmony” of the ideological state apparatus (p. 248), how it manifests, an existence that should repulse any Marxist, one that causes its subject to live anxiously. The act of interpassivity then, is an illusory break from that anxiety, one that suggests ideological freedom, but only the suggestion.

Pfaller (and Žižek) muse on interpassivity as an anti-ideological phenomenon, or at least, an act that pertains to some new form of ideology that does not rely on becoming subject (in the Althusserian consideration), which would suggest a potential morality of the interpassive person, a person sidestepping the conditions of ruling hegemonies. This is an idealistic reading of interpassivity, one that does not consider all of its problems, the most immediate of which seems to be its compulsory sense of completion. It is not the compulsion itself that is concerning but that this compulsion somehow actively underestimates the ruling ideology, a grave error. It should be the purpose of postmillennial theory to de-hegemonize our unconscious to try and see how socio-cultural phenomena like interpassivity might operate in service to the state, rather than for the holistic ethics of the individual citizen-environmentalist.

First Reformed is a film that presses this point, on the pathos of the individual and their ethical responsibilities for living in the world. Interpassivity surrounds the idea of participation as the locus for environmental action: will you step up, will you act? The film is all about absolutions, about imperatives. It’s also a deeply personal film for its director Schrader, who was raised by strict Dutch Calvinists in Grand Rapids and had intended to become a minister after studying theology at university. But a chance encounter with film critic Pauline Kael steered him toward film criticism instead. He published a book on ‘slow cinema,’ which highlighted three directors, most notably his primary inspiration, Robert Bresson. Schrader began penning screenplays in the early 1970s, his first major being Sydney Pollack’s The Yakuza, followed by his seminal work with Martin Scorsese, Taxi Driver. Over the course of his career, he has penned nearly 30 screenplays and has directed 24 films, most of which, saw him as the screenwriter.

First Reformed (dir. Paul Schrader, 2017).

However, beneath the surface of the film’s appearance of a more standard arthouse drama character story, the film is bursting with environmental commentary. After Michael’s suicide, Mary gives Toller his laptop, where he finds endless streams of articles, videos, and digital ephemera surrounding the climate crisis. The film contemplates the delusion of optimism in the wake of climate war, while also folding its arms at the nihilism of giving up too. It’s a comforting spiritual characterization of our ethical circumstances. In an interview with Cinéaste, Schrader muses on the ecological anxiety at the heart of the film’s spiritual narrative: eschatology:

Christianity and Judaism have been talking about it from the very beginning. What is our purpose on earth? What is the goal? We have now entered a moment in time where we can actually see, if we stand on our tippy-toes, the end of our duration as a species. What was for thousands of years a hypothetical discussion—what happens when mankind no longer exists?—has now become an actual discussion. It gives shading to the search for meaning or purpose. […] We have a threat that we can’t do anything about, or at least that we have decided we don’t want to do anything about. It’s probably too late to reverse that. In fact, I do think that it is too late—too late to save human life on this planet. (pp. 28-33).

End times takes on a very different connotation when you are living in it, even if it is a centuries-long procession. The severity of these ramifications does not necessarily change much in terms of narratology, but it does alter how we come to a film’s narrative and relay it back to our own climate crisis.

Schrader credits Deleuze’s film theory and Andrei Tarkovsky’s cinematography as the most crucial influences in his own precise use of duration in First Reformed. In his film theory book Cinema 2, Deleuze catalyzes Henri Bergson’s condensation of time as a bridge to reconstitute together movement-image and time-image in film. He is interested in how characters in film move through space and time, in the splitting of time that occurs when film moves from past-to-present, through what is projected on to the screen, “the uniting of an actual image and virtual image to the point where they can no longer be distinguished.” (p. 335). Deleuze names this unification crystal-image. Schrader puts crystal-image this to use affectively, in a way where the viewer is forced to sit with anxiety in an extended shot, or pan, feeling the weight of dread grow, as time becomes uncertain and notions of the speculative begin to take root.

First Reformed (dir. Paul Schrader, 2017).

First Reformed’s most experimental sequence embodies this idea, and it occurs while Toller and Mary are doing an intimate breathing exercise together. The cinematography shifts and starts panning over various scenes of industrialization and environmental devastation from a Gods-eye view, in the mode of Godfrey Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi. First we see the ocean, filled with oil; a seemingly unending mountain of rubber tires; rows and rows of industrial smokestacks and lit up factories; a logging bulldozer in the process of deforestation; shots of what first appears to be a village’s rock-wash, but then reveals that it is not a rock-wash, but an enormous amount of garbage; a large and spreading brushfire, and finally, a shot of an oil tanker, partially submerged in a stagnant ocean, black with oil. In general, Schrader is very reserved in focused frame shots, with very sparse movements; only one dolly was used in the filming of First Reformed. What results is a film that often at first feels like a stage production, until these moments of experimental environmental critique, where suddenly the cinematography feel more like the collage films of Adam Curtis than Taxi Driver.

In First Reformed we see Toller, Mary, and others struggle to come to terms with the challenge left by Michael, of what it really means to care about the world and the people living in it. This feels more evident when Toller first meets Balq, the antagonist. At Michael’s wake, Abundant Life, the evangelical megachurch that owns First Reformed, has their children’s choir perform an acapella rendition of “Who’s Gonna Stand Up” a protest song by Neil Young, from his 2014 album Storytone. Balq is annoyed because a local news website reported on Michael’s wake, calling it a political protest, and mentioning both First Reformed and Abundant Life by name. The service was held at a toxic waste site, one that he insists was cleaned up by EPA superfunds (it clearly was not cleaned up). This infuriates Toller who recognizes how materially meaningless the choice of song really is, when set against the profound damage being done by Balq’s companies. He asks Balq if God will forgive us. In a way, Toller is recognizing the danger of interpassivity for the neoliberal imagination. While the Abundant Life pastor Joel Jeffers (Cedric Kyles) tries to hastily apologize to Balq, Toller becomes apathetic, seemingly aware how even the thing Balq is qualifying as an attack against him, is largely ineffectual.

Life during climate war is suffocated with the fumes of anxiety, it is omnipresent. We see Michael in FirstReformed devastated by the realities of the damage done; he cannot bring himself to watch his child be brought into the world he no longer wishes to be a part of. Michael’s devastation leads him to construct a suicide vest. Mary finds the vest, and Toller takes it. It is unclear to the audience if Michael’s decision to end his own life is because he realized Mary had discovered it, or if he truly could not bear it anymore. Regardless, the anxieties both Michael and Toller emanate feel enormously reflective of the kinds of liberal anxieties that interact with environmental inactions, that render zero impact. The difference is in their determination. These are two people preparing to give their lives for the hope of meaningful material benefit. That’s a radical act of altruism, not interpassivity. In the end, Michael dies, and Toller decides against the suicide bombing, but the contemplation feels endlessly relevant to a moment where collectively, we are beginning to reevaluate what it means to live in climate war.

Althusser, Louis. On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Trans. G.M. Goshgarin. (New York: Verso Books, 2014). 232-273.

Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1986). pp. 335.

Haynes, Todd. Safe Sony Pictures, 1995. 1h 59m.

—. “Todd Haynes and Julianne Moore on Safe.” Sneak Peaks. The Criterion Collection. Dec. 15, 2014. 36m.

Lukacs, Martin. “Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals” (London, UK: The Guardian, July 17, 2017).

Nam, Sean. “Hungering and Thirsting for Righteousness: An Interview with Paul Schrader.” Cinéaste Vol. 43, No. 3 (Summer 2018), pp. 18-23.

Pfaller, Robert. Interpassivity. (Edinburgh University Press, 2017).

—. Pleasure Principle: Emotions Without Owners. Trans. Lisa Rosenblatt. (New York, Verso Books, 2014).

Sanders, Barry. The Green Zone: The Environmental Cost of Militarism. (Chico, CA: AK Press, 2009).

Schrader, Paul. First Reformed. A24 Films, 2017. 1hr 53m.

Žižek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object of Ideology. (New York: Verso Books, 1989). p. 32.

—. Welcome to the Desert of the Real: Five Essays on September 11 and Related Dates. (New York: Verso Books, 2002).

#first reformed #paul schrader #film #essay #ecoanxiety #interpassivity #zizek #pfaller #film critique #a24 films #ethan hawke #climate action #climate war #climate crisis #calvinism #christianity #althusser

10 notes · View notes

indian-school-of-public-policy · 1 year

Text

#top public policy schools in india #public policy management courses india #pg diploma in public policy #public policy online courses in india #mba in public policy in india #public policy masters in india #diploma in public policy #best public policy colleges in india #pg diploma in public policy in india #masters public policy india #public policy and governance #scope of public policy in india #online courses on public policy in india #public policy and administration in india

0 notes

writingquestionsanswered · 9 months

Note

I'm not quite sure if I should be going to you for advice on this, but I figured it was worth a shot! So, me and my friend are co-writing a story. However, me and her have a lot of differing opinions on many things (Particularly when it comes to character relationships), and I was wondering if you had any advice for creative differences in co-writing?

Creative Differences During Collaborative Writing

Collaborating on a story with another writer can be hard, especially if you have a lot of creative differences, but there are some things you can do to make things go a little more smoothly.

1 - Figure Out a Game Plan in Advance - If you've already started the story, it may be too late for this step, but you can keep it in mind for your next collab. Figuring out a game plan before you start writing can help iron out the wrinkles before they become a problem, so it helps to get on the same page as far as: logistics (how the story will be written/who writes what), goal (is this for fun? Future publication? Posting online?), timeline (when should the story be finished? What is the deadline for each individual part?), expectations (what do you both want to get out of this project? What are your expectations of one another? How will you communicate delays and other issues? How will creative differences be addressed and resolved?), and a contingency plan for if one of you doesn't finish their part of the story. (Can the other finish it? Can a new partner be brought in? Can the other person incorporate their own characters and parts of the story into a new story?)

2 - Analyze the Conflict - When you find yourself butting heads with your partner over a creative decision (let's say you want Todd to be with Jack, but they want Todd to be with Brandon), the first thing you should do is analyze why you want the thing you want. Why do you think Todd should be with Jack? Is it because they genuinely work better? (Better chemistry, earned relationship, better outcome?) Or is it simply because you like Jack better?

3 - Choose Your Battles - If the thing you want wouldn't genuinely work better for the story, you may want to just let it go and roll with what the other person wants. Save your battles for the things that really matter to the story.

4 - Be Gentle - If you find yourself choosing to fight for something that is genuinely important to the story, instead of just saying, "I think Todd and Brandon are a bad couple, Todd and Jack work better!" Try putting it like, "I know you really want Todd and Brandon to get together, but I'm concerned they haven't had time to develop a believable relationship. Can you think of ways we can strengthen their bond in that short time? This points out the issue, explains why it's an issue, and offers a solution, which gives your partner control over the decision. Hopefully they'll realize you're right, and either agree that Jack works better, or at the very least, you can meet in the middle and find some ways to address your initial concerns.

5 - Avoid Pushing Too Hard - If they're not willing to budge, don't push it. Just do what you can to address the issue on your end if possible. If this story will be shared online or published, and you're deeply unhappy with their decision--to the point that you don't feel comfortable having your name on the project--just be honest (and gentle) about how you feel. See if there's some way to come to a compromise, and if not, it's probably a sign that this person isn't someone you work with well creatively, and that's okay. :)

Have fun with your collaboration!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

Learn more about WQA

See my ask policies

Visit my Master List of Top Posts

Go to ko-fi.com/wqa to buy me coffee or see my commissions

#writing tips #writing help #writing advice #wqaadvice

62 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 11 months

Text

In the late 1990s, when I was a New York Times correspondent based in West Africa, international airline connections made passing through Paris a rite of both work and vacation. On one such visit, I received a shock that has stuck with me. As I approached a subway station not far from the Champs-Élysées, out of its stairwell came running two policemen, their guns drawn, as they pursued a young Black man whom they caught up to, badly manhandled, and then hauled away under arrest.

As someone who had grown up in Washington, D.C., and recently moved to Africa from New York City—or simply as someone who had watched U.S. local news broadcasts and grown up consuming his country’s violent small- and large-screen offerings—I had been trained to think that urban scenes such as these were a unique product of my own country.

On subsequent transits through Paris, I was disabused of yet more of my naivete when I began taking trains into the central city instead of taxis. Maybe it was a labor strike that had caused me to do this at first, but the experience so intrigued me that I began making a habit of it. Not even in New York had I felt such a gulf between the popular image of a city and this kind of lived experience of it via public transportation.

For long sections of these rides, the cars were filled with Black and brown people–– overwhelmingly young and, I surmised, overwhelmingly either the children of recent immigrants or immigrants themselves, with France’s former colonies in North and sub-Saharan Africa the most likely places of origin. Before reaching the stylish, urban dreamland exalted in countless romantic Hollywood fantasies and more than a century of novels and travel writing, one must traverse something altogether different and discordant: a huge expanse of what the French rather delicately refer to as banlieues. They needn’t have resorted to the term, though. For many of these places, the old European word “ghetto” would have fit just fine.

Passing through and eventually visiting some of them, I was reminded of other grim cityscapes I have known in other parts of the world. The comparisons are admittedly not perfect, but segregated townships built under South African apartheid came to mind, as did some of the bleaker sections of New York where I had once paid dues as a local reporter, such as the more depressed parts of the Bronx.

As with the notorious infrastructure schemes of the powerful New York master planner of the last century, Robert Moses, which deliberately isolated Black communities and cut them off from areas privileged in terms of race and class and from public amenities such as the city’s beaches, Paris’s banlieues are poorly connected to the city’s transportation system, heightening their economic and social isolation and therefore their misery. For those looking for points of optimism after France’s recent civil disturbances, projects underway or on the books are expected to dramatically increase subway connections for these long-neglected parts of the city.

There is an old saw that holds that history never repeats itself but often rhymes. And it was just such a resonance—and not the recent events in Paris themselves, per se—that has brought France’s capital powerfully to mind for me.

To briefly review those events, though: On June 27, a French teenager of Algerian descent was fatally shot by a police officer during a traffic stop in what amounted to a virtual execution. A video of the incident that was widely shared online shows a police officer shoot 17-year-old Nahel Merzouk at close range through his window as his car pulls away.

Outraged young people, who were disproportionately “of color,” then rose up in protests that lasted for six days and included numerous acts of looting, vandalism, and even violence. This, in turn, drew florid condemnations from broad segments of French society, with many people using racialized language or outright racism to denounce not just the protesters’ behavior, but also the growing presence of minority groups in France and the immigration that helps drive it.

What has intrigued me here is a powerful coincidence of timing—and, as I will explore below, perhaps a deeper connection in terms of history and significance with a major decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. And therein, a paradox arises.

France has long prided itself on its all-but-unique handling of racial diversity. Official policy comes close to pretending that such a thing does not exist and takes this for an unqualified positive. The republic is indivisible, says one often invoked phrase, and in the pursuit of its supposed universalism, France has made it illegal to collect data on the basis of a person’s race.

If it is possible to glimpse some admirable idealism in France’s notion of universalism, it has an insufficiently acknowledged dark side as well. Firstly, it requires a near complete assimilation into the dominant national identity of we might call “Frenchness,” which is overwhelmingly defined and policed by people of one race. This might even be considered one of its main, if unstated, features. In order to function, French universalism requires a charade: pretending to be colorblind.

This colorblindness may help prevent French people from noticing that their television news industry or their cinema, to take two industries, are crushingly white, well beyond the true demographic breakdown of the society. But it does nothing to alleviate the underlying reality that opportunity still correlates strongly to race in the country. The same, for that matter, is true of life in the isolated banlieues, as opposed to the tonier parts of the city. I have little doubt that the same patterns hold in other spheres of society as well, from elite educational institutions to national politics.

France’s readiest and most powerful counterexample is, of course, the United States, which has long served as an almost archetypical national “other” to justify French policies and obtain buy-in from a French public that has been socialized over generations to view the United States both with haughty disdain and as a menace to the French way of life. Any idea of taking race or color into account in forming public policy is dismissed as succumbing to a dangerously corrupting Americanism.

The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that race-conscious college admissions programs violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, however, suggests the French may have little to worry about on this score. The two countries would indeed appear to be converging in favor of the French way: pretending that color doesn’t exist and that race has no place in social policy.

The Supreme Court ruling may have barred the overt consideration of race in college admissions in the United States, but it cannot pretend away the fact that Black students are dramatically underrepresented in higher education in the country, as they have been for generations—a product of actual policy during the United States’ long era of segregation and Jim Crow.

In fact, as the University of Chicago law professor Sonja B. Starr has argued, racial gaps exist across a very wide range of categories in U.S. life, from income and employment rates to maternal mortality and life expectancy to exposure to toxic environmental pollution and incarceration.

The question is: What are wealthy societies such as the United States and France to do about such realities? Overtly taking race into consideration clearly displeases large numbers of people in rich democracies, especially among those who have benefited most from inequality. If governments are not allowed to even weigh the racial facts before them, what realistic hope is there for public policy to redress these problems?

5 notes · View notes