#consequences or why a kid like Richard was so mean and aggressive in the first place | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hellzyeahwebwielingessays · 4 years

Text

The Problem with Spidey as ‘Iron Man Junior’

Proponents of the MCU version of Peter Parker have often defended his characterization as logical and necessary in context. But is this really the case?

Tl:dr version: No it is not.

Forgive some laziness on my part because I’m going to be presuming everyone’s familiarity with the comic book iteration of Spider-Man and his MCU adaptation for the most part. To say there is a divide between many fans of former vs. the latter would be an understatement.

Detractors (which I count myself among) typically sum this up as the character being reduced to ‘Iron Man Junior’. In general this refers to MCU Peter Parker’s hero-worshipping of Tony Stark/Iron Man, their father/son relationship and the similar emphasis upon high technology in their hero identities. A connected point of contention is Peter’s aspiration to become an Avenger.

This was outright confirmed by Tom Holland himself in an interview for the then upcoming ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’.

"I think the difference now is that Peter Parker finally has an all-time goal, and his goal is to become an Avenger…Everything he does, even though he's doing it for the right reasons, is done so that one day he can become an Avenger and prove himself to Tony Stark. And I think we've never really seen Spider-Man with that kind of motivation before."

Defenders of this take upon Spidey have argued that this portrayal makes sense in context.

After all, Peter Parker is a teenager who’s grown up in a world where the Avengers are beloved, especially Iron Man. Plus in the comics (under J. Michael Straczynski’s pen) there was a time when Peter and Tony shared a father/son relationship. Tony even equipped Peter with a high tech costume as he did in the MCU. Spider-Man early in his career attempted to join the Fantastic Four in ASM #1 and later the Avengers in ASM Annual #3.

The problem is these defences just don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Let me first be upfront about my philosophy towards adaptations.

I in no way shape or form demand nor expect adaptations to be 1:1 panel to screen translations of the source material. I fully respect that changes are a necessity.

One of many 22-page comic book stories put out every month in the 1960s inevitably needs to be altered when jumping to a 90+ minute live action film in the 2010s.

Even the characterizations need to be altered where necessary if the source material is found wanting. *side eyes Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy*

However, my attitude is that adaptations should at minimum respect the spirit of the source material no matter what. To do otherwise defeats the object of adapting the work in the first place. If a film is just borrowing superficial traits (names, costumes, powers, etc.) and but not representing the spirit of the character, then creatively speaking it might as well be an original character.

This is the case with the MCU version of Spider-Man. A fundamental component of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s original vision for Spider-Man was that he was in essence the anti-Robin.

At a time when teenaged characters were sidekicks (Dick Grayson), supporting characters (Rick Jones) or the ‘kids’ in teams (Johnny Storm) Peter Parker was unique as a totally independent teen hero. Of course that independence only applied to his life as Spider-Man, but that was part of the point. Spider-Man was his escape and release from the pressures and hang ups of his regular life, which included his doting yet coddling aunt.

A critical part of this was that he was a self-made man. No elder mentor guided him in the use of his powers, helped him create his equipment or provided any sort of advice/accountability for Peter. He did it all himself. He was a loner.

On a meta level this is partially why Stan Lee (and for the longest time consequent writers) showcased Spidey not jiving with super teams. It was done to emphasis Peter’s independence and thereby his uniqueness within the genre. Even if that’s not so unique anymore (even in film), it’s still a baked in component of teen Spidey’s story. An essential aspect of who he is as a character.

As is his working class status.*

In fact these things go hand-in-hand. Just as Peter had to shoulder an ‘adult hero’s’ burden as Spider-Man (noticeably Lee didn’t dub him Spider-Boy or Lad as would’ve been common back then he also had to struggle for every penny. With the death of his uncle and his aunt’s poor health the burden of household provider fell on his shoulders.

When you take all this into account, having him fanboy over the Avengers and have a superhero mentor (let alone a billionaire one) is an aggressive misreading of the character.

The best way I can illustrate this is with an analogy from the opposite end of the spectrum. Imagine if you will a movie depicting Dick Grayson’s transformation into Robin. Except Batman was wholly absent. Not even an off-screen presence.

That is how poorly MCU has missed the point of Spider-Man.

And it was never necessary.

Contrary to defenders of the MCU, making Peter an Avengers/Iron Man fanboy was not the only logical direction to go with the character.**

Yes, in Peter’s world most kids would revere the Avengers and Iron Man. But in the real world not every kid or teen likes the Avengers characters or movies. Just as not every major pop culture phenomenon has ever been universally embraced by contemporary kids/teens. In the 1980s not every kid loved the Transformers or the Ninja Turtles. In the 1990s not ever kid loved the Power Rangers or Pokémon.

Of course, most kids did, just as most kids like the Avengers characters today. Similarly most kids in the MCU by extension would look up to the Avengers. However, if anything this could actually help generate a more spiritually faithful rendition of the character. Consider that on literally the first page of Amazing Fantasy #15 Peter Parker was mocked by his classmates for being an outsider. A bookworm who didn’t know the difference between a cha-cha and a waltz.

In the context of the MCU wouldn’t Peter’s lack of familiarity or interest in the Avengers make for an appropriate updating of that characterization?

Let’s also consider that in the context of the regular 616 universe Spidey held little reverence for any of the heroes who had preceded him. This included Captain America and other WWII heroes as well as the Fantastic Four and their leader, the world famous scientist Reed Richards. Peter would’ve surely known who Reed and Cap were but as originally depicted by Stan lee himself, he wasn’t falling over himself during any of their early encounters.

So there was already a precedent in the comics for Spidey to not be dazzled by famous A-list heroes, meaning it’d be totally believable in the context of the MCU. Indeed this was likely part of the point of the character. Just as being Spider-Man didn’t improve his outsider status within the high school hierarchy so too was he an outsider among his super hero peers. The nerd to the Avengers jocks if you will.

But what of those comic book sources that say otherwise? Surely ASM #1, ASM Annual #3 and JMS’ run on Amazing Spider-Man corroborate the MCU’s take upon the character.

Yes and no, let’s tackle them one by one.

In ASM #1 it was made explicit that Peter wanted to join the F4 for purely practical reasons. His family needed money so he hoped the F4 could provide and income. When he learned otherwise he departed as quickly as he’d arrived.

In ASM Annual #3 Peter was far from eager to join the Avengers and was equally unimpressed with them as a group.

He actively sabotaged his own chances to join at the issue’s conclusion.

As for Straczynski’s run…sigh…strap in.

At face value this run does indeed seem to support the MCU’s rendition of Spidey. However, the support it offers falls apart due to two factors.

The first is that, well…Peter and Tony’s relationship was pretty nonsensical.

I’m no Iron Man expert so I do not know how old the character would be roughly. From my impressions of the character though circa 2006 he wasn’t even in his 40s yet. Peter by contrast was 30 years old when you do the math. Unlike Tony he’d had several very serious romantic relationships and was back then happily married (barring a brief trial separation). He and his wife had lost a child and even believed one another dead at one point or another. Peter at the time was also working as a teacher to teenagers where he was clearly framed as their elder authority figure.

What I’m saying is that Peter was if anything more emotionally mature than Tony at this time. Or at least he was mature to the point where he was not going to view Tony as his father figure given the minor age discrepancy.

The relationship was clearly engineered with the pre-determined endgame in mind. That endgame being the ‘Civil War’ storyline wherein Peter would unmask upon Tony’s request and subsequently become a fugitive in defiance of Tony’s unethical practices. The latter would entail Tony threatening Peter and the pair coming to blows.

This brings me to the second factor. The totality of Peter/Tony’s relationship was designed to be a testament to how it was ultimately a bad thing.

Tony wasn’t the man Peter believed him to be.

Tony didn’t have Peter’s best interests at heart.

Tony was willing to spy, threaten and even attack Peter.

And along the way Peter and his family lost their home and the safety of Peter’s anonymity. The end result was Peter’s life becoming a shell of it’s former self, with his loved ones in serious danger. In fact you could view his fugitive status as a way to recreate the ‘good old days’ when Spider-Man was feared and hated by the public and authorities.

Had Peter retained his independence rather than surrendering any part of it to his ‘father figure’ Tony Stark, much of this could’ve been avoided. If nothing else Peter might’ve been able to unmask privately rather than publicly.

Whilst the MCU addresses the first factor via de-aging Peter, it has no answer for the second. It borrowed from the JMS run superficially and ditched the greater subtext regarding how Peter shouldn’t have formed a relationship with Tony.

I’d like to conclude by addressing the most obvious counterpoint to everything I’ve said.

If Spider-Man were more comic faithful wouldn’t it undermine the entire point of him being in the MCU? The appeal of the concept was seeing Spider-Man interact with the wider MCU. From the audience’s POV seeing yet another Spidey flick confined to using Spider-Man exclusive elements might as well have been produced solely by Sony.

The problem with this argument though is that it doesn’t consider the myriad of possibilities available. Spidey could interact with the wider MCU and still be in character.

I’m no writer but off the top of my head:

Spidey could have defied the Sokovia Accords and thus been wanted by the authorities (a neat updating of his traditional ‘outlaw’ status), consequently coming into conflict with Iron Man

Spidey might have still dueled the Vulture and interacted with Tony as he did in ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’. However, instead of gradually realizing he should be a ‘friendly neighborhood’ hero, he could call Tony out for ignoring small scale crime which indirectly ‘created’ the Vulture in the first place

Following ‘Avengers: Endgame’ the dissolution of the Avengers combined with the huge uptick in the population and displacement of citizens might’ve caused far more street crime that Peter would have to deal with. The remnants of H.Y.D.R.A. might’ve exploited this to gain a foothold upon which to rebuild.*** That might’ve warrant an appearance from more grounded heroes like Hawkeye or Ant-Man

An environment like this could’ve been exploited by Quentin Beck to frame Spider-Man, exploiting his already shaky public reputation and make himself look more appealing by contrast

Or Hell just do ‘Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut’ but with the Hulk as Roger Stern planned to do in the first place

I’m sure many of you could suggest infinitely better ideas.

In conclusion, no matter how you slice it, there were better options than rendering Peter Parker Iron Man Junior instead of Spider-Man.

*Peter, as depicted in ‘Captain America: Civil War’ was clearly not well off financially, yet consequent depictions of Peter in the MCU have de-emphasized this to the point where you could argue they are very probably not working class anymore.

This makes sense internally as a billionaire Tony Stark has no reason to take Peter under his wing but allow him to still dumpster dive for equipment. Giving the boy at least some modest financial stability would be a logical step in building a relationship with him and giving him more time and energy to put into his scientific and heroic pursuits.

Whilst I don’t exactly agree with everything said here, this post dives into the subject more deeply.

**And even if it was, if the context demands Peter be rendered so unrecognizable then maybe it was just creatively reductive to integrate him into the MCU the first place.

***They have after all had connections to organized crime in the comics.

#MCU #marvel cinematic universe #Tony Stark #Anthony Stark #Iron Man #Steve Rogers #captain america: civil war #Spider-Man: Far From Home #spider-man: homecoming #Captain America #pokemon #Power Rangers #Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles #Transformers #Tom Holland #Avengers #The Avengers

128 notes · View notes

hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger · 5 years

Text

You don’t get it. Spider-Man being an Avengers fanboy and Tony Stark’s son makes sense IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MCU!!!!

He’s grown up in a world Iron Man and the Avengers are Earth’s Mightiest Heroes and predate him so OBVIOUSLY he’d idolize them!

Let’s unpack this idea a bit shall we.

The first thing to note is the original comics. Sure Spider-Man was a teenager and active as a hero by the time the Avengers formed as a team and the prestige and public respect they hold in-universe didn’t really exist out the gate like it does in the MCU. There was no Battle of New York for the whole world to be fully aware they came close to subjugation if not for these 6 people.

But the thing is...that change in circumstance was never why Peter didn’t idolize or aspire to join the Avengers. It was because he just kind of didn’t want to. He never even considered joining them until they actively sought him out and told him they were considering him for membership. Even then he wasn’t jumping for joy at the prospect. Not only did he debate it with himself, weighing up the pros and cons, but he even to Thor’s face questioned if he even wanted to join in the first place. Nor did he show much reverence or respect towards Captain America! Hell he was willing to believe he (along with the rest of the Avengers) were immoral for their treatment of the Hulk.

Now a lot of people in response would cite the fact that he wanted to join the F4 in ASM #1. But they ignore the context. He wanted to join them for money, he just wanted to support Aunt May. He didn’t want to join them because they were the World’s Greatest Heroes or superhero celebrities or idols of his. He was downright disrespectful towards them in that issue and most of his consequent encounters with the F4′s members throughout the 1960s.

I don’t know the exact timeline of the early Marvel Universe so I don’t know how long the F4 had been around by the time Spider-Man came onto the scene. Nevertheless the fact that they WERE famous and respected celebrity super heroes before he got his powers and he wasn’t fanboying over them says a lot about his character.

Moreover Reed Richards himself, much like Tony in the MCU, was a famous and highly respected scientist and Peter didn’t worship him either even if he likely did respect him as a scientist.

So there is a precedent for Peter growing up in a world of people he could or you’d imagine likely would look up to and idolize and yet he didn’t act the way his MCU counterpart did. Nor in fact did the Ultimate version of Peter Parker for that matter. For the record Miles Morales did....just sayin’.

Furthermore the original quote treats the issue as though it’s beyond credibility for any kid in the MCU to NOT idolize the Avengers. But in the real world it wasn’t as though every kid actually is a huge Avengers fan, or in the 1990s every kid loved Power Rangers or Pokemon or in the 80s every kid loved the Ninja Turtles.

Sure, MOST of them do/did. But that brings me to another aspect to this to that I think people overlook.

So we live in a world where everyone knows the Avengers and most people like them, especially Iron Man. And that’s an in-universe fact too right?

It’s very much the mainstream outlook these days.

You know what Peter Parker wasn’t when he was created?

He wasn’t part of the mainstream.

Oh, he wasn’t a hipster or whatever the contemporary equivalent would be.

But he was not part of the ‘in-crowd’ and he remained as such until the Romita era. Frankly PAGE 1 of AF #1 spells it all out.

Sure, sit there and say that that type of nerd no longer exists (which I question anyway but whatever) but my point is if an aspect of Spider-Man as originally envisioned was that he was isolated and an outsider, then wouldn’t making him someone who didn’t fangasm over Iron Man and the Avengers, who actually valued his own independence actually fit MORE with that original vision for the character? I mean we’re talking about the character who’s taste in music and fashion has always been at best behind the times.

I guess the counterargument would be that in a world where MOST people love Iron Man and the Avengers having Spider-Man go against that would make him less relatable.

I’d counter though that not being a fan of the Avengers in-universe really wouldn’t amount to much beyond not caring for a popular band of the day, which Peter has tended to do.

It’s also not like Peter not being a big fan of the Avengers would make him unrelatable. That was never one of the things that people connected to his character over.

Frankly the kindest interpretation is that the movie makers just wanted to have something aggressively different that also tapped directly into Spider-Man’s inclusion into the MCU.

The more cynical interpretation is that this happened because Disney were being manipulative. You like Spider-Man right? You want to be like Spider-Man don’t you? Well guess what Spider-Man likes the Avengers (TM Disney) just like you do and if you don’t then you should because Spidey sure does! You know he also likes Star Wars too even though most kids these days really don’t seem to but they should because SPIDER-MAN totally does! !

#Spider-Man #Peter Parker #Miles Morales #MCU #marvel cinematic universe #tony stark #iron man #avengers #the avengers #Disney #Star Wars

46 notes · View notes

jazy3 · 5 years

Text

Thoughts on Grey’s Anatomy: 15X16

I really liked this episode. It’s the first one in a while I’ve actually enjoyed. The opening shot shows a residential neighbour then cuts to the inside of Meredith’s house. Which one of those houses is supposed to be Meredith’s house? All previous shots have shown her living on a hill.

We get an adorable scene of Zola and her Aunt Maggie. Zola’s making a family tree for a school project and is talking to Maggie about parents, family, and adoption. It’s adorable. If you pause the episode at this point you can see that Lexie is on the tree as are all of Derek’s sisters. I miss Lexie. Then Ellis Grey appears out of nowhere! Hi Kate Burton!

We get treated to a crazy dream sequence. Amelia shows up and we get to see her, Maggie, Ellis, and Zola interact. Wistful thinking anyone? We then find out it was Meredith’s dream! This just keeps getting weirder. The dream clearly means more to Meredith than it does to us because she’s struck by inspiration.

At the hospital Nico and Schmitt are getting it on!!! I like them! Schmitt’s ringtone is hilarious! It’s his Mom calling. He shushes Nico and he gets pissed and leaves. Ouch. One of the things I liked about this episode is that DeLuca was significantly less creepy and more of a human being. That does not excuse his past behaviour though. Him and Meredith talk and we find out his Dad most likely has bipolar disorder, but refuses treatment so they can’t be completely sure.

DeLuca goes to kiss Meredith before he leaves and she says there are rules. He agrees and kisses her twice before leaving. I think that’s the first time DeLuca has moderately respected Meredith’s rules and boundaries. Meanwhile Maggie’s doing a podcast (and many interviews) about her ground breaking surgery. Cool! Webber wants to know why they call it a podcast!?!?!

I checked. The word is derived from a combination of two words. iPod and Broadcast. When the term was coined most people were using Apples’ iPod to listen to podcasts. So when Ben Hammersley suggested the word podcasting to describe the new method of delivering content the term stuck. Jackson’s over it. Hahaha!

Maggie gets caught up in the moment and while blabbering on to her interviewers she accidentally tells them she’s Ellis and Richard’s love child and that Meredith is her sister. Yikes! Well it was bound to come out eventually. My friend guessed that based on the synopsis and she was right!!! She asks them to edit it out. Seeing as they don’t I’m pretty sure there would implications for them. Including info without a person’s consent has consequences.

Helen’s still in town! So Amber, Alex’s younger sister, has a kid or more than one kid. That’s the first update we’ve had on her in years. I wish we knew more about her. I thought she was in her 20’s but this implies she’s more into her 30’s potentially. Sigh. Alex and his family never get the storylines or screen time they deserve. Helen reveals she’s knitting them gender neutral baby hats and freaks the hell out of Jo! Also Helen believes in gender fluidity! Right on! Next Alex needs Bailey to cover the pit which is literally part of her job and something she did recently voluntarily. She throws a fit and is super snarky. What the hell is her problem? She’s acting like a child.

Jackson, Link, Nico, and Schmitt treat a patient whose a minor league baseball player who needs surgery on his leg. DeLuca’s Dad is a huge jerk to his loving daughter Carina which really makes me hate him. It turns out he’s in town to see Andrew and pitch an idea to the Chief. His big idea is a baby in a bag. Fetus’ outside the womb for better outcomes for Moms and babies who would otherwise perish. It’s pretty cool, but something tells me this isn’t going to go well.

Meanwhile Amelia and Owen are at the lawyers signing the custody paperwork for Leo. Instead of just giving Owen’s address as Leo’s address when he effing lives there they decide to reveal that they’ve broken up like total morons. Sometimes these characters seem too dumb to be doctors. Jo asks Link to put her on a surgery so she can avoid Alex and baby talk. They’re developing Link and Jackson’s friendship. I like it! Jo comes in hot with the zingers and shuts Schmitt all the way down! Talking with the patient’s Mom only intensifies Jo’s parenting fears.

Maggie comes to talk to Meredith about her screw up. Meredith explains that Ellis came to her in a dream and gave her the answer to something. Maggie says Ellis got in her head today too. To which Meredith replies, “Did she give you the question?!?!” Haha! I love Meredith! Maggie spills her guts and Meredith just rolls with it. She takes this a lot better than Richard.

Having been bumped from his surgery Jo, Schmitt goes to work with Bailey in the ER. They wind up treating a male patient who coughs up blood and whose husband freaks out big time and whose teenage daughter is so calm it’s hilarious! She says he sounds like a dying moose! Meanwhile Alex likes DeLuca’s Dad’s pitch. Meredith tells him to dig deeper while also trying not to reveal the private medical history DeLuca told her in confidence. Alex doesn’t get it.

Alex and his Mom have lunch at the park. It’s nice that they’re able to interact normally now that she’s feeling better. Aw! His Mom thought he would be an engineer when he grew up and now he’s interim chief of surgery! Back at the hospital Richard’s been receiving interview requests and he wants to know why. Maggie spills the beans and he’s really upset. In the OR Jo and Jackson have a conversation about the pros and cons of kids.

Now we’re back to Owen and Amelia. They seem to be agreeing and getting along for once. And Amelia brings up Teddy. Here we go again. Amelia sets boundaries about him talking about his feelings for Teddy. Who she brought up. These two are a goddamn train wreck all the time. They start fighting. Amelia once again speaks her truth and sets boundaries. I’m really proud of her here. She needs to do what is right for her and it’s not the same as what’s right for Owen.

As Owen’s other ex-wife once said to their mutual sister, “Don’t let what he wants eclipse what you need. He’s very dreamy but he’s not the sun. You are.” Owen then throws a temper tantrum and decides to be really passive aggressive. Like a child. Then he blames her and says it’s her fault that she can’t take his BS anymore. Has this man ever taken responsibility for ANYTHING in his personal life ever? Amelia’s face says it all.

He accuses her of not loving him or not wanting to even though she never said any such thing. She never said she doesn’t love him. She just can’t be with him anymore. Then he’s says this is her fault because she won’t let him love her. It’s not. He said a similar thing to Cristina. You think he would have learned by now. Also all Amelia does is love and feel things too much. She’s acknowledged this. And then he cranks his assholery up to 200.

He says this is her fault because there’s some fundamental part of her that can’t love or be loved. He actually said that. And he says this in an attempt to convince her to get back together with him while they are at the lawyers to sign paperwork to get custody of Leo. Does he hear himself when he speaks ever? He’s such a child. He can’t handle the idea of someone not wanting him so he accuses her of being incapable of love. What an asshole. He said something similar to Cristina as well.

Why doesn’t he ever learn? Also Amelia’s an addict who was insane for over a decade of her life. That’s a horrible thing to say to anyone but it’s especially horrible to say it to someone who could go over the deep end at any minute. Amelia’s worked so so hard to be clean, sober, and sane and Owen is actively sabotaging her and he can’t understand why she doesn’t want to be with him. Seriously? God he’s such an asshole. Amelia get your ass out of there! You deserve better!

All Owen ever does to all of the women in his life is gaslight them, yell at them, make them feel small, guilt trip them, accuse them of things, and hurt them. His behaviour is abusive plain and simple. He needs to get over himself and get some help. Back at the hospital DeLuca’s Dad convinces him to back his project. Maggie comes to talk to Richard. He’s pissed. Largely because he doesn’t think Catherine needs this on top of her cancer. I see his point. Maggie’s upset because he says he’s not proud of the part of his story that lead to her existence. I also see her point. We cut to Carina and DeLuca arguing in Italian. Meredith walks up to them.

DeLuca agrees his Dad has episodes but says he’s not dangerous. But that by definition means he is if he’s treating patients. Meredith calls him on this. Carina insists he’s not well and this is dangerous. Carina says DeLuca is letting their Dad manipulate him and I have to agree. DeLuca acts like a child in response. After he leaves Carina asks Meredith’s advice and she tells her to talk to the Chief.

Alex comes to talk to Mer and asks if she knew. They talk and DeLuca walks in and finds out Alex knows. He’s upset and plays the ‘he’s my Dad’ Card. As if that changes the fact that he murdered 4 people. Those of us with mental illness, if untreated, are fine until we aren’t. DeLuca’s not getting this. Back in the OR Jo and Jackson talk about kids again. He makes a great speech but not everyone feels that way about kids.

Back to Amelia and Owen. She wants to be removed from the paperwork. She says she’ll be in Leo’s life because that’s what Betty wants. She’ll be Aunty Amelia. Who is fundamentally incapable of love. She repeats Owen’s own words about her back to him. He acts like she’s being ridiculous and he never said. He said that literally minutes ago. What does he have amnesia? He gaslights her at every turn and she’s finally sober and sane enough to see it. Leo is Owen’s. Teddy has Tom. Teddy and Owen are having a baby together. But Amelia doesn’t need to be a part of this. She doesn’t want to be anymore and she’s stepping away. Good for her. Owen finally gets what he deserves.

Jo comes to speak to Alex. She tells him she’s not afraid of his genes. She’s terrified of hers. Because she doesn’t know anything about hers. Alex wants to hire a private investigator. But Jo doesn’t want to meet them she just wants to know. She’s going to do an ancestry DNA test. He tells her about the baby in a bag project. I’m guessing this is how her family is introduced.

Maggie’s Phone is blowing up with interview requests. Richard comes to speak to her. He tells her he’s ashamed of what he did in the past, but that he’s grateful for her existence. She knows. Maggie realizes when her Dad hears the podcast he’s going to be even more heartbroken.

Schmitt runs and tells Nico he loves him! So beautiful! He tells him his Mom is spastic and it’s not that he’s ashamed or the fact that he’s gay or that Nico is Asian that’s the problem. The woman freaks out when he tries to purchase a backpack. Literally. His Mom needs help. And a hobby. Nico gets it now and everything is right with the world.

Meredith closes off her voiceover by bringing in some truth about the blood vs. water proverb. Owen’s at home alone with Leo BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE DESERVES!!! Maggie and Jackson bring a bummed out Amelia to Meredith’s house. Jackson says he’s cooking then realizes Mer’s food is expired! Hahaha! We learn that Maggie and Jackson are living at Mer’s until his place is repaired. After what just happened today it looks like Amelia will be too.

Well that was fun! Let’s move on to next week’s promo shall we?! Meredith and DeLuca continue to date. Yawn. Owen tells Teddy that Amelia is out of the picture. OMG DO NOT TAKE HIM BACK TEDDY! You deserve better! Amelia cuts her hair! She looks cute! She realizes how hot Link is. They go in for kiss! I ship it!

Until next time.

Au revoir!

#grey's anatomy #Meredith Grey #review #thoughts #15X16 #season 15 #blood and water

35 notes · View notes

olmopress · 5 years

Text

The end.

week 13: Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, “Remediation”

Maghada Kingdom, Northern India. Somewhere around 2500 years ago:

I feel you Sha’

All beautiful things must end, and so also my smart-ass blogposts have to.

SAD

But I don’t know maybe you can pool some kind of financial resources and grant me a salary to write you reviews on stuff. It’d be cool, and I’d be constantly on strike to try and negotiate a better wage because

But anyways.

Before we start this last ride about digital media, I have a kind message addressed to my dear friends Bolter & Grusin

No for real guys. Don’t get me wrong here, your paper is great and you sound like chill dudes, but

DUDE

your points are SIMPLE, and we’re all grown ups with an education. You DO NOT have to state and re-state the obvious and make multiple and equally obvious examples

LIKE, WE GET IT

Instead NO, it takes these two little bitches something like

THIRTY PAGES

to get to the main point of the essay.

But oi, maybe I get it. Maybe you were writing for some whiny-ass professor/boss who gave you a nasty word count, or maybe editorial draconian policies by the journal forced you to do this. Boh. I don’t know. Don’t wanna antagonize her but reading you kids was a tour de force.

BUT LET US NOT GET DISTRACTED LIKE WE DO ALL THE FUCKING TIME

Bolter and Grusin’s article does something quite simple: it attempts to set theoretical lineaments to the three concepts of immediacy, hypermediacy, and remediation. Very cool.

The ‘core’ of the whole essay is something pretty much like this:

Our [sick-ass neurotic] Western culture is fixated on both immediacy and hypermediation. To achieve the first, we [very reasonably and not at all pervertedly] paradoxycally construct hypermediated environments. But we do also the reverse [again great reasoning abilities here]: in going all-in for hypermediacy we tend to rely on seemingly immediate devices. All this media push-and-pull is fucking bipolar implies a logic of remediation, in which the emergence of every new media generates reciprocal ‘borrowings’ and incorporations between the new and the old.

Now Bolter. Grusin.

DOES MY PARAGRAPH LOOK THIRTY FUCKING PAGES LONG?

B & G: No

GOOD. THEN WHY THE HELL YOURS DOES?

Fucking academics, man. They drive me crazy.

So the point is that this logic of remediation is based upon the mutual dependence of contradictiory determinations (the fact that immediacy depends on hypermediacy). And well, what is it if not another episode of my highly acclaimed sit-com series

“What famous philosopher is featured in this paper?”

Our guest star today is a boy you’ve already seen in this post.

Oh yeah baby, keep those antithetical determinations struggling with each other!

And so yeah, “Immediacy depends upon hypermediacy,” and very much like an original synthesis that transcends thesis and antithesis,

“the desire for immediacy leads to a process of appropriation and critique by which digital media reshape or ‘remediate’ one another and their analog predecessors” (314).

From this point, B. & G. write words upon words to disscuss the concepts of immediacy and hypermediacy, constructing what they define a “genealogy” of the two concepts. But they means this in a very specific way. Is another guest star of “What famous philosopher is featured in this paper” coming to join us?

OF COURSE

but surprises don’t end here, because

IT’S A RETURN!

Oh yeah, your favorite bald philosophical sex symbol is back to tell you that by saying “genealogy” he means

“an examination of descent” which “permits the discovery, under the unique aspect of a trait or a concept, of the myriad events through which—thanks to which, against which—they were formed” (qtd. in 315).

Therefore Bolter and Grusin investigate the way in which these two concepts have been shaped by cultural discourse over history. Which is all fun and leisure, but not really that important to us.

One thing I did want to talk about tho is the political aspect of immediacy. So let me get this straight. When discussing VR, B&G write:

“All these enthusiasts promise us perceptual immediacy, experience without mediation. They expect virtual reality to diminish and ultimately to deny the mediating presence of the computer and its interface” (317).

Now, you have been blessed enough to encounter some Marxism in your life, you might be reminded of the crucial concept of ideology. An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by members of a society – or imposed upon them – that naturalizes artificial relationships and norms inside that community. The thing about ideologies, though, is that they are not immediately visible. They are, to borrow from B&G, transparent, because they are designed to be invisible and to provide a sense of immediacy in social dialectic. Moreover, the stronger an ideology is – the more rooted it is in culture – the less visible it is. We could say, for instance, that Mark Fisher’s concept of Capitalist Realism works as a very transparent ideology.

Rest in peace, comrade.

But going even deeper, it seems to me that this whole transparency thing is very totalitarian. Like VR is kind of totalitarian, because it seeks complete and utter control over your body and senses. Totalitarianism is like a transparent interface. It is a form of cultural VR. Or rather, ideology is a form of virtual reality.

And, oi, B&G make it clear enough that this works also when individuals have personal freedom. Sure, they’re talking about digital media, but still look at what they write:

“For if immediacy is promoted by removing the programmer/creator from the image, immediacy can also be promoted by involving the viewer more intimately in the image” (324).

That’s DEEP bruh.

Now let’s move on. So immediacy is essentially the dominant regime for much of the history of Western culture. Or at least ever since the Renaissance. It is the dream of being able to produce objects that trick us into believing that what we see is real. Fine.

Hypermediacy is sort of like its nemesis. It is the cultural regime of fragmentation, indeterminacy, multiplicity, heterogeneity and pretty much also of deliberate and explicit artificiality.

IT’S VERY POSTMODERN

VERY META-

It’s culture that is aware of its mediated nature, and breaks that suspension of disbelief stuff that makes you care for characters created by someone else.

youtube

See this at work in one of the greatest moments of digital media history.

Bolt ’n’ Grus have a lot of superfluous stuff to say about it, but unfortunately for them I am very postmodern too and my attention spans are short and so I’ll jump to remediation.

Remediation is B&S’s killer application. All their money is on this nice idea. The idea is that one of the defining characteristic of contemporary digital media – or rather, a phenomenon sparked by the emergence of them – is the fact that media represents other media in them. This, they say, can happen in four different modes.

1. Transparency: digital media highlights and re-presents an older media without any trace of irony or critique. This is like when you go search for that old album you really like on Apple Music. The platform does not ‘comment on’ the music. It just allows you to experience it by reproducing the older vynil/CD medium.

2. Emphasis on difference: digital media underlines and renders particularly evident the difference between itself and older media. Kinda like an improvement of older media through digital tools. This encompasses all the ‘expanded’ stuff you can get. Like library guides on our our library’s website. They are text-based like a physical library guide would, but they also have nice little video tutorials which improve them. Through the digital.

3. Refashoning: an ‘aggressive’ form of remediation that tries to refashion older media entirely while still signaling its presence and therefore retaining a sense of multiplicity. Here artificiality is explicit and discontinuity is visible. It is kind of like a new media collage. Something like this, perhaps:

youtube

4. Absorption and incorporation: the fourth and final mode is one in which discontinuity is minimized, because a media has entirely absorbed one or more characteristics of another one. Thus, we sort of come full circle, in the sense that absorption is superficially quite similar to transparency. Note that absorption works in both directions. Therefore you have it both in film through CGI and in videogames through cinematic cutscenes.

Our reading for this article ended with Bolter and Grusin saying that at the present moment (which for them is 1996, but non importa) all mediation is remediation, in the sense that “each medium or constellation of media […] responds to, redeploys, competes with, and reforms other media” (345). Which is also a way to offer a new connotation to the concept of media environment.

Now, sadly

WE ARE DONE.

It’s been a hell of a ride. I mean a hell. But also a ride. So we’re kind of even. It is time for me to bid you farewell; remind you to have protected sex always; assure you that, no, you won’t have panick attacks for the rest of your life (it’s the oppressive and ultra-competitive educational system’s fault); and re-assure you that, eventually, the dialectic of history will complete its cycle, unveil the inherent contradictions of capitalist societies, and prepare for the advent of a millenary communist civilization.

This come from Amazon, lol

Everything will turn out well. We will be fine. One day Donald Trump, Matteo Salvini, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen, Vladimir Putin, and Jair Bolsonaro will all rot in hell. We will probably have to deal with the catastrophic consequences of climate change brought about by capitalism but we’ll come out of this with a stronger, more inclusive, and more just society. Our dreams will come true and we’ll all become badass human beings who will be pillars of a reformed, humane society.

Enjoy the ride!

Today’s culture is a celebration of our struggles to become great and revolutionary individuals. Enjoy that too.

Coldplay - Lost!

youtube

William Blake, The Angel of Revelation (1805)

Adieu!

Image Sources: GIPHY, metmuseum.org, thenewpolis.com, micciacorta.it, amazon.com

1 note · View note

dragon-in-a-fez · 7 years

Note

(1/3) thanks for being so comprehensive! just from reading your other writing I should have been able to intuit that providing more opportunities for children to consent to what is being done to/around them would underlie that system. regarding your comments about 'correcting' children, this is something else I've wondered about.

(2/3) I'm getting married this year & my partner and I have already decided that we'd most likely someday like children, and that we'd like to provide as much opportunity as possible for self-expression and (bodily and other) autonomy for the child as possible. basically, is it ever acceptable to make a child do something that offers long-term, non-immediate benefits - i.e. participating in education, through a school or otherwise; helping with chores so we can have a clean house?

(3/3) it's something I'm wondering about off the back you saying children should be treated as equal members of the family - does giving them equal rights to other members of the family require they be given similar (but obviously tailored for their ability) responsibilities? what do parents do when children simply do not want to participate in something that will benefit them and may be crucial for later in life?

note: long post, response under the read more, doesn’t always work on mobile, etc etc

I’m so glad to see people thinking about this stuff, and I’m really happy when my thoughts help with that!

so...is it ever acceptable to “make” an adult do something that offers long-term, non-immediate benefits? I mean, kinda. sometimes. ish. as a society we don’t really have a great answer for that, except, “try not to get to that point”.

most kids are eager to start school. a little separation anxiety might happen at first, but most kids, on balance, enjoy school in the first couple of years. it’s the factory-model, compulsory education system that makes kids stop wanting to go and start viewing it as a daily soul-sucking misadventure, not the act of learning. making education consensual, giving choices in how it’s accomplished, and giving voice in where and when it happens usually, in my experience, fixes that. I’ve worked in several democratic schools over the years and I only once encountered a young person who honestly didn’t want to be there every day. and guess what? she moved to another alternative, and was much happier. it can be really hard to find alternatives to the traditional model - especially since most private schools follow basically the same philosophy as public schools - but I really encourage you to try.

in terms of educating kids on specific topics that will “have long-term benefits”, which is what the public education system always claims it’s doing...honestly, I’d say that’s bullshit, in 2017 if it wasn’t in the past. developing transferrable learning, communication, self-management, and creativity skills is more important, and you can do that studying dinosaurs as easily as you can studying Richard III, so why force kids to study one over the other? besides which, career paths are so many and varied and convoluted now, we have an ever-decreasing ability to predict what even a reasonable majority of people might need to know for their specific jobs twenty years down the line. half the jobs held by today’s 30-year-olds didn’t even exist when those people were in school.

I once had a ten-year-old kid who I was teaching to read because he’d never been interested before and his parents and the wonderful learning center he was at hadn’t forced him. he picked everything up incredibly fast because he was interested and driven. you know what else I was teaching the same kid at the same time? Cartesian philosophy. the lockstep, this-leads-to-that approach we’re used to is such crap.

as for chores, responsibilities...well, how are they shared between roommates? between couples? between people who share an office kitchen? probably by mutual understanding, maybe a chart or something. the occasional passive-aggressive note on the fridge. but no overbearing micromanaging. if I’m living with a friend, maybe we have an expectation that it’s his turn to take out the garbage this week. maybe we argue about it if he puts it off for three days after the bin is full. but do I stand over him yelling at him for being a layabout and threatening to take away his xbox if he doesn’t do it right this instant? I mean, probably not - if I do, I’m a shitty friend and roommate, aren’t I?

with a bunch of kids I babysat a while back, I took the initiative to change the “chore chart” the parents had on the wall, which listed all the kids and gave them jobs like “laundry” or “dishes” on specific days. the change I made? I added some slots for myself. the important thing wasn’t that I was seen to be pulling my weight - they knew that already - it was that I was working under the same system they were. same expectations. same deadlines. same frequency of the same kinds of tasks. complaints about doing the dishes went down from, like, 15 times daily to once a week. and bonus, they helped hold each other to account because they saw the fairness of the system.

also, I feel like, if the goal is to teach someone that taking out the garbage is important, maybe doing it myself even if it’s not my turn sends that message better than fighting with them about it for more than thirty seconds. because if I keep fighting and the garbage just sits there for hours or days, then what am I doing? I’m sending the message that the garbage isn’t what matters - I just want to enforce obedience. and what’s the best way to ensure a human being defies your wishes? acting like you have the right to order them around.

of course, there’s also the handy “I literally can’t cook dinner, which is my job today, until I have clean dishes to use to do so, which is your job”. like, clear and rational consequences tend to make people get a move on.

so basically: model responsibility; give options; negotiate; work together. is it going to work perfectly and avoid all contact? hell no. is it going to ensure everyone pulls their weight all the time? of course not. who’s ever had a roommate that always did their chores on time anyway? but parents who act like shouting about everything until it’s done their way works any better are off their rockers.

#seedybest

14 notes · View notes

opioidjusticeteam · 4 years

Text

Can I Take Oxycontin When Pregnant?

When Purdue Pharma launched its new painkilling drug Oxycontin in 1996, company officials were sure they had a winner. At a launch party for the opioid-based drug, Dr. Richard Sackler, a Purdue executive from the family that founded the firm and still mostly owns it, declared that the introduction of Oxycontin “will be followed by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition.”

Sackler was right. Over the next two decades, Purdue’s Oxycontin dominated the rapidly growing market for prescription painkillers. The firm, aided by its aggressive marketing tactics, eventually captured 16 percent of the national market for such drugs, trailing only the generic manufacturers of similar opioids – and the drug’s popularity with both doctors and patients stayed strong even after news stories and lawsuits linked Oxycontin to addiction.

Not surprisingly, with so much Oxycontin on the market, a lot of doses were ultimately prescribed to women who were pregnant. The most extensive study found that between 2008-2012, or near the height of the surge in painkiller use, an astonishing one-in-three American women of childbearing age (defined as age 15-44) were prescribed some opioid painkiller. Meanwhile opioid use disorder – the medical term for addiction – also took off during this period for women who showed up at hospitals in labor, with such cases quadrupling from 1999-2014.

It seems remarkable now, but there was little discussion within the medical community during those years about whether it was safe for these women, or, even more importantly, for their babies to prescribe Oxycontin during pregnancy. In fact, many doctors continued to prescribe Purdue’s profitable painkiller even after studies emerged in the early 2010s linking opioids like Oxycontin to birth defects and a disorder called Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, or NAS.

Oxycontin, NAS and your baby

Indeed, it’s long past time to put procedures into place to ensure that women who are actually pregnant aren’t prescribed opioid painkillers. Our legal team, which has pushed to include the families of children who were exposed to these medications in the womb in settlement talks with Big Pharma over the industry’s gross negligence and its deceptive marketing practices, is also pushing for a medical monitoring fund that would gather new evidence while providing for the long-term care of kids harmed by these drugs.

The most common health hazard for babies exposed to Oxycontin in the womb is NAS, which is a form of opioid withdrawal that can keep newborns in the hospital for weeks while they’re treated for shaking, vomiting, frequent crying, and an array of other symptoms. Our team of experts carefully analyzed all available data and concluded that government methods have undercounted the number of kids exposed to opioids. (Indeed, even the diagnosis code for NAS or Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) was only developed recently.) We estimated that approximately 42,000 NAS babies are born in the United States every year, meaning the total number of kids dealing with the after-effects of opioid exposure number in the hundreds of thousands. This is a national epidemic that rarely gets mentioned in the news media.

In addition to the symptoms described earlier, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has asserted that babies born with NAS can experience a range of problems that include trembling, Irritability, including excessive or high-pitched crying, sleep problems, hyperactive reflexes, seizures, yawning, stuffy nose, or sneezing, poor feeding and sucking, loose stools and dehydration, and increased sweating.

Other potential health hazards

Most babies born with NAS are kept in intensive care for several weeks and then sent home from the hospital. However, medical experts are just beginning to learn – first through anecdotal evidence but increasingly through research – that many of the children exposed to opioids during pregnancy develop other problems as they grow. These include behavioral problems, cognitive delays, mental or motor deficits, or attention-deficit disorder (ADD). That’s why our goal in seeking damages from Purdue Pharma and other drug companies is a fund that will track these children — to better understand the medical consequences.

But it’s important to note that while NAS and developmental difficulties may be the most common consequences of taking Oxycontin while pregnant, there are other serious concerns, especially birth defects. In fact, some specialists say that birth defects can happen when an expectant mother takes opioid painkillers in the 4th to 10th week of a pregnancy, which is often before a woman knows she is pregnant or given good guidance on pre-natal care.

As far back as 2011, a CDC study found links between opioid use during pregnancy and common birth defects such as heart defects or cleft palate. The greatest increase in risk involved spina bifida, the condition in which the spinal column doesn’t close properly in the womb. The CDC paper found that women whose babies had been born with spina bifida where twice as likely to have taken opioids during their pregnancy than mothers whose children had no birth defects. Another increased risk from taking Oxycontin or similar painkillers during pregnancy is gastroschisis, in which a baby is born with its intestines hanging outside the stomach, due to a hole in the abdominal wall. There are about 1,800 American cases of this rare illness every year. The CDC research found that rates of gastroschisis are about 60 percent higher in the counties that had the highest rates of prescription opioid use.

In addition to spina bifida, another neural tube defects — which often take place during the first month of pregnancy — that showed increased risk in the 2011 CDC study was anencephaly, where most of the brain and skull don’t fully develop. Heart defects posted the highest gain in the CDC’s study, including hypoplastic left heart syndrome, in which the left side of the heart doesn’t develop properly. It’s fatal if not treated with surgery.

A need for testing – and justice

None of these heartbreaking conditions need to occur. In our legal challenge to Big Pharma, our attorneys have demanded a medical protocol similar to the one that has been widely used since researchers established a link between the drug Accutane — which is taken for skin conditions such as acne — and birth defects. Doctors now require pregnancy tests for women of child-bearing age before Accutane is prescribed, and there’s no reason this can’t be done for Oxycontin or other popular brands of painkillers as well.

But our chief focus is justice for the literally hundreds of thousands of families that weren’t warned about Oxycontin, weren’t tested, and now are raising children with the consequences of a powerful industry’s gross negligence.

Our lawyers have gone into federal court to get children born to prescription opioid-dependent-and-using mothers recognized as their own legal class within the national opioid litigation, which is currently before U.S. District Court Judge Daniel A. Polster in Cleveland. We’ve already filed lawsuits in a number of states seeking recognition for the legal rights of these kids and their families.

Our team of highly experienced lawyers is heavily focused on ensuring that any settlement dollars in these cases go directly to the aid of those in the greatest need: The children. Too many of us were around in the late 1990s when the settlement with Big Tobacco over that industry’s decades of deceit was directed by states and other localities that then typically spent this vast windfall on plugging holes in their budgets rather than directing dollars to the health needs of the people who’d been harmed – or who could be – by smoking cigarettes.

If you took Oxycontin while pregnant and now have concerns about your child’s health and long-term needs, we hope you’ll join us in the fight for justice involving Purdue Pharma and the other big pharmaceutical companies. Time may be limited; potential claimants in the current Purdue Pharma bankruptcy proceedings have until the end of June to file. By signing up, you can help us ensure that any national financial settlement over the opioid crisis goes to the families and the communities that need the money the most.

The post Can I Take Oxycontin When Pregnant? appeared first on Opioid Justice Team.

from Opioid Justice Team https://opioidjusticeteam.com/oxycontin-when-pregnant/

0 notes

christianworldf · 5 years

Text

New Post has been published on Nehemiah Reset

New Post has been published on https://nehemiahreset.org/news/minnesota-news/government-news-mn/iran-denies-us-shot-down-iranian-drone-ilhan-omars-anti-israel-resolution-sparks-outrage/

Iran denies US shot down Iranian drone; Ilhan Omar's anti-Israel resolution sparks outrage

Good morning and welcome to Fox News First. Here’s what you need to know as you start your Friday …

What the US downing of an Iranian drone really means Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have been gradually rising for weeks, and President Trump’s announcement Thursday that a U.S. Navy ship downed an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz only further strained relations between the two countries. Trump said the USS Boxer took defensive action after the drone closed to within 1,000 yards of the warship and ignored multiple calls to stand down — an act the president called “provocative and hostile.”

Iran on Friday denied Trump’s statement. “We have not lost any drone in the Strait of Hormuz nor anywhere else,” tweeted Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. According to Jim Hanson, president of Security Studies Group, who served in the U.S. Army Special Forces, the U.S. sent an important message to Iran: Aggression has consequences and America will strike back when provoked. And President Trump is not former President Obama and will not be compromised by a flawed nuclear deal. Click here to read Hanson’s entire analysis in the Opinion section of Fox News Digital.

House Democrats confront Acting Homeland Security secretary on treatment of migrants Progressive lawmakers on Thursday grilled the acting Homeland Security secretary about family separations at the U.S-Mexico border, with one member of the “Squad” alleging that Trump administration officials want to prolong the detention of children. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., at a House Oversight Committee hearing, accused Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and fellow administration officials of trying to change the long-standing agreement known as the Flores settlement that governs how immigrant children can be detained, “to keep kids longer” in custody. McAleenan denied the accusation, explaining that he wanted to keep families together for the time necessary it takes for immigration proceedings to go through, and for the justice system to make a ruling on the case. Democrats have slammed the detentions as “inhumane,” while many Republicans have accused the Democrats of hypocrisy, saying they were silent about similar detentions under the Obama administration.

Trump to nominate son of late Supreme Court Justice Scalia for secretary of labor President Trump on Thursday night announced he’s nominating attorney Gene Scalia, a son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, to replace Alex Acosta as secretary of labor. The surprise move was a visible manifestation of the close personal bond Trump has forged with the Scalia family in recent years. The confirmation process for Justice Neil Gorsuch, who ultimately filled Justice Scalia’s seat, sparked the connection. Acosta stepped down as head of the Labor Department last Friday over his past involvement in a cushy 2008 plea deal for financier Jeffrey Epstein, who is now facing federal sex trafficking charges.

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., holds a Medicare for All town hall with other lawmakers, Thursday, July 18, 2019, in Minneapolis. (Richard Tsong-Taatarii/Star Tribune via AP)

Trump lawyers: Why Ilhan Omar’s anti-Israel resolution should be defeated in House U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., proposed a resolution this week supporting the right to boycott Israel, likening the boycott of the Jewish state to boycotts of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Omar’s resolution seeks to push back against U.S. laws banning the boycott of Israel and affirms the right of Americans to organize boycotts of foreign countries if they so wish. While the resolution doesn’t explicitly name Israel or the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, she told media outlets that the resolution concerns the Jewish state. Jay Sekulow and Mark Goldfeder, two members of President Trump’s legal team, argue that Omar’s measure “deserves to go down to overwhelming bipartisan defeat.” Click here to read the entire op-ed by Sekulow and Goldfeder on Fox News Digital.

Tom Cruise surprises San Diego Comic-Con to introduce trailer to ‘Top Gun’ sequel Tom Cruise may soon fly high at the box office once again. The veteran movie star surprised fans at San Diego Comic-Con on Thursday to promote his long-awaited, much anticipated upcoming sequel, “Top Gun: Maverick.” In the new trailer, it’s revealed that Cruise’s iconic character, Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, will serve as the new flight instructor of the Top Gun school, and is seen wearing his infamous Ray-Ban sunglasses, as he faces off against a new enemy — drones.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP.

TODAY’S MUST-READS California city will remove gender terms, including ‘manhole’ and ‘manmade,’ from municipal code. Husband of missing bikini-clad hiker says cops view him as prime suspect. ‘Cats’ movie trailer unnerves many on Internet: ‘I shrieked out loud.’

MINDING YOUR BUSINESS Airline CEOs to meet with Trump amid feud with Persian Gulf carriers. Elizabeth Holmes, disgraced Theranos founder, scores small legal victory ahead of 2020 trial. Want to flee high-tax states like New York? Turns out it’s not so easy.

#TheFlashback: CLICK HERE to find out what happened on “This Day in History.”

SOME PARTING WORDS

Tucker Carlson believes Joe Biden’s campaign is “deader than disco” and takes a look at other doomed 2020 Democrats.

Not signed up yet for Fox News First? Click here to find out what you’re missing.

CLICK HERE to find out what’s on Fox News today.

Fox News First is compiled by Fox News’ Bryan Robinson. Thank you for joining us! Enjoy your day and weekend! We’ll see you in your inbox first thing Monday morning.

Source link

0 notes

nyushqs · 5 years

Text

Get The Most Convenient To Make Use Of Mobile Phone

battle warship cheats

The LG GT540 is the advanced mobile phone from the LG mobile family members that offers you a true experience of delicate touchscreen with huge 3.0 inches of TFT touchscreen display screen. Just the means game application customers are careful regarding the game apps, the businesses likewise have to be similarly selective when it involves the option of application idea, video game application development tools and also application development firm to designer extraordinary experiences. We anticipate games to be amusing as well as enchanting, and that's precisely why so many individuals are getting caught on the tiny screens of their mobile phones, maintaining their hands hectic on those tinier tricks, and hence for hours on end subjecting their eyes to radiation of various degrees and also birthing possible consequences of nearsightedness as well as some other relevant hand problems. Up-to-date's mobile application development offer multitude of features which allow not just interaction yet likewise use improved features as for instance Web assistance by GPRS innovation, songs centers, progressed satellite navigation and live video conferencing. If you are seeking some intriguing present to offer your enjoyed ones on Xmas, the agreement phone offers offers the most effective present today as cellphones are just one of one of the most searched for things for individuals of every age whatever be their gender which makes the agreement phone manage gift a profitable offer to secure. There are various overseas growth firms that are engaged in using these application development solutions and also it includes growth, enablement as well as preparation services, SMS Press Bring up applications (mobile messaging), as well as various other various shows services which are based on mobile pocket PC. The approach bordering reskinning popular games with super hot IPs like RWBY has been quite strong on the Application Store, as folks that might not actually appreciate Clash Royale yet truly respect RWBY will likely obtain extremely sucked right into RWBY: Amity Field. The On-Line Gamers Anonymous site notes that pc gaming might be adversely impacting your kid's life if he only intends to talk about battle of warship hack video games, lies to cover the amount of time he invests having fun, as well as suggests with you over his too much gaming. Richard Gallagher, supervisor of the NYU Child Research study Center's Parenting Institute, specifies that gamers who come to be immersed in first-person shooter-style video games, for example, might take on a removed view of culture or develop aggressive thoughts and also propensities.

0 notes

dudence-blog · 7 years

Text

Dear Dudence for 1 December 2017

And we are now in December! Christmas time! Trees, lights, inflatable penguins! And drama! Soooooooooooo much drama. It is the season for sharing mulled wine with people you like, and who like you back. So grab a mug of warmed wine, cider, or chocolate and let’s see what sort of problems I can make worse for people I don’t know!

I live in a close-knit neighborhood. In October, my neighbor’s 16-year-old daughter ran over my family’s beloved cat. She was driving irresponsibly and texting, and she was horrified by what she’d done. I have tried not hating her, and I’ve tried telling myself that there’s always a risk that a cat allowed outdoors will be hit by a car. But I’m angry, and the best thing for me now is to keep my distance from the girl and her family. The parents won’t back off, though. Their daughter is traumatized, and they want me to comfort her.

Dear Cat Killer, unexpectedly losing a beloved pet sucks. And to have it happen because of the negligent actions of a person you need to continue interacting with is doubly sucky. I’m going to disagree with Newdie though about it not being awful for you to continue to want to emotionally punish your neighbor’s daughter. You don’t have to forgive her for her actions; she killed a member of your family afterall. But is “making a child feel terrible and refusing any kindness towards her,” really the hill you wish to die on? You say you live in a closely-knit neighborhood, so here’s how it’s going to play out. You’re going to continue to hold this over your neighbor and their daughter. They’re going to talk with your other neighbors and, eventually, it will come around to the point where you’re being petty, vindictive, and emotionally cruel to not move on. It was “just a cat” and you did “know what could happen” if you let it roam outside in an area where cars traveled. In the not-too-distant future you’re going to lose the very loose and sandy moral high ground on which you’re standing, and it’s not going to be fun for you. I recommend you think long and hard about what sort of acts of contrition you want to see from your neighbor’s kid as a way to earn your forgiveness, and when she achieves that provide it. At the end of the day the girl is going to eventually forgive herself and move on. Whether you do or you allow this anger and resentment to eat away at you and your relations with your neighbors is up to you.

I’m a single woman with a large extended family. I cope with the enormous project of buying Christmas presents by getting them very early. Everyone in my family knows this; it’s the family joke that I have all my presents purchased by Halloween. My brother’s wife “Jean” sent out a group text last week saying they have decided not to exchange gifts with the extended family and would only be getting gifts for each other and their own kids. They have five kids, both together and via previous marriages, so I understand, but would have appreciated more notice. My mom asked what I was going to do, and I said I’d keep the gifts for the kids but return the ones I got for my brother and Jean. Unfortunately, my dad, the family big mouth, overheard us and told my brother.

Dear Christmas Gift Drama, Jean is not right. Christmas is not about gift-giving. It’s about celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. That we have turned it into a celebration of eating, basketball, giving and exchanging gifts is ancillary to whatever the “meaning” of the holiday is. Grown-ass people getting their panties in a wad because their grown-ass sibling didn’t get them something after they said they’re not getting the sibling something are pathetic. You are morally and ethically in the right to return their gifts. Send them a nice card with a friendly and caring message of love for the holidays. Although do send the kids their gifts; it’s not their fault their mother acted rudely.

How do I cut off my seemingly well-intentioned family? My whole life, my little sister was the favorite. Growing up, other adults even commented on it to me, which actually helped because it showed me it wasn’t all in my head. On the outside they are a well-meaning Southern family, but to me they are suffocating.

Dear Just Want Out, you’re not going to be able to ghost your own family. You’re, eventually, going to need to tell them why you’re ignoring them. Or, you’re going to tell someone why and they’re going to tell them. So, sack-up and tell them you’re not going to be joining them because it’s not in the budget, whether due to money or time. Send a polite card wishing them well for the holiday and move on with your life. Hit “ignore” on the Family Gift Wish List text as well.

I have been struggling with my son for a long time and just don’t know how to get through to him. He started out being very impulsive as a young child, not thinking things through, getting aggressive with other children, and not listening. Once he entered grade school the aggressive behavior toned down significantly, thank goodness, and he appeared to be listening to his teachers. At home is a different story. I’ve been divorced from my son’s father since he was 2-1/2 years old but up until recently he still maintained contact with him. I attributed many of his behaviors to his father’s leniency and lack of discipline. However, my son is nine now and no longer has contact with his father, who is a deadbeat.

Dear At Wits’ End, oof. This is a heart-breaking letter on several levels. There’s a whole lot of hurt, pain, and problems in not a lot of space, and much of them are far beyond the capabilities of NuPru or me to address. As much as I’d like to join in NuPru’s condemnation of your actions and the consequence it has had on your son I’m not going to. Parenting is hard, single-parenting harder still, and even the best, most wonderful, and well-intentioned people can fail when pushed hard enough. Hitting your kid in anger is a terrible thing to do, your 9 year old cannot have done anything to justify such violence, it’s not going to result in the behavior you want, and will likely get you seriously hemmed up by the law. Maybe she’s right that your actions have left your son unable to form friendships or fail to hit developmental milestones, but it’s also possible there are some underlying medical issues which could be at play, and the healing power of “and” is always at work. Certainly your actions and attitude towards him aren’t helping, but without identifying that possibility you’re going to be swimming against the stream even more than you are now. You need to get yourself some help to deal with your anger and stress. You need to get your son some help as well; his school district almost certainly has some resources to identify if he has a developmental issue. And it’s not likely his teachers haven’t noticed his behavior, so it’s probably something someone there is considering. After you get yourself some help for the anger and control issues it might be worth trying to reestablish a relationship with the boy’s father. That he became a “deadbeat” while you were belittling his parental choices and escalating the emotional and physical abuse of your shared child might be connected.

I’m a trans woman who’s been in a relationship with a queer cis girl for a couple years. It has slowly come out that my partner wants to “date people who have vaginas.” She’s told me before that she sees herself as having been historically deprived of the ability to date people with vaginas because society has primed her relationship life to involve “people who have penises.” I feel hurt by this analysis, because I honestly have never seen any societal forces compelling anyone to date trans people like me. This line of logic also seems disingenuous given that she was raised in a cis lesbian household. I feel hurt and inadequate. When we have conversations about this, the conversation always unfolds with her in the role of the victim. This is a difficult dynamic to escape, because she is better than me at using sound social justice rhetoric.

Dear Just Want to Feel Normal, you’re not taking this too personally. Once we strip away all the gender identifying text this is about your significant other no longer being attracted (as attracted?) to you, wanting to date other people, but wanting to keep you around for their own satisfaction. Oh, and there’s also a bit of mind-fuckery going on where she’s trying to blame you for not wanting to be her doormat. Your girlfriend can deploy all the social justice rhetoric she wishes, but it doesn’t change that she’s behaving like an asshole. It sucks when someone you love reveals they no longer feel the same, and it’s a suck-multiplier when they exploit your own feelings of inadequacy and emotional vulnerabilities at the same time. Just because you’re trans doesn’t mean you deserve to be treated like your hopefully-soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend is treating you. You deserve to have a supporting, caring partner who is totally into you, and I hope you find them.

I recently became good friends with “Absalom” and “Richard.” Richard is queer and non-binary but very masculine-presenting, while Absalom is a straight cis man (I myself am a gay cis man). When we first became friends, Richard and I both developed small crushes on Absalom before we knew his sexuality. We both subtly and innocently flirted with him a couple times. After Absalom offhandedly mentioned he was straight, I backed off, no big deal.

Dear Looking for Straight Talk, much like Wanting to Feel Normal, let’s go ahead and strip out the genders, orientation, etc. Bottom line is one of your friends is romantically pressuring one of your other friends in a way which the object of the affections doesn’t seem to appreciate, is noticed and negatively remarked upon by another group of friends, and which is making you uncomfortable. You passed the point where Richard’s behavior was “not OK” a while ago. Actually, you know what, let’s call him Dick. Absalom is not enthusiastically consenting to Dick’s come-ons and Dick is either not picking up on this, thinks he just needs to apply the right amount of pressure to make Absalom come around, is getting his jollies out of making Absalom have to take his unreciprocated advances, or the healing power of “and”. Let’s put the genders, orientation, etc back into the question. Despite what Kevin Spacey says, being non-heteronormative isn’t carte-blanche to behave boorishly. Honestly, had this situation involved a man making unwelcome advances towards a woman Bad Pru would have been much more straight-forward in her advice and the condemnation of Dick’s behavior. So I will. What you’re describing is the sort of sexual impropriety we really shouldn’t tolerate. Let Dick know it’s “Not Okay”, or, preferably, let Dick know that he’s being a fucking creep.

0 notes