#old age security | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

highfantasy-soul · 6 months

Text

Dipping my toe into the ofmd s2 finale discourse, so spoilers

Also, if the finale really hurt you and you feel like the writers made an unforgivable decision, then...maybe don't read this and comment all upset? This is just how I viewed the finale, so not saying you've got to be ok with it, but like, also let me feel what I feel too... anyways, disclaimers over.

I think it's such a cool parallel how each of the captain's first-mates went out in very thematically consistent ways to the way they and their captains started out.

Stede was a mythical being - a muppet - a wooden doll who wished to be a real boy. He was firmly in the silly fantasy category of being - nothing he did had any logic (hello sea library that didn't even have little bars to hold his books in place, hello orange cake that used 40 oranges for just the glaze alone) he was sparkly vibes and failing upward through sheer luck (or magic). At the start of Stede's journey, Buttons is there to remind him what piracy is like - mutiny if you aren't a good captain, chewing people's throats out if need be. But Buttons was also there to stare into the sky and feel what was to happen rather than always using data to support his findings.

But Stede wanted to be a hardened pirate.

Ed was Blackbeard - a bloodthirsty, merciless, pirate. A man who was only allowing a single part of himself to be shown/explored. His crew was fiercely loyal, they respected him, and he was taken seriously - because he got shit done through logical actions - logic that Izzy largely influenced. There were always real consequences for Ed and his crew and that's exactly how Izzy liked it. Ed was fascinated by the way Stede and his crew operated in the world and Izzy was horrified by it - you didn't get to be a successful pirate by being a muppet! You got it through blood and struggle - forging your family along the way. You didn't buy your family with a salary and pep talks and you DO NOT WIN DUELS by being so bad at swordplay you let your opponent stab you so their blade gets stuck in the mast and you can win by a technicality!

But Ed wanted to release some of his control and let the whimsy in.

So the characters change throughout the seasons - Stede becomes a 'real boy' and starts to grapple with figuring this stuff out with grit rather than wishful thinking, Ed realizes that the pirate's life isn't making him happy and needs to make a bigger change. Buttons is ready to chew people's throats out with his metal teeth in episode 1, and through the series, he retreats more into the mystical as Stede no longer needs even a hint of his traditionally pirate ways. Izzy realizes Ed doesn't need his harsh advice, it's actually harming him, and Izzy is allowed to release his firm grip on gritty nihilism and explore different parts of himself.

As Stede and Ed grow into their own people, they grow away from what their first-mates need, so their first mates get to truly become themselves. Their trajectories, however, follow the way they lived and what they valued.

Buttons transforms into a bird, being reborn into a new body where he can fully embrace the mysticism without even a hint of gritty reality.

Izzy, he goes out the way he lived - bloody, in battle, the way a pirate 'should'. He went through a transformation as well - one that stayed in line with his character.

To me, it was clear that different characters played by different rules of reality than others - Buttons was a mystical sea witch, Izzy was a gritty 'realistic' pirate.

Buttons became more distant with the crew as he retreated into his mystical being. Izzy grew closer with the crew as he embraced the joys of found family rather than the ever-dangerous life at sea. He embraced the here and now, he embraced - and faced - reality.

Buttons transfigured into a bird because that's how he lived (and how Stede started out) - as a mystical being of the sea, so that is the form his metamorphosis took.

Izzy died in battle because that's how he lived (and how Blackbeard started out) - as a loyal pirate who would fight to the very end, so that's the form his metamorphosis took.

I viewed Button's story as a smaller-scaled foreshadowing of the final episode.

As Izzy's death took place at the end of the season, there was no narrative time to hash out everyone's emotions over it - just like at the end of season 1, they didn't have time to hash out everyone's emotions at Stede leaving them (though with the extended episode count, they did manage to get a bit more in there). Clearly, Season 3 is going to be massively shaped by Izzy's death - just as season 2 was shaped by Ed and Stede's breakup.

We don't know how the writers are going to go forward with the story, and honestly, I don't enjoy speculating on how plot lines are going to be written. But from the writer's comments, it seems to me like there's a good possibility Izzy will still be in the show - and now he's literally buried his past self and is ready for the next iteration of Izzy Hands.

#i understand how some people didn't like a major character death in their funny pirate show but i don't think it was bad writing #I don't think the writers tricked anyone into a false sense of security and I don't think they did it out of malice #i certainly don't think it was a case of killing your gays #of course Izzy had more life to live - everyone who dies of anything other than old age does #i would have loved to see him get to really embrace his joyful life for longer but just because a death hurts doesn't mean its bad writing #every writing decision is a DECISION - everything is 'unnecessary' - that's not a valid excuse for not killing off a character #izzy had a full and in-depth story and if was beautiful #he wasn't killed off for a cheap emotional trip #anyways I'll stop rambling #ofmd #ofmd season 2 #ofmd spoilers #ofmd s2 spoilers #our flag means death #our flag means death spoilers #izzy hands #izzy #stede bonnet #ed teach #buttons #blackbeard

21 notes · View notes

queergodot · 2 years

Text

Reverse DL-6 where the gun Miles threw aimed just a liiiitle differently and ended up shooting Von Karma dead. Because apparently nobody on the DL-6 case was at all competent they can’t figure out what caused his death so it just gets ruled a suicide. Miles is too loopy from oxygen deprivation to remember throwing the gun and due to his dad still being alive he never gets the trauma nightmares that make him remember. Everything is objectively better for everyone until Franziska von Karma, years later, re-opens the case, and because she’s actually competent, figures out it must’ve been one of the three people in the elevator who shot him. Cue Defense Attorney Miles Edgeworth defending his dad from a murder charge that, honestly, really looks quite plausible.

#'but the statute of limitations -' you think franziska cares about the statute of limitations? grow up #i have no real point with this au except that i think the idea is funny. who's miles weird little girl?#my posts #miles edgeworth #franziska von karma #'but there's no way the cops didn't figure out that he must've been killed' i mean yeah but like #a) the ppl who investigated the dl-6 somehow thought the case was difficult enough to bring in a medium despite the only suspects being #a grown adult man who works in security and who had access to a gun. or an actual 9-year-old #so i think it's safe to say they're not great at drawing logical conclusions #and b) don't quote me on this bc i read this ages ago but i'm pretty sure part of the reason the unsolved murder cases in japan is so low #and the suicide rate is so high is bc every time the police can't solve a murder they just rule it a suicide #obviously that's not the ONLY reason for the suicide rate but you know. still fucked up #anyway i think that's something fucked up enough it'd definitely be a thing in the ace attorney universe

357 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

Americans’ Social Security checks will get a lot smaller in 2034 if lawmakers don’t act to address the pending shortfall, according to an annual report released Friday by the Social Security trustees.

That’s because the combined Social Security trust funds – which help support payouts for the elderly, survivors and disabled – are projected to run dry that year. At that time, the funds’ reserves will be depleted, and the program’s continuing income will only cover 80% of benefits owed.

The estimate is one year earlier than the trustees projected last year. About 66 million Americans received Social Security benefits in 2022.

Medicare, meanwhile, is in a more critical financial condition. Its hospital insurance trust fund, known as Medicare Part A, will only be able to pay scheduled benefits in full until 2031, according to its trustees’ annual report, which was also released Friday.

At that time, Medicare, which covered 65 million senior citizens and people with disabilities in 2022, will only be able to cover 89% of total scheduled benefits. Last year, Medicare’s trustees projected that the hospital trust fund’s reserves would be depleted in 2028.

LONG-STANDING FISCAL TROUBLES

Immensely popular but long troubled, Social Security and Medicare are on shaky financial ground in large part because of the aging of the American population. Fewer workers are paying into the program and supporting the ballooning number of beneficiaries, who are also living longer. Also, health care is becoming increasingly expensive.

Social Security has two trust funds – one for retirees and survivors and another for Americans with disabilities.

Looking at them separately, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is projected to run dry in 2033, at which time Social Security could pay only 77% of benefits, primarily using income from payroll taxes. The date is one year earlier than estimated last year.

The Disability Insurance Trust Fund is expected to be able to pay full benefits through at least 2097, the last year of the trustees’ projection period.

Merging the two trust funds would require Congress to act, but the combined projection is often used to show the overall status of the entitlement.

Social Security’s projected long-term health worsened over the past year because the trustees revised downward their expectations for the economy and labor productivity, taking into account updated data on inflation and economic output.

However, the long-term projection for Medicare’s hospital trust fund’s finances improved, mainly due to lowered estimates for health care spending after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, the program is projected to take in more income because the trustees estimate the number of covered workers and average wages will be higher.

ADDED PRESSURE ON CONGRESS

The trustees’ reports are the latest warnings to Congress that they will have to deal with the massive entitlement programs’ fiscal problems at some point soon. But addressing their issues is politically challenging. Elected officials are hesitant to suggest any changes that could lead to benefit cuts, even though that could reduce their options in the future.

“With each year that lawmakers do not act, the public has less time to prepare for the changes,” the trustees warned in a fact sheet.

The programs’ shortfalls are back in the spotlight this year as President Joe Biden and House Republicans battle over how to address the nation’s debt ceiling drama and mounting budget deficits. GOP lawmakers want to cut spending in exchange for resolving the borrowing limit, while the White House has said it will not negotiate.

In a memorable moment in his State of the Union address in February, Biden garnered public acknowledgment from congressional Republicans about keeping Social Security and Medicare out of the debt discussions.

But “not touching” Social Security means a hefty cut in benefits within a decade or so.

“Change is inevitable because without changes to current law, both Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance would go insolvent, subjecting program participants to sudden and severe payment cuts,” said Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and former Social Security and Medicare trustee. “The outstanding question is whether change will be tolerably gradual, or instead highly damaging because it is too long delayed.”

Though Biden has repeatedly vowed to protect Social Security, his latest budget proposal did not include a plan to stabilize its finances.

However, his proposal did call for extending Medicare’s solvency by 25 years or more by raising taxes on those earning more than $400,000 a year and by allowing the program to negotiate prices for even more drugs.

Spending on the entitlement programs is also projected to soar and exert increased pressure on the federal budget in coming years.

Mandatory spending – driven by Social Security and Medicare – and interest costs are expected to outpace the growth of revenue and the economy, according to a Congressional Budget Office outlook released in mid-February.

37 notes · View notes

inusmasha · 1 year

Text

Pride & Prejudice (2005): Edo Period AU ft. SessKik & InuKag

Hi guys! Sorry for being MIA! Has it really been 9 months!?

Life has calmed down a little so I have time to work on AU projects again c: buuut I changed a few things !

I'll be illustrating key parts of the Pride and Prejudice (2005) movie in hopes of opening the fandom's eyes to SessKik romance... but it's going to take place during The Tokugawa era (also known as the Edo Period). I love historical fiction and have been reading up a ton about feudal society.

Originally, in the manga, Inuyasha is set in the Sengoku Period (The Warring States Era) where feudal warlords dropped like flies due to the constant political warfare. Later on, Samurai tried to establish "order" by assigning people into a strict hierarchy of social classes.. Which reminded me of P&P.

On top you have the Emperor, who didn't really wield any political power at this point and was more of a 'figurehead'.

Then there was the Shogun. These military men were the supreme commanders and head of government. I think it makes sense to have the Great Dog Demon be a shogun.

Beneath them were the Daimyo. They were the regional warlords and noble families that ruled over the lowly foot-soldier/samurai. They made up the upper-class but only those with close familial ties to the Shogun would be able to wield political power. Shogun gave land to daimyos to rule in exchange for loyalty. Also! There were "outer" Daimyo who barely hung on to what little perks they had since they had few real allies. Reminds me of the Bennet Fam.

...Everyone else (farmers, merchants, & peasants) weren't respected until the turn of the century brought about that dank rapid economic prosperity.

TBH there was no Japanese 'middle class' like there was in Europe during the time of Pride and Prejudice so I take a lot of creative license.. I'm taking elements I loved from the movie and combining them with the Ukiyo-e art that was so popular during the Edo period. I can't freaking wait to glam everyone up in kimonos, ribbons and pearls.

I hope that made sense! I love overcomplicating things ;p

Dedicated to my dearest friend @magical-campanula who inspired all this with her beautiful mind and HCs!

#inuyasha #pride and prejudice edo au #pride and prejudice au #sesskik #inukag #inuyasha au #LETS TRY THIS AGAIN #muwahahahahahha #Mama Higurashi was born into the merchant class and married into a declining Daimyo family #which would of been unheard of!#Kagome and Kikyo are the elder sisters who help upkeep their small run down shrine next to their home in the countryside #Papa Higurashi dies early on which leaves Grandpa in charge #His old age and lack of financial security has him eager to marry the girls off #bby Kaede is going to have Lydia's storyline #and im going to throw in Kikyo's shikigami twins so we have the complete set of 5 sisters #i got a new tablet and its like i need to teach myself how to draw/paint all over again #its been hard but so so so nice to finally have time to play #tbh i just wanna watch movies and think about AUs #rec me some movies!#ive been really into musicals lately #I HAVE SO MANY AU IDEAS @_@#im never leaving this place

42 notes · View notes

artoutoftheblue · 1 year

Text

Honestly, the only other Eclipse of mine besides the Mermaid Eclipse that could be categorized as "good" would be HS Eclipse, specifically him before Afton got to him and staff shoving him in an arcade machine. I never draw him, so I decided why not? Although it felt strange drawing an animatronic Eclipse without the orange outline lmao. Also! When Afton got to him, he was about 5 ft tall, and he was still pretty much a child. I feel like I'm about to go on a rant about how much I feel bad for this Eclipse. He had absolutely no control of his actions and ended up dying very slowly because of it. He was just too curious for his own good and ended up falling victim to a virus

#I could go on and on about this guy #also in HS animatronics grow as they age #they stop aging around 20 years old #I think he was like 7 when afton got him?#he was also never supposed to be as tall as he was when Sun discovered him #so theres that #fnaf security breach #daycare attendant #haunted stars au #blues art #hs eclipse

21 notes · View notes

pastelchad · 1 year

Text

Instead of writing fic where you genderbend the ukes and make them str8 couples (😐) genderbend the entirety of sih and make the central conflict about Akihiko and fem!Ritsu's lavender marriage

#sihjr #fem!ritsu's mother would be all about getting her only daughter married and pumping out babies asap #to the point where she threatens to cut her off and get her blacklisted from the publishing industry if she doesnt shack up within the year #ritsu breaks down and cries in front of akihiko abt it and he proposes to her on the spot #of course shes FREAKED bc wtf but then he explains that hes gay and in love w someone he cant have and doesnt want him to know #that he is worried that being outed will ruin the career that his saving grace from his own toxic overbearing family #not to mention the fact that ritsu is beautiful and comes from old money and are around the same age so it wouldnt be too scandalous #and also that he can absolutely tell that shes a huge lesbian so why not just elope and continue living their lives #no one would be able to come up with a reason to disapprove bc they both have similar backgrounds and statuses #their families would be pissed that they married without their 'permission' and just the loss of control over their kids #but they cant admit it out loud so they all would just have to suck it up and play happy family in front of all the cameras #he promises that theyll never share a bed or even a room. she can just sleep in the guest bedroom if she wants #and also hell pay for a nicer apartment with better security #so ritsu is very afraid but her mother has already done some really terrible things to make it so that ritsu would have no choice #but to marry someone. like hiding her passport and promising her daughter to the kohinata family and making it seem like ritsu wants to #marry their son. so she says yes and he goes out and buys her a crazy ring that can be seen from space and sets up a ceremony for later #that month and they get married. this all happens a few years before he meets misaki #misaki ofc is very confused bc akihikos sudden marriage to the beautiful onodera heiress made national headlines years ago so y is he #all over him?? and where IS she?? does she not live in this giant penthouse w her husband and his ocean sized bed?#akihiko tells him not to worry his pretty little head abt all that but misaki just cant be the side piece or a homewrecker!#aki ofc doesnt care bc he knows ritsu doesnt care. theyve both agreed that they can date whoever as long as its discreet and she has #her own life and apartment and only sees him sporadically just to keep up appearances #ritsu and misaki meet at one of his award ceremonies and poor misaki is so confused nd a lil scared bc she is rlly nice #what if its all an act to get his guard down so she can effectively exact revenge for sleeping w her husband? what if she doesnt know??#yknow something like that #headcanons #genderbend

24 notes · View notes

madigoround · 11 months

Text

You know when you make a mistake and you’re like oh that one’s going to come back to bite me later for sure but it’s already done oopsie daisies

#there’s a new security guard at work like an older man probably 60 and when I was leaving he called me pretty and I was like oh that’s nice #of you and then he was like are you married and I was laughing cause like what am I a child bride and said no #and be said are you single and at this point I was like oh maybe he has a kid he wants to set me up with or something #but then he was like I’m single never married no kids when you gonna go out with me and I was joking like I don’t know hit me up #and then he was like how give me your number give me your number and bout to follow me out the building and I was laughing like cause I was #uncomfy but I didn’t know what else to do cause I was already in too deep and he was like I’m gonna call you tonight and I was like okay #and like honestly it would have been pretty funny to me had he not kept asking for my number like if it had just been banter but now I’m #like oh I’m definitely not interested in this old man but if I don’t answer his calls he could bring it up the next time I see him at work/#in the building so oopsie maybe I shouldn’t have laughed or something hate that for me #if someone vaguely my age could hit on me that would be lovely tho

9 notes · View notes

greatmuldini · 1 year

Photo

The events of 6 December 1890 were neither preordained nor were they premeditated. Nothing that transpired on the day was inevitable or irreversible: participants chose to stay in character, and to act out their roles in what would eventually be described by biographers and historians as the Parnell Tragedy (Jules Abels, 1966).

Everyone at the time would have been aware of the historical significance of their actions, if not the long-term consequences - excluding of course, the one female member of the cast who could not possibly have known what she was doing. By dint of this congenital deficiency she would also quite naturally be blamed for causing "Ireland's misfortune." Simple and satisfying in terms of its mass market appeal, feminine impulsivity does little to explain the supposedly rational decisions taken by the men around her in the name of patriotism and political expediency - which far from producing an amenable solution served only to exacerbate the crisis. Whereas the exact circumstances and full cast of characters have faded over time the larger-than-life figure of Charles Stewart Parnell still towers over the events of 6 December 1890 as the one man who could have had it all - and lost it all.

Sixty-four years later, the Fall of Parnell inspired an episode of the BBC's "experimental" television series You Are There which set out to present the known historical facts, faithfully, but with an added dimension unique to the new medium: actors would impersonate the key personnel as in a conventional re-enactment. While going about their "business," however, they would be interviewed by modern television reporters. The curious anachronism underlined the artificiality of the concept; it meant the programme was deliberately drawing attention to itself which would have been an unwanted distraction, for You Are There it was the defining feature. Neither the programme nor its - fictitious - journalists were interested in the exploration of alternative histories or in-depth character studies: the point was to demonstrate the possibilities of "live" television, ironically, in a simulated setting. Fact and fiction are trading places as the reality of 1890 becomes the subject of a 1950s fantasy, and the medium of the future interrogates the evidence of the past. For the actors it would have been a challenge to navigate between imaginative portrayal of a fully formed human being and the faithful rendition of the intrinsically incomplete historical record.

The historical record states that Charles Stewart Parnell was born in 1846. The son of a Protestant Irish landowner and an American mother was not naturally predestined to champion the cause of destitute Catholic tenant farmers; indeed, nothing in his early life pointed to any such leanings. As an aristocratic country gentleman he had nothing to fear and everything to gain from the firm imperial rule exerted by the British Crown over the Island of Ireland.

And yet it was Parnell, the English-educated man of pedigree, who emerged as the voice of the starving rural population. Having decided to enter politics for reasons that are still unclear, he found his calling as the Westminster MP for County Meath not in the defence of privilege but in the vocal support - initially for land reform and then increasingly for Irish nationalism ("Home Rule"). Over the next five years Parnell gained a reputation and a following as a fiery orator back in Ireland and a force to be reckoned with in the House of Commons, where is name became synonymous with the new parliamentary tactic of "obstructionism." If the English politicians could not be moved to act in Ireland's interest Parnell vowed to meddle in English affairs. And meddle - or obstruct - he did. After a century of inaction and neglect, the Irish Question seemed relevant again, if only because its proponents made it impossible for English laws to be passed. Parnell seemed to thrive on his tactical manoeuvring which he was prepared to carry to painful extremes, on multiple occasions – including arrest and imprisonment, at the risk of damaging his already fragile state of health.

By 1880 Parnell controlled both the radical grassroots movement in Ireland and the parliamentary representation of Irish interests in London. The position made him a frequent dinner guest in the homes of friends and allies, where on several occasions he also enjoyed the hospitality of Mrs Katharine O'Shea, the English wife of a fellow Irish MP, who was sympathetic not only to the cause but to the man who personified the struggle. Mrs O’Shea had a discreet arrangement with her husband, Captain William “Willie” O’Shea, the Member for County Clare and Galway: their marriage would exist on paper only for the benefit of Willie’s career; while he conducted his business in London she would reside at their official family residence and entertain important visitors. Parnell would often stay as a guest of the family - to recuperate after gruelling campaigns in Ireland, was the official explanation given.

For the next ten years the couple conducted an illicit affair that produced four children and saw the singled-minded saboteur of the political system lead a double life away from Parliament and in the company of Katharine O’Shea. The relationship was not as one might assume a tempestuous whirlwind romance but a curiously claustrophobic still-life of Victorian domesticity - an alternate, self-contained reality where Parnell and his "Queenie" could act out their fantasy of living simply as husband and wife. Their apparent longing for simplicity may also help to explain the ease with which they expected to lead two entirely separate and parallel lives, apparently unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the inherent paradox and inevitable complication.

In the political arena Parnell was for most of the 1880s an extremely effective manipulator of moods and opinions, always weighing and adjusting the demands of Irish nationalists against the calls for the use of force from the British press, the public, and its politicians. Anyone looking for a core belief or deeply held conviction would have been disappointed by the vagueness of Parnell's own stated aims - which he used to great advantage because it allowed him to gain the confidence of the British side and the respect of his own following. As a small but significant minority, the Irish (or Home Rule) Party under Parnell's skilful machinations was able to make demands in return for the votes it lent to either one of the two dominant forces in 19th century British politics: the Tory (Conservative) Party or the slightly more reform-oriented Liberal Party.

Parnell’s elusiveness became his trademark: the less he said in public, the fewer appearances he made in Parliament, the taller he grew in stature. In 1887 he was accused of having endorsed the murders of two British politicians in Dublin. When the alleged endorsement turned out to be a forgery two years later, the popular reaction was one of relief and renewed admiration for the noble freedom fighter who had been so horribly maligned. By 1889, it seemed as if nothing could go wrong for Charles Stewart Parnell.

Home Rule seemed within reach when, in May of 1889, Katharine O'Shea learned of the death of a wealthy aunt whose fortune she was to inherit. The additional funds would have been a welcome boost to Katharine's finances had it not been for her husband's unexpected interference. Captain William “Willie” O’Shea chose this moment to strike, possibly to exact revenge, more likely to improve his own pecuniary situation. And thus, Captain O'Shea went ahead and contested the will, citing his wife’s infidelity, and his intention to divorce her. Surprised but hardly alarmed, the lovers welcomed what they thought would be an opportunity for them to make their relationship official, the sooner the better.

From the very beginning their affair had been an open secret in political circles, but the Captain’s announcement put the fact of their adultery in the public domain. With their case not due in court for at least another twelve months (i.e. late 1890), Katharine and Parnell were powerless to stop the scandal from spreading, and their silence on the matter allowed grievances to fester. No public statement was ever published, nor did the couple make any public gesture of remorse. They did launch a half-hearted and unsuccessful counterclaim not to deny the adultery but to accuse Captain O’Shea of adultery as well, presumably to shame the Captain into withdrawing his allegation.

For an entire year the unresolved state of their private affairs overshadowed Parnell’s political battle; it affected his health and continued to corrode confidence among his allies in parliament and at home but most significantly among the ranks of the Liberal Party led by Prime Minister William Gladstone. Ironically, and with tragic consequences for Katharine and Parnell, the earliest and most vociferous condemnations came not from the Catholic Church (both Parnell and Katharine were Protestants) but from the other “Nonconformist” denominations outside the established Church of England, which was traditionally a preserve of the Tory (Conservative) Party. An influential group among the Nonconformists were Methodists, whose large working and middle-class following had found in Gladstone’s Liberal Party their political home.

When the divorce eventually came through in November 1890 (decree nisi), Parnell was branded a “convicted adulterer” but also won the legal right to marry Katharine after completion of the obligatory six-month waiting period (decree absolute). The salacious - and uncontested – testimony offered in the course of the trial was, however, fresh on the minds of his party colleagues who were meeting to decide on his future as party leader a mere fortnight after the court’s decision. Gladstone had already warned Irish MPs of the danger to their alliance, the implication being that the Liberal Party would lose the support of its Nonconformist base if it continued to cooperate with a “convicted adulterer.” The message was clear: Irish MPs had no hope of winning Home Rule with Parnell as their leader. They needed the good will and legislative might of a strong Liberal government - and Liberal voters had strong ideas about marriage and adultery. Gladstone did, in effect, issue an ultimatum to Irish parliamentarians: lose your leader or lose Ireland.

Party activists in Ireland meanwhile re-elected Parnell as leader of the Home Rule Party before news of the ultimatum reached their shores, creating an awkward situation which allowed Parnell to claim he had the backing of the party rank and file, while Gladstone faced the beginnings of a split in his own party over the very issue of Irish Home Rule.

Parnell promptly refused to stand down, declaring instead that he considered the matter of Mrs O’Shea’s divorce closed and that, far from being a friend of Ireland, Gladstone had betrayed their cause. Whether or not the accusation was based in fact [substance] hardly mattered in the greater scheme of things. It was Parnell's word against that of the Prime Minister, and a decision had to be made: should the Irish Home Rule Party defy Gladstone and keep Parnell as their charismatic leader, or should the convicted adulterer be deposed in return for English concessions?

On 6 December 1890, after seemingly endless negotiations, Irish parliamentarians convened another marathon session to break the deadlock without destroying the party, its leader, or their country. Obstacles proved insurmountable as Parnell himself chaired the meeting and overruled any motion calling for a vote. Members present at the meeting noted his increasingly autocratic behaviour with concern and were alarmed by the apparent disintegration of his mental and physical identity. What they were witnessing may have been, on one level, the self-evisceration of a disgraced politician, but the concrete struggle of the individual to control his own destiny, and the narrative about it, had gained additional layers of meaning that transcend literal explanations for Parnell's fate.

The extent to which he did control the mythology of his downfall as well as his subsequent (and posthumous) apotheosis is a fascinating subject for debate: was he drawing attention to the opposing forces behind his identity or trying to deflect attention away from his failure to reconcile the two when he claimed that Gladstone and the Liberals were the true enemies of the rightful Irish claim to self-determination? No longer was the crisis a moral dilemma but a question of national pride. The private transgression becomes an affair of state - no longer is it a moral dilemma but a question of national pride: if it was up to the English to dictate who is to be their leader, then Gladstone truly was the master of the Irish Party.

Parnell's rhetorical masterstroke elevated his imminent ouster as party leader to an affront of international proportions by blurring the very boundaries he had otherwise hoped to maintain between the private man and his public persona. It also drew an instant reaction from the assembled party colleagues. "Who is to be the mistress of the party?” put paid to Parnell's noble-minded aspirations and reminded those present once again of the sordid scandal and the root cause of their troubles. Unable to vote the party leader out of office, 44 of his fellow members stood up and left the room, 26 remained with Parnell. It is this moment You Are There chose to dramatize, for the sheer symbolism of the scene: the leader without majority, his party crippled for decades to come. The Liberal Prime Minister ruling unencumbered.

Parnell's story, the story of Ireland's struggle, could have ended here. Or it could have ended differently. If each of the protagonists had chosen a different course of action. Parnell, for his part, chose to fulfil what he must have thought of as his destiny: within hours of the party meeting that left him - it must be remembered - still nominally undefeated, he embarked on a tour of Ireland to speak at rallies and unite the crowds behind the candidates he chose to stand in by-elections. Any hopes of regaining the momentum lost in London were slim at best; the winter weather and Parnell's failing health reduced the schedule and, compounded by his ever more radical oratory, crowds became more difficult to control, and enthusiasm for the struggle was waning. But just as the chances of a concrete, real-life settlement were growing increasingly remote, the idea of the struggle captured the imagination of contemporary and subsequent generations, and Parnell became its idealized figurehead - not without considerable work from Parnell himself, who cultivated an air of steely nerves, superhuman strength, and emotional detachment in public while being fiercely protective of his privacy. The polar opposites that defined his existence, through their very incompatibility, presented an impossible conundrum: unable to reconcile the two, incapable of compromise, the Parnell machine was at a crisis point.

Campaigning in Ireland continued throughout the summer but none of the chosen candidates were victorious. Parnell and Katharine finally became a married couple on 25 June 1891, but their life together as husband and wife only lasted a little over three months and ended with Parnell’s death on 6 October 1891. They were both 45 years old at the time.

In poetic terms, Parnell had committed the ultimate sin of the tragic hero: to think of himself as indispensable. In the eyes of his supporters, and presumably his own, Parnell had become the personification of an idea, an idea that without him was thought to be non-viable. Parnell and Irish Home Rule were interchangeable; the means and the end had merged into one. Much like the fatal flaw carried by every tragic hero in the history of human endeavour, Parnell's hubris made him both unique and universal, gave him superhuman powers and made him vulnerable - not in a simple case of crime and punishment but in the pursuit of a noble mission that is ultimately larger than the man who has internalized it as his own.

To paraphrase Hilary Mantel, we tend to fictionalize those who can no longer speak for themselves; in Parnell's case there is perhaps a greater need than with many of his peers to interpret where we cannot explain, and to speculate were we cannot know.

Indeed, so strong was the sense even among contemporaries of a catastrophic derailment of their hopes and dreams, and so great the loss of confidence in the political process, it gave rise to an entire subgenre of historical fantasies indulging in mostly wishful thinking: what if Parnell's campaign had been successful and he had lived to see an independent Ireland? What if there had never been a scandal? What if we could turn the clock back far enough to prevent all bad things from happening? This being a male-centric scenario we easily move on to imagining the hero going about his business without "distractions," and what might have been if Parnell and Katharine O'Shea had never met. The further the fantasy travels back in time, however, the more it will be about erasure of the past rather than an extension of existing timelines. As a work of fiction, it may well be a legitimate subject for philosophical or even psychological enquiry that can provide a temporary reprieve from the struggle. It can never be the solution. [Part 2 of 2]

#Patrick McGoohan #Helen Shingler #were 26 and 35 years old respectively #when they portrayed Charles Stewart Parnell and Katharine O'Shea live on BBC TV #impossible casting by today's standards but in 1954 #leading men were expected to cover a much wider age range #fortunately the BBC secured for the part #of the enigmatic giant of Irish nationalism #an actor whose heritage and disposition were an uncanny match #having played much older men on stage before as was indeed the practice in #repertory theatre and the tradition carried over into early television #interestingly the young talent that the new medium attracted in its experimental phase #later launched a televisual experiment of his very own in the pursuit of something #as elusive maybe as the source of Parnell's political ambition #whether it is life imitating art or patterns emerging in hindsight #we will interpret and fictionalize #compare and analyse to satisfy our own obsessions #because that is what this is really #who in their right mind would see shades of Parnell in Col Rumford #or the myth behind the man #for fleetstreetpauline always

24 notes · View notes