She-Ra and Parent Issues

CW: Abusive/toxic family environment and events, grieving

Spoilers: She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Mason Deaver’s I Wish You All the Best

 

I like this blog. I forget it exists most of the time, and so does the rest of the world the rest of the time. But sometimes there’s things I want to explore, and they’re too long to put on Twitter, and I want to also put them in a place where it feels shared with the world. So this is perfect. Nothing I’ve ever written will top that grammar pun piece, either, so I don’t have to aspire for perfection. Just accuracy to my current topic.

 

I got a call from my sister earlier today. That, in itself, was surprising, because the last time we talked was back in August 2019. I texted her to confirm Mom’s exact birthday, because at that time I was still guilting myself into acknowledging it. And in that conversation, she directly told me that I shouldn’t contact her again, unless it was a literal emergency.

I took her at her word. To this day I don’t know why she decided to tell me that, but I’ve respected it. I didn’t message back to ask why, or to argue, or anything like that. I left it where it was.

It was honestly devastating, for reasons I spent several sessions picking through with my counselor. It’s not like my sister and I had ever been close. But I had my mom’s voice in my head, telling me, “The nice thing about siblings is that they have the same background as you. They get the things that pretty much only you get, since you grew up in the same house.” And so, even as I cut my parents out of my life, there was a part of me that expected that one day my sister and I would connect and have some sort of special bond.

(At the risk of sounding really cynical, I probably should have known better than to listen to anything my mom has to say about family)

I didn’t recognize this until later, but there was also an aspect of “escape guilt.” I’m still not sure how to fully explain this, but Hannah, Ben’s older sister, in I Wish You All the Best, is a pretty good example. Over the course of the novel, Ben harbors frustrations with Hannah for leaving their parents’ house, and leaving Ben alone there. And when Ben and Hannah finally talk about it, Hannah confesses that she feels deeply guilty about the same thing. She got out. Ben didn’t. Ben had to keep living in that space, until the day when they were thrown out by their parents.

And so there’s an aspect of that with my sister and me. I know that her living with my parents is not healthy for her. I know that it wasn’t healthy for me. But I also know that there’s nothing meaningful I can do about it. Living in a coercive environment reduces your choices a lot, and while I can’t be sure of the exact choices she’s made, she’s still in my parents’ lives, and they’re in hers.

That was a lot of pretext for my sister’s call today. It came in while I was in a call with some friends, and so I had two reasons to let it go to voicemail, which I did. The first is that it was technically an interruption, while the second was that I wanted to be able to filter her call and decide if I was going to engage with it in a way that was safe for me.

And I’m glad I did. Because her voicemail was telling me to contact mom. Which I’m not going to do. And it would have been horrible to have to have that actual conversation on the phone. I’ve previously tried to set boundaries with my parents, and they not only refused to respect or acknowledge my right to do so, but also used it as an opportunity to criticize me as a person.

I’ve been steadily blocking all of their methods to contact me. About once a month, they generally find a way to get a message to me, and I block that method as soon as they do. I normally self-flagellate a little first by reading it, which I want to somehow help, but I know that it won’t.

See, here’s the scary thing about my parents. They seem like good, kind, caring people when you meet them. And for the first few hours I spend with them, they are. They pay for things. They ask about my life. They talk about theirs.

But it’s all building towards something. They’re taking notes. They’re bottling frustrations. And they’re going to make sure to let it out before we separate.

There are two different kinds of explosions with my parents, with dad specializing in one, and mom the other. Dad’s are random, haphazard. He’s always mad, and he doesn’t have an outlet for it. So he just holds it until he can’t anymore, and then he goes off, telling people whatever horrible narrative he’s written about them and citing whatever small things they did that have bothered him as proof. He’s a bully, and if you react directly, you can send him back into his sulk. Just know that that will augment his next eruption, and likely bring it even closer.

The other, mom’s, are scarier. For one, they hit everyone. For another, you can see them coming. Like dad, she bundles, and she bottles, and she stores. But there’s warning signs. She’s less conversive. She’s more likely to ignore people. She hisses when things are frustrating.

I have a vivid memory, which must have been around the time I was 10-13. My dad and I were driving to visit his mom, who lived in town at that time. As we drove past the front office and onto the 8 MPH road, he said, “Your mom’s about to erupt. Lay low. Don’t be the reason she does it.” It was a cloudy day.

And therein lies part of what makes mom’s eruptions the scary ones. There’s a “reason.” It’s not the actual Reason. The actual Reason is that work is stressful, and she’s tired, and her knees are hurting, and the dog threw up this morning. But whoever she picks to go off on? They’re the “reason.” And so they get the brunt of the fury. They get to deal with the screaming, the criticism, the blame.

But it’s not just them. Everyone gets some. You walked through the room and didn’t make eye contact? Here’s some for you too. You put a dirty dish in the sink and then went to the bathroom. Here’s some more.

And everyone knows whose “fault” it is, who the “reason” is for this eruption that’s ruining the night.

I remember being relieved when my sister was the “reason.” It meant that, as bad as things were, at least other people wouldn’t be blaming me. It meant that when dad erupted as well, he wouldn’t be focusing on me. And it meant that I didn’t have to carry the guilt for the eruption.

It’s fucked up. Have you heard the question about one sentence or 3 words you would say to your fifteen year old self? I don’t know what to say to them, because how do you convey in such a limited space that your mother’s emotional mismanagement isn’t your fault, that you don’t deserve what you’re receiving, and that you’re worth more than this? I don’t know what sentence would have saved me at that time, or have hastened the timeline for me getting away.

Because I did run away eventually. At first, unintentionally, unknowingly. I went to college 4 hours away, and was “Terrible” about communicating home. At the time, everyone just assumed it was because I was disorganized and forgetful. But that wasn’t it. Because I was on top of everything else, and never forgot anything else. It’s that I didn’t want to engage with my family, because even though I didn’t have the words to express it at the time, I knew talking to my family hurt. It felt bad. It made me feel lesser.

My parents came to visit me at college once. And I “forgot” they were arriving and lay in bed until after their arrival. They tailgated into the building and banged on the door.

And the first thing my mom did was sweep her gaze around the room, and say to my sister, “aren’t you excited to go to college so you can live in a pigsty like this too?”

I’ve told that story a few times since it happened. Some of my suitemates say they would have asked my mom to leave. Some of my other friends would have challenged her on it.

I let her say it.

It was safer that way.

And that sort of thing continued. I wrote her an email once, in my sophomore year, explaining that “it” was hard, and that I was trying. I didn’t know what “it” was. But yeah, depression, anxiety, and trying to push through that to maintain a relationship with cruel people is pretty fucking hard.

Grad school came, and I moved to the midwest, about 2 days from them. I actually made an effort, in a few ways. In between my first and second years, I had to move, and my mom got involved. I mentioned to dad that I didn’t want her help, because she would want things a certain way, and if I asked for it to go another way, then I would be in trouble. His response was to say, “Just let her have her way, and then change it after she leaves.” I disagreed. I guess he must have mentioned that conversation to her, because she actually was pretty communicative to make sure I had what I wanted in my own living space.

And when we were shopping for interview clothes, I was able to express that I hated dad’s choices. In a petty way, sure. After he vetoed several of my favorites and put these hideous black suits on the table, I said to mom, “I guess what I want doesn’t matter,” and she benched him. We still picked an uggo suit, but it was at least less uggo (and honestly, most suits are pretty ugly).

So things were looking okay. Distance meant that eruptions happened away from me, and since I was calling home biweekly during grad school, I had pretty good odds to miss them. Also, me calling was an occasion, so I got to avoid the worst of it.

Until graduation day. I invited my parents to be present, because that’s the thing that is done.  But I also mentioned that I had to work all weekend, because my job environment was toxic and controlling and I was doing the work of at least 2 professionals as a grad student, and my supervisor was more interested in skipping work than making effective processes.

Apparently my first sin was not putting a shoutout to mom in my graduation memo. And my second was in saying in that same memo that I didn’t want to live in the Midwest anymore. And my third sin was being “ungrateful” and making mom feel like a “burden.”

So I got to do my penance in public, as we sat around a table in a Planet Sub and they laid into me. Over and over again. Nitpicking every decision I made. Criticizing everything I said (“you should give your supervisor more credit. I’m sure he’s trying his best”, regarding a supervisor who had made me and my coworkers do his job all year, for example), and telling me that I needed to love them.

When I asked what I needed to be doing, I was told I should just know. I said “I’ve called twice a week. Is that enough?” And was told, “I don’t want to feel like a burden. I want you to enjoy this.”

And it was horrible. It was humiliating. It was painful.

And it was eye-opening.

I didn’t have to put up with that. I had invited them into my space. I had made these plans. I didn’t have to let them do this.

That summer, I moved to Vegas to stay with a friend, who’s honestly done more for me than my parents ever have.

And I called with mom one time. We made conversation, pained on my end, and fine on her end. Because why wouldn’t it be? That public berating was normal for our family, after all.

And I ended the call by saying, “Hey, after our conversation at graduation, it sounded like you’ve got a lot of stuff going on. Have you thought about talking to a professional about it?”

Silence. Then, “No. I’m fine.”

And we hung up. For the first time in my life, I didn’t respond to “Love you” with “love you too.” Lying didn’t seem worth it anymore. It had never saved me before.

She texted me later. “Were you actually worried about me, or were you just trying to correct me?”

I texted back that I wanted to help, but that I couldn’t be that help. But my counselor in grad school had been life changing (and in hindsight, not even that good of a counselor. But still life changing, because the bar was so low).

No more real communication, from June 2018 to December 2018. During that time, she kept emailing me regularly, and started sending them to my work email. Her first one to my work email opened with, “I know you’re not good at email, so I found this one, which you’re paid to keep clean.”

Maybe I should’ve confronted it then. Instead, I wrote a filter to send her emails to a folder and be marked as read.

Finally, December 2018, I knew something needed to change. So on Christmas, she texted me and said she wanted her present to be to hear from me.

And I agreed.

And in the hardest conversation of my life, I tried to lay boundaries. I tried to explain that I was had been hurt, and while I was healing, it was healing wrong, and I needed to never have that injury inflicted again. I asked for action steps, for what I needed to be doing to meet her expectations of me.

And there was only shame and misdirection in response. I needed to see that since she hadn’t meant to hurt me, it didn’t count. That this was a two-way street, and I was the only one in the wrong on it.

And so I ended the call with a lie. Still not effective, but I told her if she messaged me I would try to respond “occasionally.” And I’d been shamed into thinking I meant it. Coercion reduces choices and creates lies in the mind.

Each time she sent me an email, it ached. The wound reopened, the pain and rejection and guilt threatening to tear me apart. I got a counselor, and we made some real progress.

Such good progress that when my mom texted me to ask if I would get lunch with her, I told her no. Wow.

But the messages kept coming. And so I started blocking things. First dad’s texts, when he gave out my contact info without my permission. Then my sister told me to never talk to her again. And then she texted me to tell me to talk to mom. So her texts next, and then mom’s texts with that, to be sure. Then emails.

You know how easy it is to bypass an email block? Just change one of the emails, sender or receiver, and you’re back through. I’ve blocked mom’s emails 4 or 5 times now, including her personal and work to my work email after I explicitly asked her to stop emailing it.

Recently, communication that got through is changed. It’s short notes, with requests to know that I’m okay. And I refuse to send that confirmation. Because I know that she’s made her choice, that she will be the person she is, and that she will continue to lay the blame for that at my feet, despite it being her and who she is and who she wants to be.

It’s not my job to carry that, or her anxiety, no matter how much she hands it to me. No matter how many ways she hands it to me. And no matter how she tries to get other people to hand it to me.

I promised She-Ra spoilers at the start of this, and I started writing this because I wanted it involved. We’re almost 3000 words in, so it’s probably time to pivot to that, as a conclusion of sorts.

I enjoyed the first part of season 1 of She-Ra. But I fell in love with it when Catra and Adora end up running from Light Hope’s spiders together in the Crystal Castle. And they’re both trying to convince the other to listen to them. Adora wants Catra to come with her, and Catra wants Adora to stop trying to protect her.

They’re both running from their past, they’re both running from the pain of growing up under Shadow Weaver. But they’re running in different directions. Catra is running up, through the Horde, trying to show the world that she is everything Shadow Weaver said she wasn’t, and that she’s worth something. Adora is running out, trying to get out from under Shadow Weaver and the Horde, so that she can find worth.

They’re both struggling to work out how to live with the abuse they have endured. They used to endure it together (“as long as we’re together, nothing can hurt us. I promise”), but that’s just not possible anymore. They’ve had to face their pain, and while Adora is doing so by trying to save others, Catra is trying to deflect it onto others.

Like me and my sister. I ran away. Because I couldn’t take it any more. And she stayed. For her own reasons, that I don’t know.

And then the show goes into the question of how our abusive parents can be redeemed. Shadow Weaver defects to the Rebellion, and then sacrifices herself to save Catra and Adora.

But does that make up for what she did? The way she pitted Catra and Adora against each other, the way she tore them apart, the way she lied to them?

I don’t think it did. And the show agrees. The true redemption comes when Catra tries to sacrifice herself, fails to die, and has to face the people she hurt. She has to own the person that she was, she has to own the pain she’s caused, and she finally has to acknowledge the pain she’s been carrying, that it’s hers, and no one else’s, and the things she’s done under its influence are still hers as well.

At this point Catra isn’t my sister any more. She’s a warning to me. Pain and injury hurts, and clouds our judgment. But it cannot be our excuse. It does not allow us immediate absolution for the harms we commit. We don’t get to lash out and expect no one to care.

But also, if we work at it, we can be better. And others can see that we are better. They don’t have to. They aren’t required to. And they might never. But we can be better, and we can move forward.

It’s hard, and it hurts. There are days when I ache like someone took a giant ice cream scoop to my soul, and I want to call my parents. But I know what lies down that road. I know that they’re committed to not changing.

And so I have to find somewhere else to be. Somewhere else to go. And She-Ra and I Wish You All the Best shows me that it’s possible to do.

So many of our stories end with families reuniting through adversity and division. But that’s not always possible. And I love the stories where they don’t. Because they’re real to me. They help me face the pain I’m carrying. And they can heal the wounds a little bit.

Link

(Point of clarification: in this piece, I try to use Queer to describe those who have claimed the term or are politically active in support of LGBTQA+ causes, while LGBTQA+ is used to talk about the population at large. This isn’t exactly how it works out, as there is a lot of overlap, but that was the goal.)

For those of you who are new to this blog (aka like everyone because the last time I posted on this was years ago. Whoops), hi! This blog serves as an outlet for whatever I happen to want to write about at any given time, though it helps when I have the time to do so.

As you can see from the title, today I’m thinking about why jokes, even anti-jokes, that rely on the punchline of “that’s gay” aren’t funny, or rather, why I don’t find them funny. To clarify, I’m not saying they can never be funny, but I feel like a certain amount of context is needed for them to be delivered in a manner that is actually amusing. For reference, I personally identify as queer. Not gay, necessarily, but it’s debatably an aspect. For further reference, I’m White, and was raised as a Catholic male. I have a college education, and am working on a Masters. I have A LOT of privilege. Male-bodied, white, solid socioeconomic status, educated, and so on. So what I say here is written from that platform of power, and is also from my specific perspective. So it’s not universal (despite what the title says. More on that later), but it’s where I am, and it’s some of the things I wish I could think to say when someone makes a joke that revolves around “that’s gay.”

For more particular context, I was playing video games with friends last night, and one of my friends did make a joke based on “that’s gay.” I was upset in the moment, but I knew he didn’t intend to cause any harm, so I tried to push it down and keep playing. After about an hour, I realized it was still eating me up, and so I brought it up (not in a particularly fluid or dignified way). The friend was surprised that I was hurt, and asked me why. I didn’t have the words to express the roots of my pain, and so I told him that I would let him know when I did. This is an attempt at those words.

(As an aside, writing this wasn’t my first thought. I thought I’d go find another resource to do it for me, and I googled “Why your queer friend doesn’t think ‘that’s gay’ jokes are funny,” assuming I would find something instantly. I found some good responses, but none exactly titled that, or that provided what I wanted. It’s a good title though, so I’m using it here)

I should clarify a few points relating to gayness. One, like I said above, it’s a term that I think could be applied to me. Two, I think it’s a term that is frequently applied to the LGBTQA+ community as a whole. For a lot of people, there’s “the gays and the trans,” as several old people I know put it. Those labels are applied more or less universally to all non-straight people. Three, I am heteronormative/homophobic. We all are. We all, straight and queer alike, view straight as “normal” and not straight as “weird” or “strange” or “abnormal.” It’s just a matter of degree. We are all socialized from a young age to view the world in certain ways, and one of those ways is to view straight as normal. It’s not that these have to be conscious beliefs or assumptions; most of the time, they’re subconscious, and influence how comfortable we are around difference, new situations, and others. It’s not just sexual orientation either. It’s racial relations, gender dynamics, religious convictions, and so on. Don’t believe me? Take an implicit bias test!

As much as I would love to say that I am not homophobic, therefore, I can’t. I’m not actively opposed to equal marriage anymore (high school me did us all a favor when he stopped carrying around the Cathechism), but I still carry those unconscious biases, and I will for the rest of my life. Why am I not so actively homophobic anymore? There’s a number of reasons, including my gay suitemate in college (how do I say that love is solely between a man and a woman when I see one of my best friends clearly feeling, struggling with, and enjoying love with someone of the same gender as himself?), coming out as queer myself (which is not a word college first year me would be happy with, that was also a development), and learning more about the struggles LGBTQA+ individuals face. I’ve helped people come out, which is truly an honor, but also so painful. They’re so scared that they’re doing something wrong, that they’re betraying everyone around them, or inviting violence into their lives. But they’re also so hopeful that this will lead to a better future for them, so bright in their excitement to be better understanding and expressing who they are at their core.

That fear that I mentioned? The one that people coming out struggle with? That points us in the direction of why jokes like “that’s gay” aren’t funny. How the world is structured responds differently to LGBTQA+ people than to straight people. There’s an entire set of jokes and narratives about the closet (for those who don’t know, the process of coming out as LGBTQA+ is referred to as coming “out of the closet”) in queer communities. The closet is DEEP. The closet is dark. But most of all, the closet is “safe.” When people assume you’re straight, there’s less danger. You don’t run the risk of alienating your faith community, your family, your friends, and your overall community. You don’t invite judgement from those same groups. You take that core part of yourself, and you pack it in a box, and you shove it down deep, and you learn to hate it, to hate yourself for having it. You learn that you’re going to spend your life denying the way you are, and will probably end up in hell for it.

It hurts. And it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Remember when I said that we’re all heteronormative? We all prefer straight things? That doesn’t go away once LGBTQA+ people come out. We’ve internalized that straight is better, more pure, more worthwhile. And the people around them feel that way too. Maybe no one is calling them a “f***ot,” but they’re thinking it. They’re feeling it. LGBTQA+ people are taught that they’re fundamentally broken, and straight people are taught the same thing about LGBTQA+ individuals.

This. Has. Consequences. Violence is far more commonplace against LGBTQA+ individuals than against straight individuals (and the rate is higher for individuals of color. And even higher for trans individuals, if you can find the data for it. And even higher for trans individuals of color). Have you ever heard of the Stonewall Riots? I hadn’t, not until recently. I had to go do research on it for this post. In the late 20th century (AS IN WITHIN THE PAST 50 YEARS), laws were passed banning queer people from associating. Gay bars were illegal, and police raided them as such. The Stonewall riots took place at Stonewall, a gay bar, when the patrons got tired of being treated as criminals for the crime of existing. They pushed back against the police raids, but only after years of mistreatment.

How about Pulse? You know, the gay nightclub in Orlando? When a person took a gun and shot people who were just trying to dance and meet each other. Just in case you were wondering, the club was having “Latin Night,” so a significant portion of those hurt were Latinx as well as LGBTQA+.

How about Obergefell v. Hodges? The Supreme Court case that made “same-sex marriage” (quote marked because the term “same-sex” has all sorts of issues when it comes to trans rights) legal? That was in 2015. If one says the Gay Lib movement took place in the 1980s, then it still took almost 40 years for equal marriage to be legal on the books. That means that for those decades, and the time before, laws criminalizing queer identity were totally legal, and were definitely put in place.

Don’t get too happy about progress though. North Carolina promptly passed House Bill 2, the so-called “Bathroom Bill.” Basically, the idea that someone with a penis might identify as a woman was so horrifying for the legislator that they required trans women to use the men’s room. Sure, there was national outcry, but did you notice that 15 other states either have a Bathroom Bill or are considering one (though California’s doesn’t quite count, since it increased the amount of gender neutral restrooms)?

For those of us keeping count, legally, queer is consistently regarded as broken and criminal. Socially, it’s large scale shamed. Personally, we absorb these lessons, and are uncomfortable about it. What do you think that does to LGBTQA+ survival rates?

Let’s talk about youth homelessness. Fun stuff, right? Did you know that 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQA+? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Try getting effective service at a support facility as an LGBTQA+ individual when LGBTQA+ identity has been portrayed as a threat for so long. What are trans kids supposed to do, when the facility is built to divide people by male and female, but doesn’t distinguish between sex and gender?

How about suicide? According to The Trevor Project, a suicide prevention and intervention program for LGBTQA+ youth, “the rate of suicide attempts if 4 times greater for LGB youth and 2 times greater for questioning youth than that of straight youth.” Notice how it left off “t,” for trans? “In a national study, 40% of transgender adults reported having made a suicide attempt. 92% of these individuals reported having attempted suicide before the age of 25.”

Before 25. These are children, who believe they are so broken and wrong and out of place that they decide the world would be better off without them in it. Why? Because they’ve been taught all their lives that queer association is a threat (Stonewall), that equal marriage is a crime, and that they’re a danger to society (Bathroom Bills). They’re harassed and shamed for who they are. That harassment can take many forms, from things thrown at people, to verbal shaming (such as shouting “f*g” at a queer person when they’re just trying to walk home), to any other way that humans are terrible to each other. It also includes unthinking comments, like “that’s gay” to describe something ugly or stupid or bad. It’s jokes that trivialize the history of violence and oppression queer communities face. It’s surveys that ask for gender, but only include “male” or female.” It’s the nicks, big and small, that queer people accumulate as they go through life.
The Trevor Project notes that “each episode of LGBT victimization, such as physical or verbal harassment or abuse, increases the likelihood of self-harming behavior by 2.5 times on average.” Words matter. What we say, carelessly or otherwise, matters. Harassment doesn’t have to be intentional, and it doesn’t have to be an individual effort. It can be a social one, where queer identity is made to be the problem, where being gay is reduced to being bad, where not being straight catches side eye (as my friend said, “No one person is an island, and our language can maroon people”).

“That’s gay” isn’t funny. It’s not clever. It’s not a throw away line. It has power. It has influence. It’s part of a larger network of identity destruction that literally ends lives, especially the lives of children. This is not something to celebrate or make light about. Sure, there is probably some sort of sick humor to be born of this, but it would have to be clear that it is meant as sick humor that appreciates the depths of darkness it is invoking, not a one off meant to provoke a reaction.
Some of my readers might try to say that words don’t have power, or that I’m being too sensitive. To them, I reference Louis CK, when he says, “when a person tells you that you hurt them, you don’t get to decide that you didn’t.” Whether or not you think someone should be hurt, their pain is valid. Don’t push it away.

Further reading I tripped over while here:
Violence against trans individuals
1 in 5 transgender people has unstable housing.
Cissexism in the World

The Attack on Mali, a Brief Summary of Said Country, and the organizations involved

Source for cover image

Terrorist group al Mourabitoun, with assistance from al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM), attacked the Radisson Blu hotel in Mali’s capital Bamako. They took roughly 150 hostages, and 21 people died before Mali and UN forces ended the attack.

For more information on the attack: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/africa/mali-shooting/index.html

http://www.smh.com.au/world/mali-terrorist-attack-islamist-group-al-mourabitoun-claims-assault-after-leader-returns-from-dead-20151120-gl4g3m.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34886537

Mali

The Republic of Mali is a republic in Western Africa (south of Algeria). It gained independence from France on 22 September 1960 from France. It was initially the Sudanese Republic and Senegal, but after Senegal seceded, the remaining Sudanese Republic changed its name to Mali.

A military coup in 1991 ended a period of dictatorship, and President Alpha Konare was elected and ruled through two terms to 2002. Konare’s successor, Amadou Toumani Toure, was overthrown in a military coup on 22 March 2011. The resulting chaos saw the military pushed out of Northern Mali and the establishment of several militant groups in the area.

The country is 94.8% Islamic, with Christians, Animists, and other making up the rest as of the 2009 Census. There are roughly 17 million people, and it is considered one the 25 poorest countries in the world.

For more information, please see: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ml.html

 

Al Mourabitoun (“the Sentinels”)

An Islamist terror group based in Northern Africa. The current leader is believed to be Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a man who has been reported dead numerous times. The group pledged loyalty to Daesh in 2013, and then rescinded the pledge within several days. It has ties with al-Qaeda, specifically AQ affiliate AQIM.

http://www.news.com.au/world/africa/almourabitoun-is-headed-by-infamous-former-al-qaeda-fighter/news-story/87717441e276f5851e6b37b5fa75337a

http://www.smh.com.au/world/mali-terrorist-attack-islamist-group-al-mourabitoun-claims-assault-after-leader-returns-from-dead-20151120-gl4g3m.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mourabitoun_%28militant_group%29

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb

AQIM is a Salafi terror group operating in northern Africa with the goal of overthrowing the Algerian government and replacing it with an Islamic government.  It joined with al-Qaeda in the 2000s to boost its reputation. It is almost entirely focused on Algeria and the countries around it, though it has declared France and Spain to be enemies as well.

http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations-and-networks/al-qaeda-islamic-maghreb-aqim/p12717

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR415.html

http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/al-qaeda-lands-islamic-maghreb-aqim-salafist-group-preaching-and-fighting-see-separate-entry

A brief overview of the conflict in Ukraine

(or: An American’s guide to what a “Ukraine” actually is)

Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe. Good starting place, yeah? Here’s a map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Europe_countries_map_en_2.png

See the orange guy in the center right, left of green Russia and right of yellow Poland? That’s Ukraine. Not “The Ukraine.” It quit calling itself that after WWI when it became a state and stopped being a geographic region (props to my American History friend (you know who you are) for explaining the region/state change to me, though he might not remember doing it).

So what’s going on in Ukraine right now? Well, you want the short answer or the long answer? If you’re here for the long answer, good. if you’re here for the short answer, scroll on down to the bottom where I put the “tl;dr,” and feel a sense of profound shame.

So, going way back, to the 1700s. The map of Europe was really different then (if you’d like, compare this one: http://home.wlu.edu/~patchw/His_223/images/1763_Europe.jpg with the one above). See the purple one labeled “Kingdom of Poland?” It controls part of Ukraine, along with the Ottoman and Russian Empires, though that’s not hugely important right now.

(If you’ll look to where modern Germany is, (center of the map inside the bolded line), you’ll see a blue state labelled “Pruss.” The “ia” is in northern Poland. Only vaguely important at this point in the story, and indeed, perhaps for the rest of the story too. But it’s ruled, as of this map, by Frederick Hohenzollern II, only the manliest man to ever manly man).

So in this map, the state of Ukraine does not exist. In fact, besides sporadic moments throughout history, it really never had, and wouldn’t until the 1900s. It’s still a region called “The Ukraine,” referred to as the breadbasket of Europe (if you’re scratching your head saying “breadbasket… breadbasket, I know this….” that’s the Midwest region of the US, here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Map_of_USA_Midwest.svg/350px-Map_of_USA_Midwest.svg.png).

So due to the magic of politics (I’ll explain later if you really want me to), by 1795, Poland was gone. It had been split three ways, between Austria, Prussia, and Russia (here’s the land breakdown: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Rzeczpospolita_Rozbiory_3.png). Along with some lands Russia had seized from the Ottoman Empire (this is a trend. Ottoman Empire loses land to Russia from, like, 1700 to 1914), the new map of Europe is this: http://www.daniel.rego.com/Europe_1795_7.jpg

So, few points. First, notice that what we call modern Ukraine is mostly part of Russia, but that Austria also has a chunk. Secondly, look in the bottom right at the body of water separating Russia from the Ottoman Empire (the blue thing between the red and brownish-grey guys). Notice the little red “island” labelled “Crimea?” That’s important. We’ll be coming back to that. Final point: Prussia is getting pretty big. Also, French Revolution is happening, so that’s why France seems to be growing rapidly. It looks like that because, actually, it is! (I’ll talk about that later if you really want. Not really important right now. Well, it is, but I’m going to ignore it. Sssh, you’re not missing anything)

So French Revolution leads to Napoleon and Napoleonic Europe, which has been rescinded by 1815. There’ s some land shifting, but nothing in the area we’re focusing on (MAP: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist151/maps_for_quizI/Europe%201815.png). Actually, I lie. Russia got some more of Ukraine, looks like.

The next major development I want to point to comes around in 1854. It’s called the Crimean War. Remember when I told you to remember the Crimea? Yeah, that Crimea. Over a conflict in the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France went to war with Russia. Why? Because politics and balance of power and reasons. The war was not over the Crimea (as far as I understand it, it was Russian and no one wanted to contest that), but rather fought in the Crimea, and surrounding areas. Crimea served as the base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet (the navy Russia kept in the Black Sea, which is the body of water the Crimea is in. It’s strategic, because if you can get through Constantinople, you’re in the Mediterranean, and so it was basically the closest thing Russia had to a warm water port). The war ended with a loss for Russia, and it was forbidden to keep ships in the Black Sea. Russia later got around this in the 1870s, I believe.

So what does this have to do with the current issues in Ukraine and the Crimea? Well, you can see that Crimea is important to Russian foreign policy. Russia kept a navy there, and Russia still keeps a navy there (more on that later).

The next major change came in 1914. That’s right, the First World War. Things went poorly for Russia, and due to pressures, both internal (revolution), and external (German armies, though the term Prussian armies applies more or less equally well), Russia was forced to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In terms of Ukrainian history, this is important.

Brest-Litovsk, signed in 1917, ceded centuries of Russian expansion to the Central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire). Want a map? (I know I do) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Armisticebrestlitovsk.jpg

That actually doesn’t highlight all of the lands lost by Brest-Litovsk (also Finland and Georgia), but you notice what it does highlight? That’s right! Ukraine! Terms of Brest-Litovsk said Russia lost the Ukrainian lands to Germany. Then, when Germany lost the war, all those lands broke off and formed their own states. Here’s where Ukraine loses the “The.” The subsequent Russian Civil War ended with a reconquest of Ukraine by the Red Army, and it was incorporated into the Soviet Union as a Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

Fun fact: In the 1920s, the Soviet Union adopted a policy referred to as “Nationalist in form, socialist in content.” Basically, in order to encourage acceptance of Socialism, they made it so local cultures got more representation and chances to develop their local cultures. Through this, they hoped to appease nationalism and prevent dissent, and also get local cultures to associate their liberation with the socialist government.

What does this mean for Ukraine? Well, it means that for the first time in centuries, the country and the people were able to, more or less, freely express the Ukrainian culture. The language, slight governmental structures, customs, and so on, could suddenly be expressed, and so a unique Ukrainian culture was able to freely develop. Now there’s a Ukrainian state in Eastern Europe. As an aside, the Crimea is still part of Russia itself. Map you say? Of course! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/AtHistEur1924.jpg (Sadly, this is the best map I can find, but it seems accurate, even if it is on an althistory website. Most maps render Ukraine as part of a big red USSR and doesn’t demonstrate the point I’m going for).

So Ukraine continued as a member of the USSR until WWII. It was invaded by the Nazi Empire, and then that same invasion was subsequently driven back by the Red Army. In 1944, Stalin ordered the forced deportation of the Crimean Tatars in the Crimea. The Crimean populace was made up of ethnic Russians and the Crimean Tatars, along with several other groups that I don’t know from memory (will look up if requested). The Crimean Tatars were forced from the Crimea to modern Uzbekistan and surrounding regions (see here: http://skiptonstudiesofasia.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/south-asia-political-map-20041.jpg Yellow state south of brown Kazakhstan in the center). The reasons given for this seem to boil down to Stalin’s fear of potential disloyalty in the border regions, and indeed, when the orders were given, the reason was listed as the Crimean Tatar’s collaboration with the Nazi invaders.

The Crimean Tatar population remained displaced until the 1990s, when, upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, they returned to the Crimea. It is easy to see why they would not be fans of being in a Russian state, which leads into some of the modern issues.

So WWII concludes, and in 1954, a treaty between Ukraine and Russia transferred ownership of the Crimea. The idea behind this, at least according to the treaty, was that it made geographic sense. Plus, it didn’t particularly change the geographic situation; both states were members of the USSR, and so the USSR state could remain at the ports there.

Jump forward to the dissolution of the USSR in 1990 and 1991, and now you have a Crimea separate from Russia, and a Ukraine struggling to find its place in the world. According to what was worked out, the Russian Black Sea fleet could continue to harbor in the Crimea until 2017, which kicked the can quite nicely down the road. Ethnically, the Crimea continued to be ethnically Russian, and continued to be viewed as part of Russia by much of the Russian population (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/01/russia-invasion-ukraine-crimea). The Crimean Russians were content to remain in Ukraine so long as Ukraine continued to have close ties with Russia, and for a time, this was the case.

A comment on the makeup of Ukraine. It’s a very divided state, as is illustrated very well in this sequence of maps: http://i.imgur.com/WBc53Fv.jpg

So we come to now. Ukraine has been trying to decide whether it wants to continue being close to Russia, or if it would rather move closer to the European Union. To go with this, President Putin is in discussions with various states to create a Eurasian Union to serve as a Russian answer to the European Union. The Pro-Russian government was in favor of this Eurasian Union, and so, when a bill was proposed that would, in theory, bring Ukraine more into line with European Union policy and potentially lead to membership, President Viktor Yanukovych vetoed it.

In response, pro-European protests began in the capital city of Kiev. When riot police responded, the situation progressed to the seeming civil war that you’ve been hearing about. After a time, President Yanukovych was overthrown by the legislature, and was going to be charged with mass murder (over 80 Ukrainian citizens lost their lives during the chaos). He fled the city, later turning up in Russia, claiming to still be the legitimate president of Ukraine. Meanwhile, an anti-Russian government has been installed. (I saw an interview saying this looked like a CIA coup, so here’s that if you’re interested: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_02_28/Ukraine-was-a-playbook-CIA-coup-d-tat-Prof-Francis-Boyle-6845/ Note that it also discusses the right of Crimea to secede, and made several… controversial claims about the situation. Definitely worth a read).

So remember how I said the Crimean Russian population was happy so long as Ukraine remained close to Russia? That’s part of what’s causing the current issue, combined with some claims that Russian has been removed from the list of official languages of the Ukrainian state. Citizens of the Crimea are insisting that they have the right to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian state. In fact, there have been reports of Crimean locations flying the Russian flag and proclaiming themselves part of Russia.

Complicating the issue is that, earlier today, President Putin got clearance from the Duma to send troops into the Ukraine. There were reports before today of Russian troops in the area, but it’s official now. Russia says it’s just securing stability in the region, though I’ll need to see their actions before I can be sure what’s truly happening.

Predictions? It could go a few ways. We’ve got the Russian state seemingly invading the Ukrainian state to annex some land. It could all blow over, or it could lead to a war. How large of a war? There’s really no way to tell. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Questions? Thoughts? Criticisms?

TL;DR: Ukraine isn’t sure if it likes being friends with Russia. So it said it wouldn’t be. Crimea, part of Ukraine, where Russia keeps its boats, has said it wants to keep being friends with Russia. Russia seems to be ready to fight for its friendship with Crimea. Also, history magic. Don’t you want to go read the real thing now?

I’m fated, no I’m destined, no, I’m…

Stewing in boredom at the moment, so let’s ramble! Ready, set, go!

Fate:
1
: the will or principle or determining cause by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do : destiny
2
a : an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end

Destiny:
1
: something to which a person or thing is destined : fortune
2
: a predetermined course of events often held to be an irresistible power or agency

Those are from http://www.merriam-webster.com/, which is where I go whenever I need to look up some words and don’t feel like finding my physical dictionary, so thanks to them.

So, I’ve been thinking lately about the terms “fate” and “destiny,” and how they compare, contrast, and interact. Is there actually a difference?

Start with the “taste test.” “I am fated to conquer the world,” as opposed to “I am destined to conquer the world.”

Just going off the taste, you know, the feel the words create as I use them, fate seems to create a more inevitable aura, while destiny seems to put off an air of positivity.

Sentence one seems to imply that I see it coming, I couldn’t stop it if I wanted to, and that it will happen, no matter what anyone does.

Sentence two seems to say that I have seen it coming, have embraced it, and have made a conscious choice to do it.

But let’s move away from world conquest for the moment; is there more to it than this? Webster’s definitions seem to imply that both are inevitable, but that fate is more negative (indeed, one source I looked at mentioned that “fate” could be called a root word of “fatal”) and that destiny is a synonym for “fortune.”

If both are inevitable, why then the difference in meanings? Why is fate so bad, and destiny so good?

Luke Skywalker was the destined hero; Eragon was the destined hero; Harry Potter was the destined hero. Why were none of them the fated hero? And their enemies didn’t get special titles; they weren’t the “Fated villain” or the “destined villain” or anything like that (well, Anakin was the Chosen One, destined to bring balance to the Force… That’s good, actually. Hold onto that thought).

Sure, it could be that fate and destiny have connotations on the “good/bad” scale, but by that logic, only the “destined hero” has destiny, the positive inevitability. What about the rest of us? Are we just stuck at fate forever, doomed to crumble away into nothingness? What the hell is the destined hero fighting for then? Obviously not for us; no matter how nicely he makes things go, we’re still stuck at fate, and doomed to a bad end.

And how is destiny so good? Harry was destined to face the forces of darkness; so too were Luke and Eragon. They were destined to go against the most powerful beings in their respective frame of reference. This is a good thing? To be thrown into the line of fire without even a choice?

Wait. Choice. There’s something. Anakin was destined to bring balance to the Force. There’s lots of ways you can read into that, but when I look at it, it’s pretty blatant that Luke actually did it.

Oh, sure, Anakin killed the Emperor, oh sure, Anakin killed the Jedi, but Luke was the one who ended it. Thanks to Anakin, things were flying around like a seesaw in a hurricane; there were points of balance, but nobody noticed them. Luke came in and cleaned it up, ended the storm, and put it to an end.

If Anakin’s destiny was to bring balance to the Force, and Luke did that, then it means that Anakin failed. Can you fail your destiny? Apparently.

So if destiny can be failed, that means there’s an element of choice involved. What if Eragon had looked at the castle of Galbatorix, and said, “Actually, I left… um… the oven on… yeah… gotta go!” Couldn’t he have done that at any time?

Well, truthfully, no. Why? Because it wouldn’t have made for a happy story. Would it have made a good story? No telling. Edgar Malbouef did something similar in his novel Twisting Stagnation, and it actually raised some very interesting questions (I won’t give details, since it’s still new, but I will say that this guy does some really gutsy stuff with his writing), even while the reader stared at the page and said, “Wut.”

Setting all those considerations aside, however, let’s entertain quantum and say, “what if?” What if Luke had said, “Actually, Yoda, I think I’d rather go back to farming on Tantooine?”What if Harry had just, as Dumbledore put it, “got on a train,” and given up? They all had the option to.

And therein lies the difference between fate and destiny. Fate is, well, fate. It will happen that way, for good or will. Destiny is different; destiny is a choice. The destined hero is not the guy who will stand in front of the forces of light and drive back the forces of darkness.

No, the destined hero is the man who can stand and drive back the darkness. Will he? That’s up to him. Quantum would say that for every story where he stands, there is another where he hides, and another where he makes a mistake and dies horribly or is corrupted and claimed by the dark side (From what I’ve heard, the Wheel of Time series touches on this, and I would read those to see that, if it wasn’t such a commitment of time. Bites and elephants, though why you’d want to eat an elephant when you can eat something else is beyond me). Literary requirements (narrativium, if we’re going off the Science of Discworld series) say he has to, else it wouldn’t be a happy story. Actually, think Megamind. I’ll come back to that. Maybe.

So if destiny is a choice, where does fate fit into this?

I don’t know. Yet.

Here’s my basic idea, though (it would hardly be rambling if I didn’t say stuff when I wasn’t sure, after all).

Fate is what will happen- your car not starting, you winning a new car, you meeting that girl/dude/buying a puppy, etc.

In this hypothesis I’m building, fate is predetermined. Most of the time, fate is what is driving or leading things.

Destiny is when fate decides to shake things up, or can’t accurately control events. Destiny is when something, be it a man, woman, child, chicken, group, whatever, gets to make a choice. When one being stands at the fork in the road, at the wheel of fate, and gets to choose what he does.

Fate is neutral; fate is uncaring. Fate says, “this will happen.” And then it does. Destiny is the hinges of fate.

Is Destiny positive? Hard to say; choice is power. One man gets to dictate the flow of history. That’s amazing amounts of influence, and I’d hate to have to make that choice.

Hopping over to Megamind, I enjoyed the way the hero looked at his destiny, his choice, and said, “Nahhh!” The destiny then fell to another, that blue dude with the big head who was trying way too hard to be the villain. It was a choice, and when the choice was ignored, it fell to another.

Destiny is flexible, whereas fate is rigid. What does it say about humans that we interpret one as good, and the other as bad?

It could be that we prefer the option to make choices; this is the more positive interpretation (my personal favorite, and the likeliest). The other, the more negative, says we love the power that comes with control, and desire to seize it for ourselves- possibly accurate, definitely cynical.

Of course, there’s also the common usage, which has us fated to negativity and destined for greatness.

So, what can be taken from all this?

Well, I would like to point out that I don’t believe in these forces in life, but they can be useful in stories, and nice brain teasers in debates and suchnot.

Another thing to take is that I should never be allowed to have this much free time; it gets dangerous, especially when I tire of Xbox.

You could also take that I think Edgar Malbouef is a pretty clever author (if you want to see why, get his Ebook here or his physical book here).

Mostly I’d like you to think about stuff, but to do so at your own discretion and what-not.

Recommended Reading
Twisting Stagnation– Edgar Malbouef
The Long Earth– Terry Pratchett, Stephen Xavier

Currently Reading
Zenith– The Descendent
The Long War– Terry Pratchett, Stephen Xaviera

Troll Fic

Written for a writing competition with this picture as the prompt. I’m sorry.

“You can’t touch clouds!” one of them said!

“YES I CAN!” another one said!

THEN SHE TOUCHED A CLOUD!

“Well, you can’t pick them up!” said the first!

“WATCH ME!”

Then she picked up a cloud.

The first one got an angry face on.

“Well! I CAN STAND ON A CLOUD!” said the first one with an angry face on.

“Prove it,” said the second one who picked up clouds.

So the first one with an angry face on went to the cliff and stepped on a cloud!

She couldn’t stand on clouds. It was very sad.

After they finished finding her pieces, they went to set up a funeral.

Gordon Freeman was the funeral director, which makes sense, because he can use a crowbar as a lethal weapon without a -4 penalty to attack.

Granted, it’s not hard, but you try doing it one handed for 4 days straight.

Anyway, they had a funeral, and it was well-attended, with people from all over the universe attending.

King George III dried his tears in Paula Dean’s hair, and then got beat up by her secret service, since presidential candidates get secret service. Plus, ‘Murica hates royalty.

Somewhere in Britain, the royal wedding was watched by a significant portion of the ‘Murican populace.

Anyanyway, the funeral was well-attended by everyone who was anyone. That was why Louis Napoleon Bonaparte wasn’t there.

Plus, it’d be silly if he was there, cause he’s dead!

Many special speeches were given, and a few lectures were given about clouds, and how standing on them was impossible. George W. Bush made sure to scratch his invasion of Cloud City, though the troops were on the way.

So he made everyone read his lips. “No new taxes!” he said!

Everyone was happy about that, though they agreed that it was a poor place to announce important taxation policies that had no affect on the nation now that he was out of office.

They also had no effect, since he’s no longer president.

Off in Equestria, Rainbow Dash suddenly fell to her death from her nap cloud as the laws of causality caught up to her in an explosion of lecture notes.

Meanwhile, the second one who picked up clouds was busy playing Bioshock. She wasn’t really sure why, but she’d also eaten pi squared galleons of ice cream, and the Spanish wanted their ships back and she didn’t want to share.

She had a sad face on. Her friend was deaded. That’s spelled D-E-Dead.

After a while, she finished Bioshock.

“Isn’t it weird how I was Dr. Suess all along?” she wondered?

This proves that people who touch clouds can’t play video games. Especially when they’re girls.

Was that sexist? I’m sorry. I’ll go sit in the Limbaugh box.

While the old narrator went to sit in the Limbaugh box and learn about how contraceptives lead to prostitution and sluttery, a new narrator was lead in.

After they opened the metallic case he was in, he threatened to sue them for lead poisoning.

Then they led him into a room.

“Who’s room is this?” he asked.

Sighing gently, the accountant gave him a nickel.

This shows how narrators can have two verbs in a sentence and still make cents.

“Better,” said the new narrator. “Whose room is this?” Now he was making sense. He gave the accountant a dime.

“This is your room,” said Invader Zim, “OF DOOM!!!”

Then Zim left to conquer Earth. Except he took a wrong turn, due to a “Turn left? Right!” fiasco.

It would be nice if I could say his body still lies in the core of the son, but it was removed in an operation and now he’s living a healthy, rigorous and vaguely promiscuous life (it was the contraceptives they used to remove the alien in his chest).

As the new narrator was led to the Limbaugh box for his timeout, he made sure to specify that he was on the clock, and that this wasn’t time off.

They docked his pay for the new clock, since the old one braked.

Luckily it did, otherwise it would have hit a puppy. Sadly, the car stopped too fast, and killed the clock. So it broke. But that’s okay! He was an orphan.

They just shot that narrator. In cold blood.

Odd, that. That his blood was cold. It was exactly zero Fahrenheit.

This is because vengeance is a dish best served in space. This is what khan men say when they want to sell you a rocket ship.

Don’t buy it.

Writey Thingy (Cursing, Criticism/Comments appreciated)

1

I remember the glare most of all. The way the sunlight poured through the scorched atmosphere and turned the remnants into an eye-blistering white. The way the sidewalks had fused into glass.

The way that everything was so smooth, no matter where I looked.

It’s called the “Space Mounted Tactical Severance Device.” Most just call it the Flayer, and when I looked around, I could see why. Whole buildings had their sides stripped right off, or their roofs, or only their outer layers. Some patches of ground had holes so deep I swear you could see into the center of the Earth if you wanted.

And everything was so smooth, so neat, so sleek. There was no rubble. The heat had melted it into the ground where it fell, leaving that goddamn smooth surface. That goddamn smooth surface that pierced through to your brain, and welded itself to your soul. That goddamn smooth surface that I see every time I close my eyes.

There were no corpses. You can tell if someone’s actually been there, or if they just want to say they have, just by how they describe the bodies.

The temperatures reached melted stone and steel. Steel! How could a human body hope to stand up to that? How could anything hope to be left? Even the buildings themselves sag on the edges!

I haven’t been back, but they say the air is still too hot for human flesh to survive. I doubt that. By this point, the heat’s dispersed, and good riddance to it.

No, the stuff melting the skin off your bones is the radiation from the reactor meltdowns. Even the stuff built to hold shattering atoms broke. Oddly enough, the nuclear explosions themselves were battered down by the attack. If the assault did one thing right, it was that. An entire side of the country, saved from nuclear holocaust.

Granted, what was left was hardly better.

2

You know, everyone tries to tell you that they know exactly where they were when the attack happened. They recount how they were sitting in their living rooms, waiting for the speech, or waiting in the car, or waiting on the shitter, or waiting in the bedroom, or waiting wherever.

It’s odd the way that everyone was “waiting” for the speech. When it was first announced, I can’t remember anyone responding well. So many said it would be empty, broken, or detract from their holiday celebrations.

Celebrations? What was there to celebrate?

Was it celebration-worthy that our Pacific front had collapsed, and the Atlantic was sure to follow?

Was it celebration-worthy that the enemy armies were deploying into Alaska? That Hawaii had already fallen? That California was lined up to follow?

Was it celebration-worthy that our southern neighbors had joined the enemy, while our European allies had already collapsed?

Was it celebration-worthy that our only ally left was Canada? One ally left, who was predicted to fall by the end of Julie?

Was there cause for celebration in any of this?

Of course there was. We were goddamn ‘Murica, and the whole world knew it.

God. We were such fools.

A live broadcast. When we knew our enemy’s reach extended around the globe. With speeches from the president, the vice president, and several prominent members of Congress.

What did we expect to happen?

3

It was almost iconic in a way.

Hell, it was iconic. Symbolic, at least.

I mentioned I was there, right after the assault, right? I’m sure you’ve seen the video.

Not the one they made, with their orbital telescopes and their high-powered lenses and their propaganda machine.

The one we took. The one from ground level. The one where the recorder almost died getting it.

You know, we had to wait a week to go in? It took a week for the heat to drop enough for a hazmat suit to last thirty minutes in there.

So yeah. There we were on the 11th of Julie. Kitted out in bright orange suits, just so we could walk in, look around, take some pictures, leave, and then tell the higher-ups that, yes, they were all dead.

What’s that saying? Where there’s life there’s hope? Whose life? Whose hope?

All I know is, our silly little hope finding expedition crushed hope more than we restored it.

I already mentioned the glare, right? The way it burrowed through your eyes and made you want to pull out your own eyes to cut it off?

I didn’t mention the other thing.

The silence.

The air was hot. I say that, and you think, like the road in the sun.

No. I mean, hot. Freaking stand in it for three seconds and heat stroke hot. Dehydration just from standing in the wind coming out of the city. Lethal hot.

What do you think that does to the air? It ruins it. Sound waves get torn to pieces. Even the light was distorting as it moved from one spot to another. Any sound that might have survived would have drowned, anyway, in the sound of metal and stone cooling.

I don’t know how the camera pulled any sound out of that hellhole. I swear to god there wasn’t any sound like the one if picked up. I’m certain I would have heard it.

Granted, though, the tech boys heard it. From their padded chairs in their air conditioned rooms where they could monitor the air and the heat and the footage and my vitals and probably shut me off if they wanted to, they reported it.

“Hear that?” one of them said.

Of course we didn’t. That camera must have had the ears of a god to even begin to pick it up.

Still, it didn’t do any good to argue with the lab boys. So we looked around.

And there it was.

If anything, it was even more impressive after the flaying. While most other buildings had been torn to shreds, it had had the outermost layer melted off, leaving a surface as white as new snow.

That needle stood tall, in the middle of the desolation, surrounded on all sides by death and detritus and heat shimmers. It was beautiful.

And then the tech boys identified the sound.

“My god,” one of them muttered. “It’s collapsing.”

And there it went.

4

As far as collapses go, the fall of the Washington Monument was a dignified one.

It wasn’t one of those collapses that starts at the top and works its way down, with the whole thing shattering to a powder. Nor was it one of those that started at the bottom and almost seems to pull itself into the ground.

No, Washington went out with style.

That rumble the labrats had been hearing was the supports breaking under the stress. They predicted it. We actually got to see it go down.

One thing you can say for it: it was damn well-built. It stayed in one piece til it hit the pond. Then it exploded, of course. But one piece the whole way down.

It just gently tipped, almost as if it wanted to lie down for a nap. Or maybe it was just waiting for someone to be there to see it die.

From a standing position to flat on the ground, it took… well, the video says it took something like 9 seconds.

It felt like an hour.

Have you ever had one of those moments? You see the ball roll into the street, and the kid goes after it, and that car comes around the corner going stupid fast, and you know it’s all decided even before it’s over, but it still seems to take forever and every muscle in your body is straining towards it, hoping to lunge forward and save the kid, but you’re moving so slowly and then –bam!- it’s over?

I was there as it fell, and there was this feeling. An era had ended. America was gone. Long live… I’m not going to say it.

Those bastards.

-From the day journal of John Suprese

Pratchett

One of the joys of reading Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series is observing the world he crafts. Well, scratch that “Discworld” part; all of Pratchett’s worlds are amazing.

However, the Discworld provides a special experience for readers not found in his other works: continuity. He has various worlds: the one set in Good Omens is visited only then; The Long Earth’s worlds are visited, thus far, in two books; and the world of the Nomes gets three, those being Truckers, Diggers, and Wings. The Disc, however, has received 39 novels, with several more announced, and numerous short stories, and all of them interact and influence each other.

The books themselves can be loosely divided into 8 “series,” ranging from the exploits of Moist von Lipwig, con artist turned government agent, to Death, physical embodiment of a natural force and a rather decent guy, to the City Watch, which rises from scum’s scum to a force that actually brings some sort of order to the corrupt city of Ankh-Morpork. Each has their own special set of characters who serve to give each series its own distinctive flavor.

But the fun of each character isn’t restricted to one series or another; rather, just because one series is the, for example, City Watch series, that doesn’t mean other characters, such as Death or the Witches, never interact with them. Indeed, some of the funniest moments can be found in these moments.

Perhaps the best example of this was in the City Watch series, in the 7th book (or 8th, or 9th, or so on, depending how you place such books as Monstrous Regiment or The Truth, which have a strong Watch presence), which is Thud. His Grace Sir Samuel Vimes is trapped deep underground after some supernatural shenanigans, and is slowly dying. It might even be said that he is having a near-Death experience. There’s where the cleverness comes in.

As Vimes lies deep underground, battered, bruised and dying, he becomes aware that someone else is there. There’s a figure, in a black cloak carrying a scythe. Well, he’s holding a book, but the scythe is there. Vimes asks Death what he is doing there, and Death explains that, as Vimes is having a “near-Death experience,” Death himself must have a “near-Vimes experience.” But don’t worry, take your time, I have a book.

The scene continues, showcasing the best of Death and Vimes, with Vimes working through what has happened and Death commenting on endings and secrets, using his book as a powerful symbol (Just turn to the last page and the answer is there.* I don’t understand why this is interesting.).

The storyline complexity doesn’t stop there, however. Each book has multiple plots sidling around and through each other, keeping perfect time in one complicated dance, before –bang!- slamming together in an explosion of color and release, culminating in a whirlwind of 40 or so pages wherein the reader’s mind is constantly blown.** Once the dust has settled, the reader realizes that the seemingly hopeless situations have collided and cancelled out the other’s destructiveness.

It’s possible to go on for days about the genius of Pratchett. In fact, I’ll probably praise him some more here in the writings to come.  If you haven’t picked him up yet, do so.

*In the interests of full disclosure, on my second time through Thud, I did indeed turn to the last page to see what would happen. Nothing. Now go back up there, I’ll get to why in a bit.

**In the reviews for Eric, Barbara Mertz, a mystery novelist, notes that “Trying to summarize the plot of Pratchett novels is like describing Hamlet as a play about a troubled guy with an Oedipus complex and a murderous uncle.”

Currently Reading:

Eric: Terry Pratchett

The Long War: Terry Pratchett, Stephen Xavier

Triptych: Estee

Recommended Reading:

The Fortress City of the Clouds: Cold in Gardez

Royal Houses of Brandenburg-Prussia/German Empire, Austria/Austria-Hungary, Csardom of Russia

Clear box- Period divided between several houses, or no color assigned to the house.

Green- Hapsburg House

Blue- Hohenzollern

Red- Romanov

Bolded- House Change

Bolded and Underline: Country changes fundamentally

Year

Brandenburg-Prussia (1871: becomes German Empire under William I)

Austria (Before 1740, ruled by Holy Roman Emperor; 1804: Becomes Austrian Empire, 1867: With Compromise/Ausgleich of 1867; becomes dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary)

Russia (1328: Moscow; 1462: Ivan III removes “Muscovy,” later Russia, from the Mongol Empire)

1200

     

1250

     

1300

1323: Wittelsbach– Louis I (the Brandenburger)   1325: Rurik– Ivan I

1340- Simeon

1350

1351- Louis II (the Roman)

1373: Luxembourg– Wenceslaus

1378- Sigismund

1388- Jobst

  1353- Ivan II

1359- Dmitriy I

1389- Vasily I

1400

1411- Sigismund

1415: Hohenzollern- ElectorFrederick I

1440- Elector Frederick II

1440: Hapsburg– Frederick III 1425- Vasily II

1450

1471- Elector Albert III Achilles

1486- Elector John Cicero

1499- Elector Joachim I Nester

1493- Maximilian I 1462: Ivan III

1500

1535- Elector Joachin II Hector 1519- Charles V (the Man) 1505- Vasily III

1533- Ivan IV (the Terrible)

1547- Ivan IV takes the title “Tsar of Russia”

1550

1571- Elector John George

1598- Elector Joachim Frederick

1556- Ferdinand I

1564- Maximilian II

1576- Rudolph II

1584- Theodore I

1598 (Time of Troubles begin): Godunov– Boris I

1605- Theodore II

1605: Dmitriy II (the False)

1606- Vasily IV

 

 

1600

1608- Elector John Sigismund

1619- Elector George William

1640- Elector Frederick William

1612- Matthias

1619- Ferdinand II

1637- Ferdinand III

1613: Romanov– Michael I

1645- Alexis

1650

1688- Elector Frederick III/King Frederick I 1658- Leopold I 1676- Thedore II

1682- Ivan V and Peter I

1689- Peter I (the Great)

1700

1713- King Frederick William I (Soldier King)

1740- King Frederick II (the Great, Old Fritz)

1705- Joseph I

1711- Charles III

1740- Maria Theresa corules with Francis I Stephen

1725- Catherine I

1727- Peter II

1730- Anna

1740- Ivan VI

1741- Elizabeth I

1750

1786- King Frederick William II

1797- King Frederick William III

1765- Maria Theresa

1770- Maria Theresa corules with Joseph II

1780: Hapsburg-Lorraine– Joseph II

1790- Leopold VII

1792- Francis II

1762- Peter III

1762- Catherine II (the Great)

1796- Paul

1800

1840- King Frederick William IV 1804: Archduke Francis II takes title Emperor Francis I

1835- Ferdinand I

1848- Francis Joseph I

1867: Becomes Dual-Monarchy of Austria-Hungary– Francis Joseph I

1801- Alexander I

1825- Nicholas I

1850

1888: Year of the 3 Emperors (drei Achten, drei Kaiser)

1858- William IV declared insane, William I serves as Regent

1861- King William I/Kaiser William I (1871)

1888- (March 9 to June 15) Kaiser Frederick III/(June 15 on) Kaiser William II

  1855- Alexander II

1881- Alexander III

1894- Nicholas II

1900

1918: Monarchy Abolished (Treaty of Versailles)

1919: Weimar Republic

1933: Third Reich

1945: Allied Occupation

1949: Split into German Federal Republic (West Germany) and German Democratic Republic (East Germany)

1916- Charles I

1918: Austria declared Republic

1917: Monarchy Abolished

1922: USSR founded

1950

1990: Germany reunited into German Federal Republic   1991- Collapse of USSR, Russian Federation created

2000

     

Monarchs of France, England/United Kingdom of Great Britain, Holy Roman Empire, Spain

Clear box- Period divided between several houses, or no color assigned to the house.

Green- Hapsburg House

Purple- Bourbon

Blue- Country divided

Bolded- House Change

Bolded and Underline: Country changes fundamentally

Black: Country ceases to exist

And thanks to the British for having such a stable monarchy, which made it very easy to research! Additionally, apologies for the formatting, this was prepared in a document, and then hit by some… travel problems.

Year

France

1789- French Revolution

England

(Not united until 1485,

1707: Act of Union)

Great Britain

Holy Roman Empire

Spain

(Not united until 1516)

1200

Capetians

1250

Capetians

1300

1328: Valois– Philip VI

1350

1350- John II

1364- Charles V

1380- Charles VI

1400

1422- Charles VII 1440: Hapsburgs– Frederick III

1450

1461- Louis XI (Spider)

1483- Charles VIII

1498: Valois-Orleans– Louis XII

1485: Tudor– Henry VII 1493- Maximilian I 1479: Ferdinand and Isabella (After 1504, Ferdinand solely)

1500

1515: Valois-Angouleme-Francis I

1547- Henry II

1509- Henry VIII

1547- Edward VI

1519- Charles V (the Man) 1516: Hapsburg– Charles I (the Man)

1550

1559- Francis II

1560- Charles IX

1574- Henry III

1589: Bourbon– Henry IV

1553- Mary I

1558- Elizabeth I

1556- Ferdinand I

1564- Maximilian II

1576- Rudolph II

1556- Philip II

1598- Philip III

1600

1610- Louis XIII

1643- Louis XIV (Sun)

1603: Stuart– James I

1625- Charles I

1649: Cromwell (Lord Protector)– Oliver

1658- Richard

1612- Matthias

1619- Ferdinand II

1637- Ferdinand III

1621- Philip IV

1650

1660: Stuart (restored)-Charles II

1685- James II

1689- William III

1658- Leopold I 1665- Charles II

1700

1715- Louis XV 1702- Anne

1707: Union of Utrecht

1714: Hanover-George I

1727: George II

1705- Joseph I

1711- Charles VI

1742: Wittelsbach– Charles VII

1745- Hapsburg-Lorraine– Francis I

1700: Bourbon– Philip V (abdicated)

1724- Louis I

1724- Philip V

1746- Ferdinand VI

1750

1774- Louis XVI

1792- Monarchy abolished until 1814 (1st Republic)

1792: Convention

1795: Directory

1799: Consulate

1799 Bonaparte- Napoleon elected 1st Consul

1804: 1st Empire– Napoleon elected Emperor

1760: George III 1765- Joseph II

1790- Leopold II

1792- Francis II

1759- Charles III

1788- Charles IV

1800 (Louis XVII was the son of Louis XVI who never ruled. Royalists put his rule as 1793-95, when he was executed, at which point Louis XVIII became king)

1814 Bourbon Restoration (redone in 1815)– Louis XVIII

1824- Charles X

1830 Orleans- July Monarch Louis Philippe

1848: 2nd Republic Bonaparte– Louis Napoleon Bonaparte elected President

1820: George IV

1830: William IV

1837: Victoria

1806- Collapse 1808: Bonaparte– Joseph

1813: Bourbon (restoration)- Ferdinand VII

1833- Isabella II

1850

(Napoleon II would be Napoleon I’s son who never ruled)

1852: 2nd Empire– Louis Napoleon Bonaparte declares himself Emperor Napoleon III1870- Emperor Napoleon III overthrown, 3rd French Republic Declared 1868- None1870: Savoy- Amadeo I

1873: First Spanish Republic

1874: Bourbon (restored)– Alfonso XII

1886- Alfonso XIII

1900

1940- Vichy Regime1944- Provisional1946- 4th Republic 1901: Saxe-Coburg and Gotha– Edward VII

1910: Windsor-George V

1936- Edward VII

1936- George VI

1931- Monarchy overthrown, republic

1936- Republic Overthrown

 

1950

1958- 5th Republic 1952- Elizabeth II 1975: Bourbon (restored)– Juan Carlos I

2000