On this review of things that I enjoyed before I learned that people who sought tolerance turned out to be rather intolerant themselves, I dropped in on an old fanfiction that helped me tolerate the gap between Series 1 and Series 2. (Sod this, I've posted enough on here that's inappropriate, what's one more link? ...It's M M/M, so NSFW.)
This is what stuck with me, apart from the hallway:
"Observing isn't just about what you see - it's about not making assumptions about what you don't see... It's the difference between saying 'Miss Jones washed her hair' and saying 'Miss Jones went out of the room and came back in with a towel round her head.' Do you see, John?"
(Still enjoy it, I find, now I'm rereading it. However, another author in the same fandom around the same time wrote a story I enjoyed that had both characters as straight men, then rewrote that story with them as gay men. I thought the change, not only unnecessary, but an injustice to the story itself; and if I find that story again, I wonder if I'll still think the same about it. Probably yes, and massive digression, that - back to the point.)
One of the talking points I hear frequently on the radio is roughly 'the elites are going to make decisions for you because they think you don't have the capacity to make them yourselves.' Part of it is being elected to make those decisions (if I'm wording this correctly, through their votes do voters delegate these people to do so), but I thought those elected are then meant to make decisions in the best interests of that electorate.
It's articles like this that make me consider that the radio's got it right. How is it not appropriate to provide information to the people meant to gather and disseminate that information, and how does impermanence make the lack of transparency any less of a lack? Is it the privacy and safety of children what's being protected here? I shouldn't be making assumptions about what I don't see, but I do, considering what I've already heard and what, it seems, someone else deems inappropriate for me to see.
If I remember my history correctly, a formidable woman learned from experience that what people didn't want her to see are down the hallways she was told not to go down. (Of course she went.) This woman prompted the memory of her predecessor (from the same side of the aisle, if I've got the right one) by demonstrating its opposite - not a mark, but a stain.
- I ought to include this one, though. My knee-jerk reaction for this article went something along the lines of: I don't get to have a say in ice cream flavors for a household I'm not a part of, or press one on policies in a state I don't live in, or choose a politician in a country I was born in but am no longer a citizen of. The initial reaction doesn't fit the information in the article.
Making a path to legal citizenship makes sense (especially if one's going to increase their electorate by creating a sanctuary in a one-party state), but what's being done to streamline the process for the people who don't cut in line, Madam Term Limits? Oh, sorry, you're not taking questions - the decidedly unlikeable sort of hallway.
- I'd love to see that match, but I wonder if another ought to head to that debate, seeing as that slip of the tongue has been happening since last year. (The onscreen sympathy's appreciated for this issue. Still watching to see how Second Seat Headliner shoulders the rest.)
- Normally this mess is entertaining in a sandpaper sort of way, even from this relative distance (not wading through that piece of social media). The usual reason for the sort of deleting that occurred (and I’d say the real reason in this case, contrary to the entertainer's claim) is knowing that photo editing went too far. (If pressed, I'll apologize for the use of the clip, but I find it fits the situation so well that I'm not in the least sorry.)
- Heh. Good on you, ma'am.