Good morning❤️

Thought for the day:

“Love does not consist of gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction.”

I’m always a sucker for a sappy love quote and a beautiful view.

Happy Saturday!

H/t @worldwanderlust

Skin-care tip:

Mix turmeric + coconut oil to a paste and apply it to your face [but clean your face before!]. Leave it for 15 to 20 min and then rinse it off with warm water. Try to do it 2 or 3 times a week and you’ll see results, inshaa Allaah.

krshush replied to your post “okay but can we talk about how, by medieval standards, as the third…”

On one hand, [soft gasp at the idea], but it also cracks me up bc Percy is just Not the full plate knight kind in my mind, but still.

…it makes the idea of the Briarwoods and their coup no less sad, in that Percy would have gotten word via letter assuming he was sent off early-ish for knighthood.

that was my thought too like. Percy, in full plate, on horseback. Percy participating in tournaments. Percy jousting. Percy questing. Could you imagine.

(Percy and his quest to regain his own lands; Percy and his brothers-in-arms fighting for his inheritence; Percy leaving Whitestone to be ruled by Cassandra who would have been taught how to keep an estate)

I just saw someone say the American wizarding school in harry potter, in order for there to be only one for the whole country, would have to have “like 200 faculty” to deal with all the kids
….there were…200+ faculty..at my high school of 900. There would….prob be way more than 900 magical kids in the US. Please try again????

I’ve been thinking lately… Hayden Christensen doesn’t do a lot of interviews.  But when he does, I don’t see him talking about how he hates Star Wars or how he auditioned for the role of a lifetime and everyone started spewing hate from every platform imaginable, or how he had to come back and finish the trilogy while the entire planet hated his guts and said so to his face.
What I do hear him talking about? How much he loves talking to little kids about Star Wars.  How happy he is to have been a part of it.  How hard he worked, how much fun he had, how much he learned.  While fans are still vomiting hate over a decade later, he seems pretty happy to live quietly on his farm and not retaliate.  If he has any secret desires to Force Choke the fans or the media, he’s been pretty good about letting that go.
Guys, Hayden Christensen is a better Jedi than all of us put together.


the punchline is that i still haven’t figured out how to draw allura

See me, I’m 155 pounds and 5'4. I throw shot put and discus and I’m the state fucking champion in both. And guess what, I’m overweight. Overweight does not mean unhealthy. I train all 4 seasons to be the best I can be at what I do. I’m also a swimmer, paddle boarder, and sprinter. Overweight doesn’t mean unhealthy, and I thought it did for a long time. Please love yourself it took me forever to even begin to accept myself. This is my first step.

You may be saying that about your student’s parent

Content note: This post is mostly intended for k-12 classroom teachers, but probably applies to other groups as well.

When you teach, it’s really important to be mindful of the fact that people from all walks of life have children. 

When you say something about a particular group of people, you may be saying it about a student’s mother, father, or parent. It’s important to keep that in mind when making decisions about how to discuss things. (Including things that it’s 100% your job to teach your class about).

When you express an opinion about a group of people, your student may hear it as “I think this about your mother”, “I think this about your father”, or “I think this about you and your family.” Don’t forget that, and don’t assume that you will always know who is in the room.

It’s worth speaking with the assumption that there are people in the room who know a member of the group you’re talking about personally. When you’re working with kids, it’s worth speaking with the assumption that this person might be their parent or someone in a parental role.

This is important whether what you’re saying is positive, negative, or neutral. If you speak in a way that assumes that what you’re saying is theoretical for everyone, it can make it very hard for a child to whom it is personal to trust you. And you can’t assume that you will always know a child’s family situation, or that you will always know how a child feels about it.

For instance:

  • Many parents are in prison, have been imprisoned in the past, are facing trial, are on probation, have been arrested, have been accused of crimes, have been convicted, are on house arrest, are facing some other kind of court-ordered punishment or similar.
  • Many parents are police officers, prison guards, judges, prosecutors, probation officers, or in a related role.
  • Many parents (and children) have been the victims of violent crimes. (Including crimes committed by police officers.) Some children may have lost parents this way.
  • All of these people are parents, and most of their children go to school.
  • Some of their kids may be in your class, and you may not know this.
  • Even if you do know about the situation, you probably don’t know how they feel about it.
  • Kids have all kinds of feelings about all of these things (including, often, complicated mixed feelings).
  • If you want to talk about prison issues, crime, justice, legal reform, or any of that, it’s important to keep in mind that whatever you say about one of these groups of people, you may be saying it about a student’s parent.
  • And that you don’t know how they feel. 
  • Speak in a way that gives them space to have opinions, and to be both personally affected and part of the class.
  • If you say “we” and mean “people who aren’t personally connected to this issue”, kids are likely to feel that you are distancing yourself from them and their parents.
  • It’s better to speak with the assumption that what you’re saying applies to the parents of one of your students, and that they may have complicated thoughts and feelings about this.


  • People of all races have children of all races. When you say something about a racial group, you may be saying it about a student’s parent.
  • People with all kinds of disabilities have children. When you say things about disabled people or disabilities, you may be saying it about a student’s parent.
  • (Including blind people, deaf people, autistic people, people with intellectual disabilities, wheelchair users, people with conditions that usually shorten lifespan, and every other kind of disability).
  • When you talk about teenage pregnancy, keep in mind that some students may have parents who were teenagers when they were born.
  • People of all political opinions, including abhorrent opinions, have children. When you say something about members of a political group, you may be saying it about a student’s parent.
  • People who work at McDonalds have children. When you talk about McDonalds workers and people in similar roles, it’s extremely likely that you’re talking about a student’s parent. (Especially if you teach in a public school).
  • Many people who do sex work have children. If you say something about strippers, porn stars, escorts, phone sex operators, dominatrixes, or whoever else, you may be saying it about someone’s mother, father, or parent.
  • People of all faiths and ethnicities have children (who may or may not be raised in their faith). If you say something about a religion or its followers, you may be saying it about the parent of one of your students.
  • And so on.

Being more abstract again:

  • People from all walks of life have kids, and you may be teaching some of their kids.
  • Keep that in mind.
  • Whatever you say about a group of people, you may be saying it about your student’s mother, father, or parent.
  • If you speak about it like it’s an abstract issue that couldn’t apply to anyone in the room, it’s likely to be really alienating.
  • This is true even if what you say is positive or sympathetic.
  • Kids need to be seen and acknowledged. If you speak as though they’re not there, it gets harder for them to trust you.
  • When you speak about a group of people, speak with the assumption that at least one student in the room has a parent who is a member of that group.

(To be clear: I’m not saying don’t talk about these issues. Sometimes it’s 100% your job to talk about these issues. What I am saying is, keep in mind that it may be personal, that you may be talking about a student’s parent, and that you won’t always know that this is the case. Taking this into account makes it possible to teach everyone in the room.)

tl;dr When you’re teaching, keep in mind that the kids in your class probably have parents, and that you don’t know everything about their parents. Their parents may come from any and every walk of life. Keep this in mind when you talk about issues and groups. You may well be talking about a student’s mother, father, family, or parent. 

They're gonna make television history?

Just like every other Sherlock fan who entertains spoilers and was following SDComicCon news, I’ve been thinking about Amanda Abbington’s comment about this season being so groundbreaking (while Sue Vertue is in the background doing the most epic eye-bug). Now, we know AA is known for blurting and ill-advised comments on Twitter, but I also think they must have prepped her pretty hard if she was the one they chose to do the cons and so much of the post-s3 publicity with them.

When you back up Vertue’s reaction with Mark Gatiss’s facial shift as BC talked about s4 and got to straying beyond the presumably safe topics of hair and coat, that does start to look like neon arrows pointing at “relationship” as the real (character arc) theme for s4.  Fans, of course, immediately jumped on the TJLC bandwagon and threw their hands up with a mighty shout of “CONFIRMED!!!”

I’m not going to parse all that we so far have gotten from the con and setlock in the light of tjlc—there are dozens of other fans just on my dash doing that. No, what I’m going to wonder about is in the other direction. Bear with me a moment here because I want to poke at things a bit.

No matter whether the s4 secret is johnlock on the screen (in whatever flavour you’re envisioning) or not, what AA said was “television history.” And I don’t see putting two men together doing [sex] as all that groundbreaking any longer: other shows, including Ben Whisaw’s recent “London Spy” have been there. Effects on a tv show? Hasn’t Doctor Who been going there for 50 years now? See, I’m having trouble finding something implicit to just making a tv show, absent plot developments, that qualifies for this. Even if they go really modernist in plotting, a la “Parade’s End”, or even further timey-wimey, these developments aren’t going to be the kind of novel that merit’s AA’s breathless gushing. And they’ve so freely admitted to the appeal of “all a speculation in the mind of Victorian!lock” that I’m fairly well convinced that they’re not going there, either.

I think she was perhaps choosing her words poorly and more likely means making Sherlockian history. And that’s a different thing.

Here, anything tjlc has plenty of room to cover new and novel ground, following on TPLOSH, certainly, but moving further to accomplish what Wilder was held back from. A big splash in Sherlockian circles, yes; I’m not sure the casuals really will be that historically dazzled but perhaps that’s a failure of the crew’s imagination in terms of popular involvement in the Sherlock canon. And I don’t really feel as though the element of surprise is of the scale that their responses merit: we all know and a huge portion of the casuals know and recognize that the relationship between our two heroes is close and the heart of the story. It’s been there since the beginning, and I’m not sure it’s exciting enough, groundbreaking enough or hidden enough to merit the reactions I’m seeing and hearing.

Parsing the writers’ comments for the true situation is like listening to the nighttime for the moment that dog isn’t barking. We have to find the negative space in the tease, because that’s where the real hints lie. Remember how they made that one comment back in s1 about not going into the whole drugs thing because that’s not the right connotation for Sherlock Holmes today? One comment, we all bought it, and we’re all still reeling from the s3 reveal of, oh no, the drugs.

I feel the same way about the family thing. Pointing us at Moriarty for the villainy that drives the mysteries but hinting at a family history hanging over both Sherlock and Mycroft is just their kind of bait and switch. One line in s1 commentary about having a childhood headcanon for the brothers’ relationship problems but that they decided not to do that…and we were again blindsided by Holmes parents in s3 and intrigued by the hints of steel in Mummy. We know they dipped into Baring-Gould for William Sherlock Scott Holmes and Sherrinford, we know that we’ll see “lots more of Mycroft,” and we know MG doesn’t mean in the fat suit. BC said that he and MG still have 26 pages of dialog to shoot together, and that’s a lot compared to all of their previous interactions summed together.

I wonder if the real surprise is that they are going to give us what no one really has before: the childhood of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes and what made those men what they are in canon and in every adult rendering in popular productions. And it’s going to be shocking and horrible, because that’s what’s going to make Sherlock growing up into that better-balanced, caring man we already know from canon all the more triumphant. I don’t know if it’ll mean making Mycroft the actual Big Bad (I sorta hope not) or killing him off or in cahoots with The Moriarty; I don’t know if it’ll mean that someone is a twin with Sherrinford (but I think that “never twins” line has an absolute ring of promise to it) or who and what Redbeard is. But I do think that if there’s something they’ve been tiptoeing towards all these years while desperately pointing in any other direction, I think it’s more likely to be this than just two men finally getting together. I think that if the two men get together in this show, it’ll be backgrounded, uncommented, simply accomplished as another production detail while our attention is on the foregrounded story about what made Sherlock Holmes.

I think that just might make a bit of history, even though I think that it’s still likely to be of more interest to Sherlockians than to the history of television itself. But also, pretty damned smart.