Story Summary: You and Steve Rogers are neighbors. He has feelings for you, but you like someone else. That places a little damper on his hopes of being with you, but he’s not surrendering just yet [High School AU]
Velen is an interesting place in its own right. It is murky, muddy, depressing, and very grim. It was certainly a very cool place to explore and a big change from places that games usually go. There are parts of Velen that show beauty and hope and parts that are dirty and depressing. I think Velen represents the Witcher world as a whole very well. The Witcher world is full of beauty and hope but is never able to truly capitalize on this because it is always plagued by war (represented by the dirty and depressing parts of Velen). Hope that made sense. Toussaint on the other hand is extremely beautiful and looks like it is straight out of a fairy tale. It is an excellent change of pace from other parts of the Witcher world. Similar to what I said earlier, Toussaint represents the beauty and hope that could be present in the entire Witcher world if they stopped the fighting and war. It is nice to see that there are still parts of the world that are beautiful are unharmed by war.
4: Sleeping at Corvo Bianco or Meditating Under a Tree? Sleeping at Corvo Bianco
I’m sure Geralt prefers the meditation but I certainly prefer Corvo Bianco. Geralt sleeping next to his wife Yennefer is a beautiful and happy sight. He deserves the comfy, big bed after all that he has been through.
6: Caves or Ruins? Ruins
Ruins show the remnants of a world that once was. They can hold so much history compared to caves which tend to just hold Nekkers.
8: Going Back to Old Save: Yay or Nay? Nay
I’d prefer to just reply the entire game if I wanted to go back to a certain spot. That way once I get back there, I can feel that the reward was worth the wait. I always keep a save of the beginning of my game at Kaer Morhen with Yen though. Just in case I need to go back and see her. :P
12: Roads or Boats? Roads
I prefer to go wherever the road takes me compared to the boat. I usually only use boats in The Witcher 3 when I am clearly all of the question marks in Skellige or when I need to for a quest.
26: Keira or Philippa? Keira
This was a tough one. I think both characters have some charms and flaws. But overall I think Keira is a better person. I love her ending with Lambert and they both deserve to be happy together! She has her problems and selfishness but every sorceress in the Witcher world has problems and tends to be selfish. Philippa tends to work more for herself and pretend that she is doing it for the good of the world. She played a huge part in wanting to use Ciri to control the world and is ultimately very power hungry. I think she definitely has some sexual tension with Geralt that she needs to take care of though. They bicker and banter more than Geralt and Yennefer.
27: Cerys or Hjalmar? Cerys
Cerys wants what is best for the people of Skellige and has a very progressive mindset. Hjalmar is a bit crazy. I’ve often wondered why the game never really brought up the fact that he is a raid hungry man, much like many Skelligers. The raids they undertake are barbaric and need to be stopped and Cerys at the Queen would be the best chance for this. I don’t dislike Hjalmar, I just wish he was a bit more intelligent. Also, I have to agree with Letho when he says that he believes women should be the rulers of the world. Too many stupid men rulers already. Cerys and Annarietta are perfect examples of women in the Witcher universe being more intelligent than many of the men.
2. Talk about three of the most important ships throughout your life.
Trigger Warning: Unhealthy/abusive relationships. I accidentally triggered myself writing this, so it might trigger other people too.
Buffy and Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
As much as these two are OTPs in my opinion, watching this ship as an 11-12-year-old girl helped me to form an unhealthy gauge for relationships. Mom doesn’t approve of your boyfriend? Then she doesn’t need to know! He has a checkered past? Well, he’s different now, so it’s probably fine! He can’t go outside in the sun? That’ll never be a problem at all. No children? No problem, I’m sure I’ll never want them ever. No soul? I’m sure he’ll come around…
I gave so many wrong guys so many second chances thinking checkered pasts and iffy behavior just meant this was an “epic” romance like Buffy and Angel. The message I got was that if you really loved a person you’d accept all their flaws and love them anyway… even if those flaws were really unhealthy for you.
Willow and Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
I’ve talked about why this ship is important to me before, but I’ll reiterate here. Oz was the boyfriend I wanted. He was smart, funny, and patient. And he seemed like a boyfriend who would also be a good friend. He was well liked, but not because he tried to be. There was a genuine way about him I enjoyed. He gave the little nerdling in my heart hope that even the quiet, dorky girl no one noticed could attract a nice guy. Still does.
That is until season 4. *shudder*
Haley and Nathan (One Tree Hill)
Nathan and Haley was similar to Buffy and Angel in a lot of ways. A guy and a girl who have no business being at the same party together, let alone dating, fall in love, and it’s complicated. Nathan has some issues. He has a temper, he’s a bully, among other things. However, Haley doesn’t accept or excuse his poor behavior. She calls him out, she stops speaking to him, she breaks things off with him when he’s too big of a jerk for her to want to deal with. Luckily, most of Nathan’s issues turned out to be situational and once he changed his living situation and did a bit of work on himself he became the kind of person Haley could love. Their relationship isn’t perfect. It’s hard work and compromise. The important highlight for me is that Haley doesn’t accept behavior she shouldn’t. She’s able to be strong and stick to her guns, and instead of losing the guy she ends up with the right one.
Celeste and Perry (Big Little Lies)
This is not a ship I ship, but it’s an important one. This was the first abusive relationship I saw portrayed on screen in a way that was subtle and insiduous. It helped me recognize some of my own relationship experiences that were easy to shrug off, but were still not okay. I wish I had known years ago that abuse that didn’t leave a bruise was still abuse. Instead, I was told “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words may never hurt me” and if I couldn’t show a scratch or a bruise it meant I hadn’t “really” been hurt. As a result it took me a lot longer to leave some relationships than it should have. Seeing something similar portrayed in the mainstream and called out as abusive and not okay sends an important message.
Well, question 2 took a dark turn I didn’t intend. Sorry about that! The rest are lighter.
3. What’s your current OTP?
Sally-Ann and Hasil (Outsiders)
I guess it’s not “current” anymore because the show got cancelled, but they’re my most recent OTP. They meet in a very unconventional way and are from two very different worlds, but they both make compromises to be together. They overcome challenges, they stand by each other, and they grow stronger together.
4. What’s your current NOTP?
Jesse and Jane (Breaking Bad)
Okay, this isn’t really current, but it’s current for me because I’m now watching Breaking Bad on Netflix for the first time. The thing I didn’t like about this pairing was that Jane didn’t get a lot of her own character development. She was sort of just there to get Jesse to a certain point in his character development and it was obvious. Therefore I didn’t really buy the pairing and I didn’t like Jane at all as a character.
12. Have you ever been disappointed when your ship finally got together?
Barney and Robin (How I Met Your Mother)
I was certain these two were meant to be and that they’d be the perfect couple, so when they turned into two completely different people once in a relationship I was super disappointed. It was like the writers went “We better nip this pesky chemistry in the bud!”
Sam and Ruby (Supernatural)
As soon as Ruby showed up I had a feeling these two had a spark. Personally, I thought the chemistry between Sam and Ruby 2.0 (Genevieve Padalecki) was stronger than the chemistry between Sam and Ruby 1.0 (Katie Cassidy). Now that Genevieve and Jared are married and stuff, that makes sense. When Sam and Ruby did get together, though, it was as a way for Sam to hit some kind of demon blood rock bottom and I didn’t like it. It felt out of sync with what had been set up the whole time. I think that could have been done better.
Anne and Henry (The Tudors)
Okay, this is like the epic doomed romance to end all epic doomed romances, right? It was Romeo and Juliet in real life. I was waiting for this ship to happen, much like everyone I assume. But then when it did the romance part was sort of fleeting, he was kind of a controlling jerk, and she was super paranoid and shady. I don’t know, it just felt all over the place and I didn’t always buy the chemistry.
26. Have you noticed a pattern in your shipping? Is there a romantic dynamic you’re more drawn to?
I answered this elsewhere at some point, but it’s far back now so I’ll reiterate. I love an awkward team-up when two characters who don’t know each other well end up having to work together on a common goal and romance blossoms.
Shikatemi 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 17, 26, 27 Love your account💕
Ahh I love these two, they’re my favorite canon couple! Thank you so much :* ShikaTema (Shikamaru Nara x Sabaku no Temari)
1: Who is the most affectionate?
That would probably be Temari, if only because she’s always doing things that she know will make Shikamaru roll his eyes–pinching his butt in public, leaving a big ol kiss on his cheek when they part, etc. Despite her teasing, it’s very obvious that his eye rolling and sighing are out of fondness for his lady. In fact, Shikamaru can be found more often than not resting with his head in Temari’s lap or resting his chin on her shoulder while he hugs her from behind.
2: Big spoon/Little spoon?
Much to Temari’s chagrin, Shikamaru is almost always the big spoon; she would swear that he’s the world’s laziest spider monkey. It’s not that she doesn’t love having his legs tangled up in hers or his arm tossed lazily across her hips, it’s just that she’s used to the practically sub-zero temperatures of the desert nights. More often than not she will kick her legs free of the sheets and turn herself so that she’s cuddled into his chest instead, but somehow she still finds herself waking up to his arms strewn across her yet again.
4: Favorite non-sexual activity?
Temari has actually become rather fond of watching the clouds with Shikamaru. Some days they are perfectly content with sitting together in silence with her back nestled into his chest, and others they could spend hours telling each other about their day or talking about current events. They’ve attempted to play Shogi together a few times, but Temari doesn’t quite have the patience for it and gets irritable after a while. When she’s especially bored she will resort to flicking game pieces in his direction and tease him about his concentration face.
8: Nicknames? & if so, how did they originate?
It started as a joke when they were still at each other’s throats with insults and banter (not that much has changed, honestly) but Shikamaru calls Temari “woman” far too often and somehow lives to see another day. In fact, he’s probably the only one aside from Kankuro who could get away with it. This of course escalates to troublesome woman whenever she’s “nagging” or teasing him. Temari, on the other hand, will call him merely Shika or “babe” for the most part. The more creative nicknames come into play when he’s getting on her nerves or when she feels like embarrassing him around others–which is always.
12: Who initiates kisses?
Temari is a strong, independent woman who don’t need no man to make the first move, especially when said man is the laziest shinobi in all of Konoha. She’s the first to pull him into a kiss on most occasions, so much so that Shikamaru just lets her tug him in whichever direction upon her departure because he has come to expect she will swoop in for a peck or tug him down to kiss her and “get the show on the road”. Naturally, this is followed by a sigh and his fond muttering about how “troublesome” she is. Shikamaru is more likely to initiate lazy kisses in the privacy of their home against the back of her neck while they’re cuddled up together or if he’s hoping to spark something. He’s not incapable of taking the lead, it’s just too much damn work.
17: Who says I love you first?
Surprisingly enough, it’s Shikamaru. It slips one day when Temari does something particularly sassy/impressive and before he knows it, he’s somehow found a way to make “I love that woman” sound bored yet simultaneously affectionate. Temari is merciless, catching it immediately and teasing him until she’s content and returns the sentiment, claiming that she’s been waiting for him to finally open his big mouth. More eye rolling and kissing ensues, and thus one of the most accidentally casual declarations of love was born.
26: What would be their theme song?
I actually really like Loveland by Milky Chance. His sound is something that I’ve come to equate with Shikamaru’s “aesthetic” (for lack of a better word) and though the song is simple, it speaks a lot about Where Shikamaru used to be, thinking that relationships are too much time and energy, and how Temari ends up being this whirlwind of a woman who defies any and all expectations he might have had and becomes the “exception to the rule” as he has seen with his parents. Also wind puns.
‘Cause your heart is upside down And you get dizzy because of her charisma She will love you like a twister And you’ll be swept away.
27: Who would sing to their child back to sleep?
Temari would bust out some Suni lullabies that she vaguely remembers from her childhood. She actually has a very nice voice, not particularly excellent by any means but it’s soft and clear and Shikamaru loves listening to her lull their child to sleep. As for him, well…he can’t carry a tune to save his life and it would be far too troublesome to try in the first place; he prefers to listen.
The Speech That Could Make Elizabeth Warren the Next President of the United States
Posted: 12/13/2014 4:26 am EST Updated: 12/13/2014 11:59 am EST
Early Friday evening Sen. Elizabeth Warren took to the Senate floor and gave a plain-spoken, barn-burning speech that could make history and put her into serious contention to be the next President of the United States.
There are only a handful of political speeches that have such historic impact.
Barack Obama’s keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention comes readily to mind.
It’s what catapulted an obscure Illinois state Senator into the national limelight and put him on the path to becoming President.
Warren’s Senate speech was different, but just as electrifying.
Obama’s rhetoric was lofty, high-minded, and general, with a feel-good unifying message that there’s no blue America or red America but only the United States of America.
Warren’s rhetoric is more down to earth, substantive, and frankly, angrier, unafraid of calling out by name the institutions–the big banks and Citigroup in particular–which tanked the economy, cost millions of Americans their jobs and homes, were bailed out with half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, and then used their fortunes to buy Congress and make it more likely they’ll be bailed out again.
Moreover, she was unafraid to take on the President of her own party, and the numerous members of his administration drawn from Citigroup and other big banks through the endless revolving door between Washington and Wall Street.
Here’s the heart of Warren’s speech:
“Democrats don’t like Wall Street bailouts.
Republicans don’t like Wall Street bailouts.
The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts.
And yet here we are, five years after Dodd-Frank with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for the middle class, do nothing for community banks, do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again…
So let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi[group]. I agree with you Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect.
It should have broken you into pieces!
If this Congress is going to open up Dodd-Frank in the months ahead, then let’s open it up to get tougher, not to create more bailout opportunities.
If we’re going to open up Dodd-Frank, let’s open it up so that once and for all we end too big to fail and I mean really end it, not just say that we did.
Instead of passing laws that create new bailout opportunities for too big to fail banks, let’s pass…something…that would help break up these giant banks.
A century ago Teddy Roosevelt was America’s Trust-Buster.
He went after the giant trusts and monopolies in this country, and a lot of people talk about how those trust deserved to be broken up because they had too much economic power.
But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power.
Teddy Roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatens the very foundations up our democratic system.
And now we’re watching as Congress passes yet another provision that was written by lobbyists for the biggest recipient of bailout money in the history of this country.
And its attached to a bill that needs to pass or else we entire federal government will grind to a halt.
Think about that kind of power.
If a financial institution has become so big and so powerful that it can hold the entire country hostage, that alone is reason enough to break them up.
Enough is enough.
Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism that we have seen in the executive branch.
Enough is enough with Citigroup passing 11th hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but everybody will come to regret.
Enough is enough.
Washington already works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and the lawyers and the lobbyists.
But what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citigroup bet big on derivatives and lost?
What about the families who are living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail out Citi just 6 years ago?
We were sent here to fight for those families.
It is time, it is past time, for Washington to start working for them!”…
Please take less than 10 minutes of your time to watch the speech below.
Like Obama’s 2004 Convention speech, it was an historic speech, a potentially game changing speech.
It catapulted Warren from a potential nuisance to Hillary Clinton’s coronation as the Democratic nominee to someone who could foreseeably win the nomination and even the Presidency.
It transformed the conventional wisdom about American politics that the main divide is between left, right, and center, when it is really between pro-corporate and anti-corporate.
Her declaration that neither Democrats nor Republicans (meaning the voters, not the Washington politicians) don’t like bank bailouts rings loud and true.
Tea party supporters don’t like bailouts and crony capitalism any more that progressives do.
The conventional wisdom is that to win white working and middle class voters, politicians need to move towards the center, meaning towards a more corporate approach.
But in a world of growing inequality, stagnating wages, and a fading belief that with hard work your children can have a better life than you had, that may no longer be true.
Hillary Clinton represents the old politics of the status quo and accommodation to Wall Street’s power.
Her husband’s Treasury Secretary was former Goldman Sachs exec Robert Rubin.
After leading Pres. Clinton’s effort to dismantle the half-century old Glass-Steagel prohibition on government-insured commercial banks engaging in risky speculative bets which enabled the creation of financial megaliths like Citigroup, he went on to earn $126 million as a senior executive for Citigroup and brokered Citigroup’s ½ Trillion Dollar bailout.
His protégé, Timothy Geithner became Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary where he opposed breaking up the big banks who had cratered the economy.
Elizabeth Warren represents a new politics in which, by challenging the power of the oligarchy, she has the potential of reclaiming the white working class for Democrats and uniting them with the coalition of professionals, single women, gays and minorities who elected Obama.
She is the first major national politician in decades who is willing to openly challenge the power of the Wall Street oligarchy, in the manner of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who declared, “They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.”
With the increasingly dominant power of big money in politics, could Warren defeat Clinton, Inc. and then go on to defeat what is likely to be the near unanimous support of the Wall Street and corporate elite for her Republican opponent?
It’s hard to say.
But the nation is in too much trouble to settle for a Democratic or Republican candidate of the corporatist status quo.
If there’s any hope, it’s that once in a while the power of organized people can defeat the power of organized money.
Elizabeth Warren represents that hope and it’s the only thing worth hoping for.
Watch Warren’s 9:43 second speech below.
If you’re fed up with the power of Wall Street and the big banks, it will inspire you.
And even if you aren’t, watch it for its importance as a model of historically transformative political rhetoric.