constitutional cases

One day y'all will understand what the American Civil Liberties Union does and how law and Constitutional rights work. But apparently today is not that day.

Yes Sir Part 7

Yes Sir Part 7: The List

Professor John Winchester and his girl tease each other in more ways than one.

Series Masterlist   Warnings: Smutty smut smut- the usual plus role play and restraints. And lots of fluff. WC: 6972  On AO3  Gifs aren’t mine; I made the other additions. 

A/N: I got really creative with this part. Hope you like it! Thanks to the awesome followers of this story; all of your great feedback and love has made this a joy to write. 


Law and Order. Real Housewives. CNN. I sighed as I flipped through the channels on my TV. I was bored. I’d done homework for hours, was off work for the night, and all of my friends were busy studying. And for the fifth night in a row, my boyfriend was out of town at a college educator’s conference.

Keep reading

Emirates A380 over Arabian Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent.

An Emirates Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EUL performing flight EK-412 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Sydney,NS (Australia), was enroute at FL350 about 630nm southeast of Muscat (Oman) and about 820nm northwest of Male (Maldives) at about 08:40Z when a business jet passed underneath in opposite direction. The A380 continued the flight to Sydney without any apparent incident and landed safely.

The business jet, a MHS Aviation (Munich) Canadair Challenger 604 registration D-AMSC performing flight MHV-604 from Male (Maldives) to Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) with 9 people on board, was enroute at FL340 over the Arabian Sea about 630nm southeast of Muscat when an Airbus A380-800 was observed by the crew passing 1000 feet above. After passing underneath the A380 at about 08:40Z the crew lost control of the aircraft as result of wake turbulence from the A380 and was able to regain control of the aircraft only after losing about 10,000 feet. The airframe experienced very high G-Loads during the upset, a number of occupants received injuries during the upset. After the crew managed to stabilize the aircraft the crew decided to divert to Muscat (Oman), entered Omani Airspace at 14:10L (10:10Z) declaring emergency and reporting injuries on board and continued for a landing in Muscat at 15:14L (11:14Z) without further incident. A number of occupants were taken to a hospital, one occupant was reported with serious injuries. The aircraft received damage beyond repair and was written off.

Oman’s Civil Aviation Authority had told Omani media on Jan 8th 2017, that a private German registered aircraft had performed an emergency landing in Muscat on Jan 7th 2017 declaring emergency at 14:10L (10:10Z) and landing in Muscat at 15:14L (11:14Z). The crew had declared emergency due to injuries on board and problems with an engine (a number of media subsequently reported the right hand engine had failed, another number of media reported the left hand engine had failed).

According to information on March 4th 2017 the CL-604 passed 1000 feet below an Airbus A380-800 while enroute over the Arabian Sea, when a short time later (1-2 minutes) the aircraft encountered wake turbulence sending the aircraft in uncontrolled roll turning the aircraft around at least 3 times (possibly even 5 times), both engines flamed out, the Ram Air Turbine could not deploy possibly as result of G-forces and structural stress, the aircraft lost about 10,000 feet until the crew was able to recover the aircraft exercising raw muscle force, restart the engines and divert to Muscat.

No radar data are available for the business jet, it is therefore unclear when the business jet departed from Male and where the actual “rendezvous” with the A380 took place. Based on the known time of the occurrence at 08:40Z as well as the time when the CL-604 reached Omani Airspace declaring emergency and landed in Muscat, as well as which A380s were enroute over the Arabian Sea around that time the most likely A380 was EK-412 and the “rendezvous” took place 630nm southeast of Muscat, which provides the best match of remaining flying time (2.5 hours) and distance for the CL-604 also considering rather strong northwesterly winds (headwind for the CL-604, tailwind for the A380s) - this analysis was confirmed on Mar 23rd 2017 by BFU information.

On Jan 7th 2017 there were also other A380-800s crossing the Arabian Sea from northwest to southeast: a Qantas A380-800, registration VH-OQJ performing flight QF-2 from Dubai to Sydney, was enrooted at FL330 about 1000nm southeast of Muscat and about 400nm northwest of Male at 08:40Z. An Emirates A380-800 registration A6-EDO performing flight EK-406 from Dubai to Melbourne, VI (Australia) was enrooted at FL350 about 470nm southeast of Muscat at 08:40Z. Another Emirates A380-800 registration A6-EUH performing flight EK-424 from Dubai to Perth, WA (Australia), was enrooted at FL350 about 350nm southeast of Muscat at 08:40z.

Air Traffic Control all around the globe have recently been instructed to exercise particular care with A380s crossing above other aircraft.

A number of Wake Turbulence Encounters involving A380s already reported:

Incident: Virgin Australia B738 near Bali on Sep 14th 2012, wake turbulence from A380
Incident: Air France A320 and Emirates A388 near Frankfurt on Oct 14th 2011, wake turbulence
Accident: British Airways A320 and Qantas A388 near Braunschweig on Oct 16th 2011, wake turbulence injures 4
Report: Antonov A124, Singapore A388 and Air France B744 near Frankfurt on Feb 10th 2011, wake turbulence by A388 causes TCAS RA
Report: REX SF34 at Sydney on Nov 3rd 2008, wake turbulence injures one
Incident: Armavia A320 near Tiblisi on Jan 11th 2009, turbulence at cruise level thought to be A380 wake

On Mar 18th 2017 an EASA safety information bulletin released stating:

With the increase of the overall volume of air traffic and enhanced navigation precision, wake turbulence encounters in the en-route phase of flight above 10 000 feet (ft) mean sea level (MSL) have progressively become more frequent in the last few years.

The aim of this SIB is to enhance the awareness of pilots and air traffic controllers of the risks associated with wake turbulence encounters in the en-route phase of flight and provide recommendations with the purpose of mitigating the associated risks.

The draft reasons:

The basic effects of wake turbulence encounter on a following aeroplane are induced roll, vertical acceleration (can be negative) and loss or gain of altitude. The greatest danger is an induced roll that can lead to a loss of control and possible injuries to cabin crew and passengers. The vortices are also most hazardous to following aircraft during the take-off, initial climb, final approach and landing.

However, en-route, the vortices evolves in altitudes at which the rate of decay leads to a typical persistence of 2-3 minutes, with a sink rate of 2-3 metres per second. Wakes will also be transported by wind.

Considering the high operating air speeds in cruise, wake can be encountered up to 25 nautical miles (NM) behind the generating aeroplane, with the most significant encounters reported within a distance of 15 NM. This is larger than in approach or departure phases of flight.

The encounters are mostly reported by pilots as sudden and unexpected events. The awareness of hazardous traffic configuration and risk factors is therefore of particular importance to anticipate, avoid and manage possible wake encounters. The draft issues following recommendations.

As precautionary measures, operators and pilots should be aware that:

- As foreseen in Reg. 965/2012 AMC1 to CAT.OP.MPA.170, the announcement to passengers should include an invitation to keep their seat belts fastened, even when the seat belt sign is off, unless moving around the cabin. This minimises the risk of passenger injury in case of a turbulence encounter en-route (wake or atmospheric).

- As indicated in ICAO PANS-ATM, for aeroplanes in the heavy wake turbulence category or for Airbus A380-800, the word “HEAVY” or “SUPER”, respectively, shall be included immediately after the aeroplane call sign in the initial radiotelephony contact between such aeroplanes and ATS units.

- When possible, contrails should be used to visualise wakes and estimate if their flight path brings them across or in close proximity.

- When flying below the tropopause altitude, the likelihood of wake encounter increases. The tropopause altitude varies (between days, between locations).

- Upwind lateral offset should be used if the risk of a wake encounter is suspected.

- Timely selecting seat belt signs to ‘ON’ and instruct cabin crew to secure themselves constitute precautionary measures in case of likely wake encounters.

In case of a wake encounter, pilots should:

- Be aware that it has been demonstrated during flight tests that if the pilot reacts at the first roll motion, when in the core of the vortex, the roll motion could be amplified by this initial piloting action. The result can be a final bank angle greater than if the pilot would not have moved the controls.

- Be aware that in-flight incidents have demonstrated that pilot inputs may exacerbate the unusual attitude condition with rapid roll control reversals carried out in an “out of phase” manner.

- Be aware that if the autopilot is engaged, intentional disconnection can complicate the scenario, and the autopilot will facilitate the recovery.

- Avoid large rudder deflections that can create important lateral accelerations, which could then generate very large forces on the vertical stabiliser that may exceed the structural resistance. Although some recent aircraft types are protected by fly-by-wire systems, use of the rudder does not reduce the severity of the encounter nor does it improve the ease of recovery.

- Make use of specific guidance available through AOM for their specific type(s)/fleet.

ATS providers and air traffic controllers should:

Enhance their awareness about en-route wake turbulence risk, key factors and possible mitigations, based on the information provided in this document and other relevant material. This could be achieved through flyers, e-learning, and refresher training module.

Possible risk mitigations may consist of:

- Make use of the wake turbulence category (WTC) indication in the surveillance label and/or the flight progress strip (whether electronic or paper), and observe closely separated aeroplanes that are at the opposite extremes of the WTC spectrum;

- As the best practice, provide traffic information, advising “CAUTION WAKE TURBULENCE”, when you identify that a ‘HEAVY’ or ‘SUPER HEAVY’ wake category traffic is climbing or descending within 15 NM of another following traffic;

- Manage en-route traffic crossings such as , when possible while preserving safe tactical management of overall traffic in the sector, avoiding to instruct climb or descend to ‘HEAVY’ or ‘SUPER HEAVY’ traffic within 15 NM distance from another following traffic;

- If at all possible, avoid vectoring an aeroplane (particularly if it is LIGHT or MEDIUM category) through the wake of a HEAVY or SUPER HEAVY aeroplane where wake turbulence may exist.

rionsanura  asked:

hlo, I like your post 122117875674 and I wondered if you had a list of similar posts and/or a book debunking misconceptions of medieval history that I could read? I am making my way through your "medieval history" tag and enjoying it immensely, but I thought I'd ask in case you had favorites you wanted to point to

Ahahaha, this ask is actually super well timed because I just finished four days at the IMC (International Medieval Congress) running around to sessions and taking gigatons of notes, so I have a shit ton of new stuff to discuss. This year’s theme was “The Other,” so there was an especially strong representation of papers on medieval women, medieval queer history, and other such things.

Some highlights:

I am still hearteyes af over the fact that I got to hear Ruth Mazo Karras (an academic heroine of mine, and whose books I have extensively recommended for people curious about the medieval history of sexuality) give a paper, and I also bought her book, Sexuality in Medieval Europe (I should have got her to sign it for me, heh).  She is definitely still the starting point for reading on gender, sexuality, marriage, mlm, and other questions in a medieval context,(and apparently she is accepting a position at Trinity College in Dublin next year, so I will not-so-lowkey hope she needs a postdoc research fellow, because PICK MEEEE). But Dr. Rachel E. Moss at Oxford University is also working on questions of medieval homosociality (and medieval rape culture, which I found really fascinating) and gender/cultural/sexual social and family history of the medieval era, and she also has a blog.

Amy Ogden at the University of Virginia works on medieval gender representations in studies of saints (including arguably trans/female to male individuals who became monks and how they are treated in clerical writing – in short, these authors struggle to overcome gendered/binary essentialism, but there is also a recognized genre of texts around women becoming/posing as men in order to become closer to God, and this is a cause of concern but also admiration. In other words, arguably transgender medieval figures are not represented universally negatively, but as an aspiration and even an idealisation of holiness). Martha Newman at the University of Texas is also working on similar questions and the case of Joseph of Schanau, a 12th-century Cistercian monk who, after his death, was discovered to be biologically a woman. Prof. Newman has identified some similar themes in Joseph’s treatment by the clerical writer Engelhard of Langheim, and she has a book coming out next year on it. Furthermore, Blake Gutt at Cambridge is studying a medieval French vernacular romance, Le roman de Saint Fanuel, that seems to depict a female-to-male protagonist and saint, who becomes pregnant and gives birth to St. Anne, the mother of Mary (thus, as he put it, “grafting a transgender branch onto the Holy Family”) and does other really interesting work on the reading of medieval texts through transgendered and genderqueer lenses.

Natasha Hodgson, whose work I have also recommended before (and who I also got to see give a paper… this was basically nerd utopia, okay) works on gender and the crusades, including representation of crusading masculinities and women and the crusades. (She is also a person who I am just gonna sit over here and hope needs a postdoc researcher.) Charlotte Pickard works on power and patronage among medieval noblewomen in northern France (another research area/interest of mine), and Harriet Kersey works on the legal and landowning status of women (particularly heiresses) in England.

There was also another session on women and literacy in the Middle Ages, mostly focusing on letters received by medieval queens, and Danielle Park works specifically on crusaders’ wives and gave a paper on the correspondence between Bernard of Clairvaux and Queen Melisende of Jerusalem (for multiple generations in the 12th century, the inheritance/rule of the crusader kingdom in Jerusalem, in fact, passed through/was centered in women. Also, Bernard is probably the actual patron saint of mansplaining, but never mind.)

Anyway, not all of these researchers have published books (although many do), but it will at least point you in the direction of the work they’re doing, and the kind of questions that are being asked in the academic study of medieval history these days. (There were also a ton more amazing panels on otherness as constructed through race, religion, and so forth, that I could not get to because there are literally about 350 sessions at this thing over 4 days). There were also papers given on the shared chivalric culture between Christians and Muslims, the medieval literary genre of “Saracen romances,” and the other ways in which the West has interpreted that encounter and experience. And I can say with 100% more confidence after this conference, which I would have said with 100% confidence beforehand anyway, that anyone who wants to tell you The Medieval View on anything is a) wrong, and b) Wrong. The “medieval view” is ridiculously diverse; the era spans 1000 years (500-1500 is the generally agreed time period) over a vast geographic span and countless cultures and societies, and constitutes, in many cases, a far more nuanced, colorful, and challenging portrait of a flourishing intellectual life and dealing with topics than the “It Was Just The Way Things Were in the Dark Ages” crowd that I hate (uh, strongly dislike) so much would ever have you believe.

So anyway. Happy digging.

Regime-made disasters not only are produced by democratic regimes, but in some cases constitute them. Regime-made disaster can occur without being acknowledged and recognized as disasters. One reason for this is that many of the acts that constitute regime-made disasters lack the common characteristics of violence: spontaneous eruption, arbitrariness, and randomness. Instead, they are a part of an organized, well-ordered, and well-grounded system of applied force that feeds on the institutions of the democratic regime and that is safely anchored in them.

The first half of the twentieth century saw several regime-made disasters par excellence that were not grounded in democracies,1 but the second half of the twentieth century has produced disasters that take place within and as a part of the structure of democratic governance itself. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt analyzed the various elements that constitute a totalitarian regime. In the disaster landscape of the second half of the twentieth century, however,such elements were commonplace around the world, and not just in totalitarianregimes. Today, rather than judging that “this is not a totalitarian regime,” we need to be alert to the ways in which all regimes, including democratic regimes, produce such disasters.


To recognize a regime-made disaster, a necessary, albeit not a sufficient condition, is to focus on the entire governed population and not only, as is often done, on the population that suffers immediately from the disaster. A regime-made disaster can be recognized by attention to what I propose calling a “differential body politic.” By a “body politic” one usually refers to a homogeneous group of citizens, but by a “differential body politic,” I refer to the entire governed population under one regime, a nonhomogeneous population whose forms of being governed by that regime—as citizens, as noncitizens, or as flawed citizens—are different. Regime-made disasters usually target those elements of a population that do not partake in governance at the time of the disaster or that are distanced from access to the governing power by the disaster itself. A differential body politic consists of uncounted populations or, to use the Arendtian term, “superfluous” populations.

—  Ariealla Azoulay
8


From Parisian newspaper Le Journal des Débats, written 6 June 1832, published 7 June 1832.

English translation:

A faction, small in number but blindly furious, recruited from among the most desperate of the mercenary adventurers of a large city, has just attempted, in the aftermath of a funeral, a bloody parody of the July Days.  A few hundred men, shooting guns, raising barricades, here and there stealing the weapons from some guardhouses taken by surprise, thought that they could substitute themselves for the voting, property-owning population of Paris and change the government in one blow.

This cruel attempt, reproduced in several places and prolonged for the past twenty-four hours in a few narrow streets, is everywhere overcome or surrounded by the public authorities.  It did not inspire the majority of citizens with anything other than indignation and horror; it did not find the slightest support among the people.  Never was an act of sedition more flagrant and less provoked.  And nevertheless some publish the apologia for it, even while the final gunshots of the factious still echo in the streets.  [These journalists] insult the population of Paris by comparing an ambush by anarchists, suppressed by force in the name of the law, to the legal protest against the overthrow of the Charter, the great national movement of July [1830].

A few men have raised the flag of pillage against the flag of the new royalty, the red cap against the tricolor standard; they have evoked the bloody memories and the examples of a day of the Terror against a constitutional and moderate power strictly enclosed within the limits of laws.  They began with violent insults to individuals, they continued with murders, and at last they attempted an open aggression against the military forces, against the National Guard, against the mayors’ offices, against the Bank; and because they proclaimed the Republic, people would like to defend them.  They place these criminal acts of violence under the protection of a funeral ceremony, and they think them justified by the presence of a few famous individuals (who were rather embarrassed, it is said, by the anarchists’ laurels they had been given and by the sinister figures who escorted their triumphal carriage).

We must speak more sincerely; we must confess that the Opposition has been flooded with sedition.  But no, they say, it is sedition that is innocent, glorious, legal.  It is sedition that they connect with the July Revolution, a revolution necessitated by an obvious violation of the social contract and accomplished by a popular push that was so unanimous.

These are the same circumstances, they say, the same preliminaries; except, they add, it was just that this time the National Guard took the side of the powers-that-be.

Yes, you are right, there is that big difference.  In July 1830, propertied men, men of commerce, all the citizens, National Guards and others, all fought either with their own person or with their will against the tyrannical ordinances and in favor of the success of a revolution that punished arbitrary power and prevented anarchy.  In June 1832, propertied men, men of commerce, and the National Guard are all together in solidarity with the government forces to push back seditious attacks and an attempt at political theft made in the middle of the streets.  Back then the nation had felt threatened in its liberty, in its rights; today it is again threatened, but by anarchy and not by the government.  Thus it is to the government, such as it emerged from the July Revolution, that the nation lends its adherence and its aid; it is for the government that the nation would rise if, by some impossibility, a band of anarchists, revolting for no reason, without popular grievances, had for a moment seized success.

But only revolutions succeed—conspiracies, never.  Revolutions succeed when they are provoked by long discontents or by some serious insult to individual and public rights, when they are a necessary and long-awaited response, a national vengeance.  Conspiracies, especially in a great country, no matter how combustible that country seems to be, are always found lacking in some way.  A bizarre coalition of opposing interests, of mad hopes, of burning desires, plus the example of how easily a necessary revolution was accomplished, all of this deceives the conspirators but does not give them more strength on the crucial day.  The events of July [1830] were accomplished so quickly precisely because they were not a conspiracy; the lamentable events of yesterday and today are likewise judged by their result.

We consider these events irrevocably ended by the powerful convergence of military and civilian forces, by the admirable courage shown by the army, the National Guards of Paris and of the suburbs, and by the imposing unanimity that joined them all today in arms.  Some partial crimes could still be attempted, but the conspiracy has been destroyed.  The appearance of Paris, though agitated, announces strength and confidence.  Everywhere in the most populous neighborhoods can be seen a crowd of men of the working class, peaceful and denouncing the disorders.  The regiments of the line and the National Guard are animated with the same zeal and everywhere they calmly increase in numbers.

Within the ranks of the National Guard, they are asking for strong measures to be taken against the anarchists.  The laws suffice.  The authorities, like the citizens, have done their duty; there was coordination and energy in the means of repression and defense.  Society defended herself against anarchy; and she was easily victorious, as she will always be.

The swift return of the King to the Tuileries was natural.  Apart from the danger that could have seemed greater from St-Cloud, there only had to be alarm in Paris for the King to return there right away.  His presence was a mark of appreciation for the good men of the National Guard and of the regiments of the line who were defending public order, and it reminded the citizens of Paris that the King will never separate his interests from theirs for even a moment and that his safety was only to be found among them.

Today the King, while going through the neighborhoods that had been troubled by the attempt of the factious and by the repression of the population that it had produced, everywhere received sincere and lively acclamations.  We knew, we felt that he was the primary guardian of public peace.  We laugh at those ridiculous calumnies that would cast the King of July as his own enemy, plotting against his own throne.  We are thankful to his government for suppressing armed revolt in Paris just as in the West.

The warning is useful for everyone: we saw how certain speeches turned out, certain direct calls for force, to conquer the republican institutions.  Theft and murder took on the task of carrying out this figure of speech (one that was, at the very least, imprudent), and blood has been spilled in Paris.

But it is still a fight for the benefit of a royal dynasty, says one paper.

No, there is more to it than that.  All property as a whole, the safety of private property and of individuals, today relies on the July Monarchy.  Let us realize this, let us understand it well in all the classes of society: anarchy victorious, the Republic, will not stop at the ruins of a throne: it would need something to sell off to support its flock of sheep; it would take it from your houses, from your coffers, from your stores.  Such is the powerful motive that must overcome all others right now, and that which raises so many defenders for public order.  The energetically constitutional spirit of Monsieur Périer has not been extinguished: there are still men of brains and heart to defend public peace after him.

We do not doubt that in these grave circumstances a part of the parliamentary Opposition, even the most excitable part, individually gave signs of support to the July Monarchy.  Speeches do not make common cause with insurrectional murders.  We know how the most eloquent organs of English democracy conducted themselves during a mutiny in the fleet stationed on the Thames, and what loyal support they offered to the government.  The anti-social republican conspiracy of the 5 June must certainly provoke even more indignation and zeal.

Whatever the case, constitutional France, that great majority who wants order and a monarchy with new priorities, awaits from the government a lively step and decisive acts for public peace.  The citizens of Paris did not fail the government, and the government will not fail either France or itself.    

*     *     *     *     *

The attempt—as mad as it was guilty—of a handful of men against the government that the people founded during the July Days, is finished.  Today, at five o’clock, all the posts occupied by the rebels were retaken through the courage and devotion of the National Guards of Paris and of the suburbs, and of the troops of the line.

In the midst of the most contradictory rumors that are everywhere circulating and coming to us from all sides, we are going to report those that seem to us to offer the most authenticity.

As we said yesterday, the disorder, or rather the attempt at civil war, began from the aggression of several young people against a regiment of dragoons that was blocking the Pont d’Austerlitz.  In this encounter, the dragoons, having seen three of their officers fall under gunfire, launched themselves forward; the aggressors were immediately pushed back into the little streets of the Saint-Antoine neighborhood, near the Arsenal, and then they retreated back into the interior of the city and threw themselves into the rue Saint-Denis, the rue de la Verrerie, the rue des Arcis, and the rue de la Planche-Mibraye.  That was the area they had chosen as being most favorable for attack and for defense.

At the same time, another column [of the insurgents] returned by way of the boulevards, which they barricaded with all the carriages they could find.  When they arrived at the Porte Saint-Martin, this column was rejoined by another group that had followed the rue Saint-Denis, armed with guns and provisioned with cartridges and ammunitions.  All together they raised a strong barricade there, ready to give combat.

And in fact soon the battle began.  A detachment of carabiniers, having arrived at this barricade and being received with gunfire, did not want to make their horses cross this obstacle and fell back behind a company of voltigeurs who immediately threw themselves forward in firing formations, overthrew the barricade in spite of vigorous resistance, and opened the street for the troops that followed.  From that moment, the boulevards were under the troops’ control.  The only exception being that, around nine-thirty in the evening, the commander having learned that a barricade was going up at the corner of the rue de Lancry, sent a detachment of National Guards and voltigeurs of the line to destroy it.  Several shots were fired there, and a National Guard and two voltigeurs were wounded, with another voltigeur killed.

While these events were taking place on the boulevards Saint-Denis and Saint-Martin, other insurrectionary movements were breaking out throughout Paris.  Isolated guardhouses, among others those of the Bank, of the place Maubert, and of the place Saint-Michel, were surrounded; but soon the National Guard and the troops retook them.  In the retaking of the guardhouse of the place Maubert, a brave captain of the Municipal Guard, Monsieur Amédée de Turpin, was killed.

However, the night had come, and the rebels still occupied two principal spots: the rue du Faubourg-Saint-Antoine and the rue Saint-Denis from the church of Saint-Merri to the place du Châtelet and the little adjoining streets.  In these two spots they were still raising barricades.  At first the troops sought to drive them out, but seeing in the course of these minor skirmishes that they were losing many men to no purpose, they resolved to wait for daybreak.

When the morning came, Paris presented the appearance of a vast military camp.  The King made the review of the National Guard and of the troops who had occupied the Tuileries since the previous day and those who had arrived during the night, and all swore to die for him and all were ready to keep their word.  National Guards, infantry of the line, and cavalry covered the boulevards and quays.  All were at their posts, and for those who could see what a selfless indignation animated them, the outcome of the combat was not in doubt.  At the same time, the National Guards of the suburbs were arriving by way of several barrières, and they were certainly no less resolved to defend order and true liberty.

We have been told that it was they who began the combat against the two principal spots, that is, in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine and in the place du Châtelet.  Even though they had not yet received supplies of cartridges, they launched themselves with their bayonets against the first barricades that the rebels had built during the night.  They dislodged those who defended these barricades, but they were assailed by vigorous gunfire to which they could not respond, and so they retreated.  But then the cartridges arrived, and the firing began from both sides.  

In the faubourg Saint-Antoine the combat lasted a rather long time, but, the barricades having been broken down by a few cannon rounds, citizens and soldiers swarmed into the faubourg, which was soon occupied.  They say (but we cannot believe it) that in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, a captain of the National Guard fired on his fellow National Guards from his window and that he had already killed seven of them when they burst into his house.  After a vigorous resistance he was taken prisoner.

Now here are a few details on the combat in the rue Saint-Denis.

At four o’clock in the morning the firing began in the place du Châtelet.  A few of the houses that surround this square were occupied by the rebels; from there they fired almost point-blank, but they were soon either killed or taken in their positions.

From the Pont Notre-Dame to the middle of the rue Saint-Martin they had raised seven barricades built solidly.  A crossfire from the neighboring houses protected each entrenchment.  At the level of the rue Saint-Merri, seven or eight houses that faced each other seemed to have been inclined to the most obstinate resistance.  [Army] sharp-shooters had fought in the rue Saint-Martin with much courage but always without success.

Our troops felt the need for a more decisive attack.  A battalion of the brave 1st regiment of the line leapt forward in a charge in the rue Saint-Martin, coming up from the quay.  It was supported with vigor by a battalion of the 42nd, which marched in by following the adjoining streets.  Four times the first barricades were breached with as much bravery as tenacity, under the fire that was being kept up from the windows; but as soon as the troops came up to the houses situated near the rue Saint-Merri, the firing became so strong that for a long time it was impossible to overcome the obstacle that the troops encountered.

A hail of rocks, paving-stones, and broken furniture, falling from the highest stories, chased away or crushed everything in its way.  After [the soldiers] had breached this murderous entrenchment, they had to break down the doors of these houses to arrest those who were firing with such ferocity against their fellow citizens.  General Tiburce Sébastiani commanded the troop movements with that sang-froid and that intrepid bravery that characterize the French soldier.

Two officers of the command staff of the National Guard along with National Guards of all ranks continually took part in the action in the middle of the line [in the midst of the troops of the line?].  Each charge took place to the cries of Long live the King!  After two hours of fighting they were masters of all the barricades, and the people themselves rushed to destroy these barricades, while cursing those who did not hesitate to bring down so many evils upon their country.  General Leydet, for his part, commanded the battalion of the 42nd, the colonel of which received two wounds, one in the head and the other in the thigh.

In this war from barricade to barricade, from window to window, from house to house, in this war, the most difficult of all, where the enemy you are attacking is invisible and aims at you with a sure shot, never did our brave National Guards or our intrepid soldiers show a single moment of hesitation.  Once they had taken one position, they went a moment later to attack another with cries of Long live the King!  Down with the carlistes!  Down with the republicans!  You would have had to see what their courage and their ardor were like to have some idea of it.

Alas!  They bought victory at the price of cruel losses.  At each moment there passed stretchers carrying wounded citizens or soldiers.  Nevertheless, their deaths were well avenged, with an indignation of which it is easy to conceive.  In many houses taken by assault by the National Guard or by the regiments of the line, those who had begun this criminal war were killed by bayonet blows.  However, several owe their lives to the humanity of their conquerors.  When they were being brought through the city to be handed over to the authorities, popular vengeance was on the verge of taking justice into its own hands.  The cries of ‘death!’ rang out from all sides on their route; they were able to learn the true feelings of the population of Paris.

A little after the Faubourg Saint-Antoine was occupied, that is, at two o’clock, the King left the Tuileries accompanied by the Duc de Nemours and the Ministers of War and of Public Works, and escorted by the National Guard on horseback and by detachments of all the cavalry corps.  His Majesty first carried out a review of the regiments stationed at the place du Carrousel, then followed the quay along the edge of the Seine, then along the boulevards and through the Faubourg Saint-Antoine up to the barrière Saint-Antoine.  His Majesty then came back down through the faubourg, crossed the boulevard Bourdon, and returned by way of the quays to the Tuileries.

It would be difficult for us to express the enthusiasm with which the King was welcomed.  Every time he passed before detachments of the National Guard or of the regiments of the line, or in front of groups who had assembled on the boulevards and on the quays, the shouts of Long live the King!  No anarchy!  No carlistes!  No Republic! rang out from all sides.

When the King passed along the quai de la Grève, they were still fighting in that neighborhood.  And since they feared that some gunshot might be fired upon him from the narrow streets that adjoined that quay, before he arrived at each of those streets, the soldiers and the National Guards threw themselves there to protect him with their bodies.

Several times in his walk, the King encountered stretchers carrying the wounded.  The King then stopped, addressed words of consolation to them, and took down their names.

Yes, we repeat it again, there can’t be enough praise for the courage, zeal, and devotion of the National Guards of Paris and of the suburbs, and of the troops of the line.  There you surely have an energetic response to these madmen who used to tell us every day that the people marched with them, and that it would suffice to just take a stand in order to rally all the people to their cause.  But what also attests even more strongly to these men being in the minority was the appearance of Paris all throughout the day; doubtless they excited a few feelings in all the classes of the population, but it was the feeling of pity for their madness and hatred for their anarchical plots.  In the short period of time that has passed since the end of the fighting, we have not been able to gather all the names of those who served the country well.  We will hurry to report them for public recognition.



This is the third of a number of June 1832 newspaper articles that I used to form the core of the epilogue for Virago, and one of the few selections I used from a conservative (pro-government) paper.  This should give a good (if predictable) sense of what non-republicans thought about the June Rebellion.  For the epilogue of Virago I didn’t really want to directly reiterate anything Hugo had already written about, so I opted to use real documents to show the ending of the story.  Of course in Virago these articles were edited for repetition and length, and interpolated with details about the fictional barricade of the rue de la Chanvrerie, but here I’m giving them to you as “straight up” translations of the original articles.  ;)

[Also, just as an editor’s note, I have occasionally tried to clarify the punctuation, which in these papers can often be geared more towards a logic of spoken rhetoric than towards what we would consider modern grammatical rules.  Breaking up these long, semi-colon sentences can sometimes make for a slightly more readable translation.]


Find other 1832 barricade-related newspaper selections here:

Le National, 5 June 1832 (published 6 June).

Le National, 6 June 1832 (published 7 June).

Le National, 8 June 1832 (published 9 June).

La Tribune des Départements, 19 June 1832 (published 20 June).



Find Virago here!



The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.
—  Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971) US Supreme Court Justice
Two case studies constitute the core around which is woven this story of the development of black theatre in South Africa in the early years of the century" “The argument concerns the intellectual formation of the early African elite in relation to colonial authority and how each affected the other in complicated ways Much of the work in the field of African Studies still relies on rigid distinctions of ‘tradition’ and 'modernity’, 'collaboration’ and 'resistance’, 'indigenous’ and 'foreign’ This book moves well beyond these frameworks to probe the complex entanglements of different intellectual traditions in the South African context
Anything You Ask

This one is for my dear friend @inevitably-johnlocked who asked:

Sherlock wants a cuddle from John because he’s in a massive strop but won’t ask for it, and John KNOWS Sherlock wants a cuddle and he’s just taking the piss.
Steph darling, I hope this delivers and makes you smile! 



John held the newspaper up in front of his face, scanning the print for anything of interest. He hoped to find something, anything, that could constitute a case worthy of his madman of a flatmate. He’d been dealing with Sherlock’s mercurial mood for the last two days. Two days of stroppy fits, massive pouts, and flying dressing gowns. In truth, John knew what it was Sherlock really needed, but he was not going to give in so easily. He wanted Sherlock to ask for things instead of acting like an overgrown toddler.

As if by summoned by the power of John’s thoughts, the man in question sauntered out of his bedroom, long legs striding across the sitting room floor in four paces. He stopped in front of John’s chair, placing his hands on his hips and staring down at John.

“Anything?”

“Hmm, missing painting from a museum in Brighton, guard reported it -”

“Boring. Solved. Owner stole it for the insurance money.”

“Woman found dead in freezer, jewels missing-”

Sherlock threw his head back and sighed. “Husband. Jewels are a ruse. Clever use of the freezer, she was ‘cold as ice’.” He rolled his eyes, flopping on the sofa face down and letting out a long-drawn out moan. “Why are the criminal classes so boring?”

John smirked at Sherlock’s antics. “Lestrade hasn’t called?”

“Ganannnfkalfj ajbhfklan,” Sherlock mumbled into the cushions.

“What was that, love? I am afraid I couldn’t quite make that out.”

Sherlock turned his head to the side. “Gavin is being useless. He says to stop calling him or the Met will be solving MY murder.”

John hid his smile behind his hand. “Well, we could always watch telly.”

Sherlock huffed, then bolted upright. “John,” he began, looking at John through his lashes.

“Hmm?” John replied, thumbing through the rest of the paper. “Or we could play a game. Not cluedo though, never again.”

“Johhhnn,” Sherlock tried again, drawing out the consonants in his name.

“Or maybe go for a walk? It’s nice outside.” John was decidedly not looking at the couch. Not watching Sherlock pout prettily as he pondered his next move. He had to bite his lip to keep from laughing.

Sherlock stood up and moved over to stand in front of John’s chair. He wavered there, shifting slightly from foot to foot as he waited for John to look up at him. John took his time, carefully closing the paper, folding it in half and placing it on the side table next to his chair. Only after that was complete did he look up to catch Sherlock’s eyes. His pleading, beautiful, color-of the-sea, ever-changing eyes.

John decided to take pity on him, and not force him to ask outright. He unfolded his legs and opened his arms, letting out a small ‘oomph’ as his lap was suddenly filled with 183cm of consulting detective. Sherlock curled his frame into the chair, arse resting on John’s thigh and legs folded up between John’s other leg and the arm of the chair. He wrapped his arms around John’s shoulders, burying his face into his neck and breathing deeply. John lifted his arms to wrap around Sherlock’s back, one hand threading through Sherlock’s curls. He lightly scratched Sherlock’s scalp, and Sherlock sighed, melting into his embrace.

Chuckling, John pressed a kiss to Sherlock’s temple. “You realize you could have just asked for a cuddle.”

“Couldn’t.” Sherlock mumbled, his mouth pressed against John’s neck.

“Why’s that?”

“Helping you practice your deductive skills.”

“Git,” John laughed, swatting him playfully on his hip.

“John?”

“Yes, love?”

Sherlock shifted to press a small kiss to the underside of John’s jaw. “Thank you,” he breathed.

John turned his head, capturing Sherlock’s mouth in a lingering kiss, a sweet slide of lips that still managed to make his heart beat faster. “You’re welcome, love. Anything you need, anytime. You only have to ask. Got it?”

Judging by the slight wetness in Sherlock’s eyes, John could tell no one had ever made him that promise before. He was suddenly filled with both pride that he could fill that role for him, and anger that no one ever treated this man with the care he deserved. He squeezed Sherlock a little tighter, and couldn’t resist pressing another kiss to that gorgeous mouth. “I mean it, Sherlock.”

“Yes, John.” Sherlock sighed, snuggling down into John’s chest. “Could you…hold me a little longer?”

John smiled. “For as long as you want. Forever, if you let me.”


Keep reading

Mental Disorders and Insanity

Insanity is not to be equated with mental illness alone. A defendant may have been suffering from any number of medically defined psychological disorders at the time of the offence but still not be ‘insane’ for legal purposes. Insanity, then, must be understood as a legal standard, not a medical or psychological standard. Though the presence of mental illness is a necessary prerequisite for legal determinations of insanity, it does not in and of itself constitute insanity.

In the case of Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in June of 2001, in Houston Texas, substantial evidence was presented attesting to the seriousness of her mental state at the time she murdered her children. Notwithstanding this evidence, the jury found her to be criminally responsible for her actions.

merriam-webster is petty as hell

[image description: a entry on the history of the word ‘calliope’ that reads as follows:

callope: To many listeners, the hyperactive set of steam whistles known as a calliope is more an instrument of torture than of music. To those who like their music melodic and not merely loud, the discovery that the instrument is named after a goddess whose name literally means ‘beautiful-voiced’ may constitute a case of adding insult to auditory injury.]

4

Manufacturing a Plaintiff — Plessy vs. Ferguson

In Constitutional law a test case is a case purposely created by activists to challenge a specific law in the hopes that it will be struck down in court. The use of test cases today is not uncommon, but its use dates back to the late 19th century. One of the first test cases in history was the landmark case called Plessy v. Ferguson. 

In 1896, a group in Louisiana called the New Orleans Committee of Citizens chose to challenge Separate Car Act, which stated that railroad cars had to be segregated based on race.  Whites occupied one care, while black people or people of mixed race had to sit in another car to the rear.  While the Committee was dedicated to overturning the law in the courts, there was one problem. There were far too few people willing to challenge the law personally. Thus, the Committee decided to take things into their own hands. A Committee member named Homer Plessy volunteered to become the plaintiff. Plessy was 1/8th African American, and thus under the law had to sit in the rear car. Of course, being 1/8th black, Plessy would have been indistinguishable from any other white man. So when he boarded the “whites only” car of a train on June 7th, 1892, he had to openly announce to the employee checking tickets that he was of mixed blood.  At that point, the employee said something along the lines of “I’m sorry sir, but you have to sit in the blacks only car.” Of course, Plessy refused.

Almost on cue, a man sitting near Plessy announced himself as an officer of the law and arrested Plessy.  It turns out, the officer was a private detective hired by the Committee to arrest Plessy according to plan. Plessy was hauled off by the detective to a local jail.

The case was appealed through state and Federal Courts until eventually it was heard before the Supreme Court on April 13th, 1896.  Unfortunately for the Committee, their test case backfired when the Supreme Court decided in a 7 to 1 decision that the Louisiana law was Constitutional and did not violate anyone’s 14th Amendment rights so long as the railcars were “separate but equal”.  The decision would reaffirm and solidify segregationist policy in the US until the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. 

Homer Plessy was ordered to pay a $25 fine for violating the law, which was covered by the Committee.

Quotes By John Wayne Gacy

“It’s always the most patriotic asshole in the room that has absolutely no concept of what patriotism actually means.”

“This low self-image was routinely and continuously reinforced by that domineering, uncompromising dad, a man who would routinely refer to his son a dumb and stupid sissy, a fag, a fruit picker, or worse.”

“Officer: “Did you mention finding these wallets to Mr. Gacy?” Cram: “Yeah, I asked him if I could use the I.D. He said I was underage, so on and so forth, and, ah, to go out with my older partners to do drinking. He said, no, you don’t want those.” Officer: “Did he say why?” Cram: “He said ’cause they were some people that were deceased.” Officer: “Would you repeat that?”

“Too often, when a defense attorney wins a case on constitutional grounds, it is offhandedly described in the press, and sometimes even by our society in general, as a “loophole.” This is always done so in the pejorative sense, as in, “That scumbag lawyer got his terrible criminal client off on a goddamned loophole. It’s a travesty of justice.” Unfortunately, this statement, this sentiment is completely ass-backward. When a defendant is convicted of a crime in spite of his or her constitutional protections, that is the loophole—that is the true travesty. Otherwise, why have a Constitution? Why don’t we just revert to mob rule, mob lynchings? Why is it so often accepted practice in the minds of some in this country that the police can break the law in their efforts to get the bad guy, as long as they get the bad guy? How silly is that, the police can break the law in order to arrest a person that broke the law? What?”

“It’s funny, the people that wrap themselves most snugly in the American flag, the ones that scream the loudest about their freedoms and their constitutional rights are often the very people that lose sight of the meaning of all of that wonderful rhetoric as soon as push comes to shove, as soon as the precepts that we as a people so cherish come to be tested.”

“There he sat, implicated in the disappearance of a human being, under suspicion for perhaps kidnapping, abduction, or worse; and he was nonchalantly going on and on about his political connections.”

“If the Constitution says one thing and our emotions say another, the Constitution should be followed rather than the emotion, every single time. It is that very Constitution that protects those rights that we like to call inalienable.”

“It is very easy to speak abstractly in a bar or at a cocktail party about how tough one thinks the laws should be, but perhaps one should wait until they have actually been wrongfully accused to fully formulate that opinion.

“Maybe we should stop putting pot smokers, prostitutes, and petty thieves in prison and leave some room for the John Wayne Gacys of the world.”

RANDOM HAUS HEADCANONS

Because why not? 

Shitty, on occasion, would throw olives from the Reading Room at the Lax house. When asked why olives. He went on a long diatribe about capitalism and such. When Lardo asked, Shitty snorted and said “Because the Lax Bros are the pits, Lards.”

There has been sock surfing tournaments where he who slides the farthest gets the last piece of pie.

Bitty made Chowder a special “welcome to the Haus” pie and put it in his room. But when Chowder wants alone time with Farmer, he’ll go to her place. Because Bitty is like his Mom and the stuff he does with Farmer is stuff that his mom and Bitty will never know about.

(Farmer agrees with this line of thought.) 

Keep reading

Person of Interest Machine Codes - Part 1 - “One Percent”

We find out in the series that Finch wrote in some script that comprises that virus that is ultimately used by Decima in an attempt to reboot the Machine. We also come to learn about the Machine creating a persona known as Ernest Thornhill, who has a whole company of individuals manually inputting code back into the Machine after each night’s reboot; code which comprises the Machine’s memories. To counteract the nightly reboots and the virus degradation, the Machine’s coping mechanism is a two-fold process: learn through a list of given texts (ostensibly, from Finch), and have these learning retained through the use of the Thornhill Corporation daily data print-off and input cycle.

In “One Percent” we begin to see blips in the episode in the form of seemingly meaningless script bearing some resemblance to the “blue screen of death” as it is colloquially known. Deeper investigation reveals that each of these screens is actually coded text, placed in hexidecimal ASCII with substitutions of the letters A through F with Greek letters Omega (Ω), Pi (Π), Gamma (Γ), Delta (Δ), Xi (Ξ), and Phi (Φ). In hexidecimal, each digit or command becomes a two digit item (barring the first 0 to 9), and each sequence goes from 0 to 9 and then continues A through F. The high frequency English language letters occurs in the 60 through 80 range. Converting the A to F back from Greek letters and then running through the ASCII equivalents reveals recognizable text.

The episode “One Percent” has the Machine cross-referencing between Macbeth and an online article on “Bioterrorism” and “Anthrax.” To understand the rationale for the Machine flitting back and forth between these two seemingly vastly different readings (mid-word, it would seem), we need to try to see the world from the Machine’s point of view. Harold often stresses that the Machine is not emotional (especially to Root’s romanticizing of the Machine as an entity), and he also stresses that it is objective oriented with its ultimate objective being “saving people.” We know that its predictions are divided into lists of relevant and irrelevant numbers, in so much as they constitute pertinent cases for “national security.” However, we also know that Harold taught the Machine that all lives matter – that every life is worth saving. So, in many ways, the Machine is programmed with internal contradictions: all lives matter, but only some cases have a relevance that demands action. Harold and his team pursuing the irrelevant list then allow the Machine an outlet to relieve the tension of the initial programming and the primary “relevance” objective. 

The Machine’s primary objective being “national security” would make bioterror a legitimate topic for the Machine’s energies. That our first instance of the Machine’s learning manifesting onscreen in the code screens is the Machine consulting canon literature in the form of Macbeth may indicate that it is directly a result of Harold’s influence and perhaps his alterations to the virus. 

We must remember that Harold is at least as much of a humanist as he is a technologist. It is too easy to think of Harold is direct contrast to his partner, Nathan Ingram. While Nathan is the outgoing, people-person, face of the operation, Harold is the introverted programmer. This false dichotomy ignores that Harold is uniquely attuned to literature (they make the library their base of operations) and humanity (he initially pursues technology to help his ailing father). It is Harold’s humanity and morality that see him agonizing through the creation of the Machine that can most closely resemble humanity in its prioritizing. That Root can mistake the Machine’s complex prioritizing as emotion speaks directly to Harold’s vast understanding of humanity (and we know that Root is prone to romanticizing complexity in systems as she also characterizes Harold’s code as “beautiful”).

With all this being the case, the Machine reads Macbeth, probably outright influenced by Harold’s coding but maybe just based on his less overt “teachings.” In the midst of reading the scene (V, I) where Lady Macbeth envisions the “damned spot” symbolic of her guilt, the Machine refers to an article on Bioterrorism and Anthrax, before resuming the reading of the play. 

This can be interpreted in at least two very distinct ways. The first is that the Machine has competing priorities and, even while it is attempting to humanize itself further through literary works, it must also constantly assess threats to “national security” and a case of bioterror has become evident in its relevant list, thus interrupting its reading. While this seems a likely rationale for the diversion, there is reason to doubt it is so simple. The machine should, at this point, be well versed in bioterror and state responses to it. Moreover, the timing of the interruption is telling, as we could look upon this as the Machine attempting to grapple with and make sense of literary symbolism by referencing a topic with which it has a great deal of understanding. As Anthrax on the skin creates a lesion, perhaps the Machine is trying to find a literal reason for Lady Macbeth’s spot. This connection between the texts is too strong to dismiss. Abstract thinking is required to understand the circumstances of Lady Macbeth’s delusion, but the Machine may not know or have the capabilities, yet, to infer as much. However, the Machine is learning. 

That each flash of these blue screens come so quickly would indicate that the machine is speeding through its readings. These three brief glimpses that we see in “One Percent” are the first indication of a change in the Machine and we will come to discover the trajectory of that change throughout the rest of the season and the show.

I choose to think of these flashes as readings given to the Machine by Harold Finch, almost like a professor or teacher might assign readings (roles that Harold finds himself in a number of times in the show). In the contest between Harold and Root regarding the Machine’s emotional capabilities, these readings are crucial to assessing whether Root’s assertions may actually have some basis. So often in the show we are reminded of the Machine’s predictive capabilities, with assets like Reese and Shaw commenting on how well the Machine knows the way they will act and react to situations. We know that the Machine runs simulations on all scenarios and has constant assessments being made of the the percentages of eventualities. As well, we must remember that Finch teaches the Machine chess by referring to the limits of prediction and the immobility that can result in attempting such in a game with so many possible moves. The Machine is a student and a learner. As the Machine is the creation of Harold Finch, we can do worse than to think of these blue screens as Harold’s directed readings. 

As I work through more of the hex code screens, we will get a fuller picture of the course of the machine’s learning. Right up until “Zero Day” we have the substitution cipher, at which point I will share my struggle to decode the final texts. 

The first three screens from “One Percent” are here:

it’s amazing how much therapists will do to avoid diagnosing someone with something they consider a ‘more serious diagnosis’ even though adding the diagnosis… doesn’t affect anything about how my life goes. today my psychologist finally said “i think you have traits that constitute a case of mild autism.” that sentence has so many qualifiers.

there’s this idea that an autism diagnosis will ‘ruin your life.’ ableists will ruin my life far more than any diagnosis will, especially one i recognized in myself long ago.

she’s having a meeting with my parents next week to discuss my diagnoses, treatment plans, and prognosis. when she said it she talked about wanting to be tentative with my mom & not tell her. and honestly, she’s right. when my mom talks about autism, she talks about it as this huge life-ruining thing where you can’t “have a real life.”

my therapist said she was nervous about telling me this because she doesn’t want this diagnosis to overshadow the rest of my life, and because she thinks i’m still capable of living a normal life. 

meanwhile, there are plenty of things that do interfere with me having a “real life” at home.

when i ask my parents basic questions, they laugh at me, or misinterpret my words. 

when i said “i have trouble breaking down tasks, for example, with cleaning up a kitchen, i know partly that there are tasks that go into that, but like, if u asked me ‘how do u clean up a kitchen?’ i wouldn’t be able to tell you how to break it down, even though you’re supposed to clean the surfaces and the floor, wipe the stove down, clean the microwave, do the dishes, and so much more i can’t figure out or put together. could you write my kitchen tasks down for me?” my dad told my mom & therapist that what i said was ‘i don’t know how to clean up the floor’ & infantilized me to my face about it. 

that wasn’t an isolated incident, but i don’t want to go into detail about their abuse.

given that that happened, am i really going to ask my parents how to use our new washing machine, or will i spend a few more months living with dirty sheets because i don’t want to be ridiculed and let my mom keep yelling at me for not doing my laundry.

i know an abled person could figure out these things: using the washing machine, or break down cleaning tasks or do their assignments before two days to the grading deadline. i also know that as much as my parents have told me “questions are always okay,” that only goes as far as “questions a neurotypical adult doesn’t know the answers to.”

I told my dad about the tentative diagnosis, but I had to ask him not to tell my mom.

TL; DR: My autism isn’t ruining my life, but my parents’ reactions to it sure are lowering my quality of life. I don’t want my therapist to walk on eggshells about a diagnosis that’s obvious and clear just because it’s “serious.”