ennoblement

First 100 Days: Trump and the Degradation of the Presidency

Trump’s failure to accomplish little or any of his agenda during his first 100 days shouldn’t blind us to the vast harm he has done in this comparatively short time to our system of government, especially his degradation of the presidency.

From early in the Republic, we have looked at the office of the president as a focal point for the nation’s values. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts exemplified for generations of Americans the moral authority of the highest office in the land. It is not merely what these men accomplished, but how they did it; not just their policies but their positive effects on the institutions of democratic governance.

True, many of our presidents have fallen short of those ideals. But our disappointments in those individuals reflected the high expectations we have had for those who hold that office.

Yet under Trump, the moral authority of the presidency has all but disappeared.

I’m old enough to recall when John F. Kennedy invited the world’s great artists, writers, and philosophers to dine at the White House. The nation felt ennobled. 

Donald Trump invites Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent, who once called President Obama a “mongrel,” and we feel sullied.

But it has not just been Trump’s vulgarity.

There have also been Trump’s lies – blatant, continuous, and unsubstantiated even after the lack of evidence has been pointed out repeatedly. 

They are not just any lies, but lies that deepen Americans’ suspicion of one another and undermine our confidence in our system of government – such as his repeated contention that “three to five million” people voted illegally in the last election, or that Obama spied on him during the campaign.

Prior presidents have embellished the truth and on occasion have lied about a particular important thing, such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But never before Trump have we had a president who chronically lies, whose lies have become an integral part of his presidency even in the first 100 days.

There is also Trump’s vast family business, from which he continues to benefit even though the decisions he makes in office affect what he earns, and the almost certain decisions by foreign governments to curry favor with him by bestowing benefits on his business. 

Trump shrugs off such conflicts – even refusing to release his tax returns, even inviting his daughter and son-in-law, each with their own businesses and conflicts of interest, to join him at the highest reaches of the White House.

Some presidents have profited from their presidencies after they leave office through large speaking fees and book contracts. But never before Trump have we had a president for whom conflicts of financial interest during his presidency are so flagrant yet ignored.

The first 100 days has also been marked by Trump’s divisiveness – turning Americans against each other, legitimizing hatefulness toward Mexican-Americans and Muslim-Americans and African-Americans, fueling violence between his supporters and his opponents.

We have had divisive elections before. But after them, other presidents have sought to heal the wounds. Even after the horrors of the Civil War, Lincoln famously asked us to come together without malice. 

Trump, by contrast, has fomented the warring camps – calling his opponents “enemies,” suggesting they are plotting against his administration, and staging rallies to encourage and fuel his bedrock supporters.

We have also seen Trump’s cruelty – toward refugees, undocumented immigrants, and the poor among us. He has issued a budget that would deeply harm the least advantaged Americans, and supported a repeal of the Affordable Care Act that would also hurt those most in need.

He has refused asylum to refugees at a time when the world faces the largest refugee crisis since World War II, and unleashed immigration enforcers on 11 million residents of the United States, many of whom have been productive members of their communities for years. He has even deported people who have been here since childhood and know know no other nation.

Other presidents have on occasion been cruel. But Trump’s cruelty has defied reason. It is utterly unnecessary.

There has also been Trump’s affect on the rest of the world – legitimizing crude nationalism and hateful xenophobia. He has promoted France’s Marine Le Pen and encouraged authoritarians such as Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan, while at the same time confusing our democratic allies and friends.  

Finally, there is Donald Trump himself – who in the first 100 days as president has shown himself to be narcissistic, xenophobic, paranoid, vindictive, and thin-skinned; who takes credit for the work of others and blames others for his own failings; who lashes out at the press and journalists when they criticize him, and who demonizes judges who disagree with him.  

We have before had presidents whose personality defects harmed their presidencies and tainted the office of the president, such as Richard Nixon. But Donald Trump is in a different league altogether. He exhibits the opposite of every civic virtue ever encouraged in our school rooms, town halls, and churches.

The first 100 days is an artificial landmark for presidents. But it does offer an opportunity to pause and assess what they have done. Too often, though, we think in the narrow gauge of policies and legislation.

With Trump, it’s important to think more broadly. Among the most significant legacies of his first 100 days is his degrading of the moral authority of the office of the president, and, thereby, of America.

French Nobility

Originally posted by slainte71

Who are the nobility?

In France, nobility was a quality of the individual, a legal characteristic that could be held or acquired, and conferred some rights and privileges; such as levied taxes in times of war (since the nobility was supposed to fight for the sovereign), or since the 17th century, only weaker taxing exceptions. Also, a number of military and civic positions were reserved for nobility.

How is it inherited?

Nobility was usually hereditary only through the male line; a nobleman could marry a commoner and keep his nobility, but a noblewoman could not. When the nobility was hereditary, even though it was transmitted through the father, a higher percentage of noble blood or a higher number of noble generations in the family could be important as well.

How is nobility acquired?

  • By Birth. Usually from the father since 1370 (only exceptions are nobility in Champagne until the 16th century and Bar until the French Revolution). Bastards of nobles became nobles when legitimated by letters of the sovereign until 1600, after that a separate act of ennoblement was required (except royal bastards, they were always nobles even with no legitimation).
  • By Office. Depending on the office, the holder became noble either after a number of years in office or immediately. This kind of nobility could be personal or hereditary for 2, 3 or more generations. Here we have nobles for fiscal offices (tax courts and state auditors), “noblesse de robe” (for judicial offices, members of the parliament or courts that have been in office for 20 years),  “noblesse de cloche” (municipal offices, the mayors of towns), administrative offices (the places on the household of the king and the secrétaires du Roi) and military commissions (since 1750 officers reaching the rank of general would receive hereditary nobility).
  • By Letters. Meaning, by royal grant, meaning that the king could always ennoble whoever he wished.

Could nobility be lost?

Yes it could. You lose it by failing to your failing duties (this was called “déchéance”, kind of like Athos in The Musketeers BBC series); by practising forbidden occupations (called “dérogeance”), like commerce or manual crafts or farming someone else’s land (farming your own or the King’s land was ok). Funny that medicine, glass-blowing, exploitation of mines, maritime commerce and wholesale commerce was acceptable. Also, if you were a woman and marry a commoner, your nobility is lost.

What about the titles?

To bear a title you had to be noble. And a title is a rank attached to a certain piece of land. So, there could be nobles with no titles.

  • Duc. A duke (from the Latin dux, “leader”) was originally the governor of a province and a military leader. He was the possessor of a “duché” (a duchy).
  • Comte. A count (from the Latin comes, “companion”), originally an appointee of the king governing a city and its immediate surroundings. He was the possessor of a comté (county) or a high-ranking official in the king’s immediate entourage called Counts Palatine (palace counts).
  • Marquis. Originally the governor of a “march”, a region at the boundaries of the kingdom in need of particular protection. He was the possessor of a marquisat (marquessate).
  • Vicomte. A viscount was originally the lieutenant of a count, either when the count was not at home or then the county was held by the King himself. He was the possessor of a vicomté (viscounty).
  • Baron. Originally a direct vassal of the king or another major feudal lord (a duke or count or so). The possessor of a baronnie (barony).
  • Châtelain. A castellan was the commander in charge of a castle. Few chastellanies survived with the title or “Sire” (sir).
  • Prince. Possessor of a principauté (principality). This title was not the same as the rank of Prince and did not give his possessor precedence at the court.
  • Seigneur. A lord, possessor of a lordship.
  • Chevalier. The equivalent of a “knighted” or a member of certain chivalric orders or the head of the King’s guardsmen. Not the same as the rank of Chevalier.

Wait. Titles and Ranks are not the same?

No, they were not. Because French people are crazy and this could not be easy at all. Let’s say that there were two kinds of “titles”: the ones linked to the fifes (the feudal real estates, meaning the duchies and counties, etc) and the personal ranks.

  • Fils de France/Filles de France. The sons and daughters of the King.
  • Petit-fils de France. The grandchildren of the King through the male line.
  • Prince du Sang/Princesse du Sang. A Prince/Princess of the Blood was a legitimate descendant of the King but was not part of the immediate family. Meaning that they were not Fils neither Petit-Fils de France.
  • Prince/Princess Légitimé. The legitimized children of the King or other males of his dynasty.
  • Prince Étranger. A foreign prince naturalized and recognized by the French court.
  • Chevalier. A rank assumed ONLY by the most noble families and the possessors of very high dignities in the court. Note that the ones with the title of Chevalier and the ones with the rank of Chevalier are addressed differently.
  • Écuyer. This rank (squire) was the one of the majority of nobles. It was a member of the nobility with no title.

How are they addressed?

For this section I’ll use an example name, so each way of addressing will be very clear. Let’s use the Marquis de Castelnau: Philippe-François d'Albignac.

  • The simpler way to address a noble is using Monsieur, Madame and Mademoiselle: here, we would address Philippe-Françoise simply as Monsieur.
  • But of course it cannot be that simple, you could not be sure about who and which Monsieur, Madame or Mademoiselle you’re talking about. So, there is a simple formula: Monsieur/Madame + de + last name or house = Monsieur de Albignac.
  • But you can also refer to someone by their title and not their last name: Monsieur/Madame + le/la + title = Monsieur le Marquis.
  • And you can be even more specific, since we wanna know, are we talking about the same Marquis? You’d use: Monsieur/Madame + le/la + title in full style = Monsieur le Marquis de Castelnau.

Those are the general ways, but it can be very tricky or specific according the rank and title. Here is another helping guide:

  • The King. Majesté, Your/His Most Christian Majesty, Your/His Majesty, Monsieur Le Roi.
  • The Queen. Majesté, Your/Her Most Christian Majesty, Your/Her Majesty, Madame La Reine.
  • The Dauphin (the eldest son of the King). Monsieur le Dauphin, His/Your Royal Highness, Monseigneur le Dauphin, His/Your Royal Highness Monseigneur le Dauphin.
  • The Dauphine (the Dauphin’s wife). Madame la Dauphine, Her/Your Royal Highness, Her Royal Highness Madame la Dauphine.
  • The Fils de France. Referred by their main title, except the Dauphin. I.e. Monsieur le Duc d’Anjou.
  • The Filles de France. Referred as Madame+their given name. Except the eldest daughter that was called Madame Royale until she married, and then that style is used by the next Fille de France. I.e. Madame Victoire.
  • The Petit-Fils/Petit-Filles de France. Addressed using their full style titles.
  • Prince du Sang/Princesse du Sang. Usually styled by their main ducal title, but other more precise titles were also used. It could be used: Monsieur le Prince, Madame la Princesse, Monsieur le Duc, Madame la Duchesse, and so on. In writing only the style Serene Highness was used.
  • Prince Légitimé/Princesse Légitimé. They took last names according to the branch of the House their father belonged and after the legitimization they were given a title. Males were given titles from their father’s lands, and therefore addressed as Monsieur and the title or last name; females were given the style of Mademoiselle de “X”.
  • Prince étranger. Basically addresses as Haut et puissant Prince or Your/His Highness. They are tricky to address, since they could have ANY other kind of title (literally any, from Prince to Chevalier, everything in between), then they could be called according to their first title and/or as Highness. Let’s take the example of Hercule Mériadec de Rohan, Duke of Rohan-Rohan; he could be addressed as: Monsieur le Duc de Rohan-Rohan, His Highness Hercule Mériadec de Rohan, His Highness Monsieur le Duc de Rohan-Rohan, His Highness Monsieur de Rohan, Monsieur de Rohan.

Other words to keep in mind to address nobility:

  • Monseigneur. Used for those of very high office and noble blood, like the Dauphin, cardinals, etc. Usually used only for adults.
  • Excellence. Ambassadors, foreign dignitaries.
  • Eminence. Mostly for cardinals, along with Monseigneur.
  • Monsieur le Chevalier. ONLY used when Chevalier is the rank.
  • Chevalier+last name. To address those who are knighted members of chivalric orders.
  • Sieur. Like Sir in English. Usually used for property holders that are not noble. It is used as Sieur + de + name of the land.
  • Gentilhomme. Used for ANY noble, from the King to the last écuyer.

I hope this works for you @meltingpenguins :D

There will be a second part on English Nobility.

Something that people really don’t understand about Saturn is the concept of having to strive & struggle for something – Saturn doesn’t work the same way as the other planets, especially not the benefics. Most of the time, Saturn’s placement in a chart doesn’t come easily, it has to be worked for. I don’t just mean the “positive” indications, either. Even harsh aspects to Saturn or difficult house positions don’t necessarily just appear in a person. Sometimes they really do have to be experienced, discovered, grown into, and earned before they even begin to manifest at all. This says a lot about the signs associated with Saturn. Capricorn is said to rule Saturn so it shows more easily within them; usually, they earn Saturn at a very young age. Aquarius, the Vedic co-ruler of Saturn, generally has to earn their individuality. Libra – exaltation of Saturn – is the most interesting here. Many people say Libra doesn’t seem very cardinal because they’re passive, gentle, manipulative, what have you. This is because they must earn their strength & assertiveness. It says a lot, because exaltation is elevation / ennoblement / optimization of the planet. So when you interpret Saturn’s placement in a chart, don’t assume his influence is inborn, because that’s a very immature way of looking at him. Saturn is all about the process, the work, the trial, the journey, the search, the lesson.

anonymous asked:

So there's this post going around st*ny circles that basically says as a "burn", oh everyone's comparing Steve Trevor to Steve Rogers but "at least Trevor was a real captain" and lmfao what the fuck, do these morons not realize Cap is an actual fucking captain as well. It's not a fucking ~title~ or stage name, it's his goddamn rank, he's O-3 and he earned it because THAT IS HOW WARTIME PROMOTIONS WENT jfc. Ugh. Sorry for the impromptu rant in your inbox, I'm just fed up with this ignorant shit.

I’d be pissed along with you (normally I am whenever I encounter Steve hate) but I’m too amused at their ignorance. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! LOL! When you try so hard to be a hater, but end up looking like an idiot because you got your facts so incredibly wrong.

In other words, you are 100% correct, Anon, and the people who made and are reblogging that post are 100% wrong. Steve was a legit Captain.

Rank insignia for army officers, including the rank of Captain…

Steve Rogers in full army dress uniform circa Captain America: First Avenger

It’s called a field promotion or battlefield promotion. And when you skip a rank it’s called a jump-step promotion. Very common during WW1 and WW2, in fact, very common right up to the Vietnam War when such commissions were replaced by a centralized promotion system. 

According to the army website: “Battlefield promotions are predicated on extraordinary performance of duties while serving in combat or under combat conditions.”

Which is how Steve was awarded the promotion.

More on the practice of battlefield commissions: “A battlefield commission is awarded to enlisted soldiers who are promoted to the rank of commissioned officer for outstanding leadership on the field of battle. The granting of a battlefield commission has its historical predecessor in the medieval practice of the knighting or ennoblement of a plebeian combatant on the battleground for demonstration of heroic qualities in an exceptional degree.”

You know what the irony of this situation is? Years ago, circa 2009, a movie came out featuring a young soon-to-be Captain who was promoted in a very similar fashion to the way Steve Rogers was promoted by the end of the movie, i.e. skipping rank to be granted the commission of Captain after leading a courageous mission against a serious threat. That character was James T. Kirk, who, incidentally, was played by Chris Pine. And I once defended Kirk’s promotion in a similar way to the way I’m defending Steve’s rank now, as Kirk, like Rogers, is one of my all-time favorite characters.

I think I must be destined to a life of defending young Captains played by actors named Chris from imbeciles who don’t bother to check their facts before making ridiculous posts. :D

Lol!! Taxes are done. I think I need to start advertising for a tax break. 🙄 Uncle Sam is not my favorite donation entity.

I heard a brief talk about attracting experiences in our lives. One of the suggestions is to Make your relationship with yourself​; who you are and how you feel your number one priority. It will improve your relationships and experiences. Bring our best true self to others which evokes the best in others too.

“The small courtesies sweeten life; the greater ennoble it.” ~ Christian Nestell Bovee

Following the 1992 LA riots, leftist commentators often opted to define the event as a rebellion rather than a riot as a way to highlight the political nature of people’s actions. This attempt to reframe the public discourse is borne of ‘good intentions’ (the desire to combat the conservative media’s portrayal of the riots as 'pure criminality’), but it also reflects an impulse to contain, consolidate, appropriate, and accommodate events that do not fit political models grounded in white, Euro- American traditions. When the mainstream media portrays social disruptions as apolitical, criminal, and devoid of meaning, Leftists often respond by describing them as politically reasoned. Here, the confluence of political and anti-social tendencies in a riot/ rebellion are neither recognized nor embraced. Certainly some who participated in the London riots were armed with sharp analyses of structural violence and explicitly political messages - the rioters were obviously not politically or demographically homogenous. However, sympathetic radicals tend to privilege the voices of those who are educated and politically astute, rather than listening to those who know viscerally that they are fucked and act without first seeking moral approval. Some Leftists and radicals were reluctant to affirm the purely disruptive perspectives, like those expressed by a woman from Hackney, London who said, 'We’re not all gathering together for a cause, we’re running down Foot Locker.’ Or the excitement of two girls stopped by the BBC while drinking looted wine. When asked what they were doing, they spoke of the giddy 'madness’ of it all, the 'good fun’ they were having, and said that they were showing the police and the rich that 'we can do what we want.’ Translating riots into morally palatable terms is another manifestation of the appeal to innocence - rioters, looters, criminals, thieves, and disrupters are not proper victims and hence, not legitimate political actors. Morally ennobled victimization has become the necessary precondition for determining which grievances we are willing to acknowledge and authorize.
—  Against Innocence: Race, Gender, and the Politics of Safety

The signs are more stagnant, passive planes of energy whereas the planets are more active vehicles of it. The planets operate through the signs, but something that is frequently disregarded (on Tumblr) is the fact that the signs also operate through the planets – they have to, or else they would solely be, and in quite a bland, distant sense. Following this concept, dignity & debility should be understood as affecting both the planet and the sign involved.

Domicile means “home.”
Planets in their ruling sign are at home, in their natural habitat; they can exist freely, organically, without intrinsic nor extrinsic tension/resistance. Signs that possess their ruling planet are granted the perfect opportunity to present themselves in us & in the world – their planet provides a safe, comfortable platform for manifestation, and they are fountains of energy in the chart, free-flowing due to being built on something they understand and own and are.

Detriment means “harm” or “impairment.”
Planets in the opposite of their ruling sign are lost, damaged by the strain of trying to express themselves through the lack of ease, acceptance, or stability. There’s a disadvantage, a struggle due to discomfort. Signs that possess the ruling planet of their opposites are not equipped with the proper capacity or space they need to function well, or even normally. The planet doesn’t get along with them, so there can be a bit of chaos or lack of direction involved in their manifestation. There is no secure path; they have to draw their own, and it will only work if they learn to cooperate & genuinely converge with the planet.

Exaltation means “honor.”
Exalted planets & signs are raised to their highest possible power, ennobled, given the space and dynamism to stand proudly as the best versions of themselves. They are both optimized and elevated, in an energetic and archetypal sense; there is no holding them back because they have everything they need to be everything they are in the strongest, most effective, most influential, and most engaged way they can manage. They’ve been “charged” so to speak, and they’re ready to manifest to the fullest.

Fall means “defeat.”
Fallen planets & signs are devastated, shrunken and belittled, exhausted; they are weak and small, with the life sucked out of them by the challenges they face. They’re crushed because they have been thrust into struggles they were not prepared for. They aren’t allowed to rest; it’s perpetual strife, constant effort poured into a seemingly futile cause. Existence drains them because they’re pitifully unready and poorly poised; they lack the force to pull through to the other side on their own, so they will end up being dragged.

Planets in Exalt 

The Sun exalts in Aries
Here are twin themes of sparkling self expression and the development of the ego. The Sun is the centre being and constantly in view. In the same way, the sign of Aries is all about establishing an important place on the world and leaving an impression. The radiance of the Sun creates the life force of energy for Aries

The Moon exalts in Taurus
The fertility principle of the Moon is reflected in maternal and nurturing Taurus. The Moon governs the biological processes of pregnancy and childbirth. This is not merely childbirth, the energies of Taurus facilitate the growth of flowers, plants, and crops. The symbol of Taurus reflects a Bull with horns, but also a half crescent moon perched above a full moon.

Mercury exalts in Virgo
Mercury is the only planet that both rules and exalts in the same sign - Virgo. This means that it’s position is highly dignified. Virgo encourages Mercury to pan down its greatest power and potentials. This is focusing on the intricate detail, rearing intelligence, and analyzing tried and tested formula. Virgo not only encompasses the communicative elements of Mercury, but also ensures the information being dispersed is precise and authentic.

Venus exalts in Pisces
The high flowing Piscean receptivity is an open channel for creativity. The awareness of the collective through love is a Venusian focal point. There is the sweeping saturation with romance and ideals. Pisces is the fusion of the material with the ethereal and relating of all things that seem opposite or irrevocable. This is diluting the barriers that separate us all. It’s collective Venus

Mars exalts in Capricorn
Mars is directed inward here, and thrust into the world in systematic, calculative Capricorn manner. Capricorn holds the energy of Mars like a battery and releases without it withering away due to being erratic or scattered. There is Mars ambition, pioneering confidence, and intense physical emphasis

Jupiter exalts in Cancer
Cancer carries home on its back, and so Jupiter mediates the quest and discovery through the inner world. Emotions are filtered through larger than life Jupiter and create a wide scope of emotional experience. There is a longing to come home in Cancer, in a spiritual sense, and this is ennobled by faith, personal growth, and belief governed by Jupiter.

Saturn exalts in Libra
There is intimate knowledge of laws, justice, and fairness in Libra that relates to the conventional and moral structures of Saturn. Saturn promotes the rationale, reasoning, and wisdom that is imperative in balancing the Libra scales. There are the civil themes of responsibility, impartial judgement and the promotion of what is good and right.

-Cherry

“I do not yearn for a virgin nature, a nature without the peasant’s ennobling footprint and without the palace crowning the hill. But a nature safe from plebeian industrialism and irreverent manipulation.”

— Nicolás Gómez Dávila

4

Prairie Warbler, Norwood, VA:

Finally a little light!  And I added the last one for scale, as this is a little bit of a bird.

“I deliberately seek out the specific aspects of everything that is that I find ennobling, affirming, that engender in me hope, faith, action, and health, the chaos and mystery that energize me.  I select and cling to them.  I choose to value and praise them.”

                             ~Pattiann Rogers, from The Dream of the Marsh Wren

deathchrist2000  asked:

Can you expand on Annihilator?

@magenta-mouse​ asked:  wait what did max do to grant? what instigated this?

Well, while honestly I don’t think the book is sincerely intended as a hit piece on Landis in particular, it’s notable that both the main characters in this book about pretentious hedonistic artists who hurt everyone around them are dead ringers for the guy. Landis had a period where he was really clearly trying to win Grant’s approval - his time at Morrisoncon, describing American Alien as “the anti-All-Star Superman”, inserting that one Mxyzptlk story in it that’s as blatant a “love me daddy” as I’ve ever read in the medium - and given he apparently made a pretty public ass of himself at Morrisoncon, and his otherwise well-known status as a douchebag, it’s not that shocking Morrison decided he’d be a good visual inspiration for the Hollywood enfant terrible of his story.

As for Annihilator itself, it’s easily one of Morrison’s best and most criminally overlooked comics, by strength of Frazer Irving blowing the fucking doors down on this one alone before you even get to the story. For those who missed it, here’s the pitch: Ray Spass is one-time Hollywood hitmaker with a heart of pure shit, whose last big production is a ways behind him - he’s working on a “haunted house movie in space” script starring dashing rogue Max Nomax to get back in the game when he learns he has an inoperable brain tumor giving him a week to live. Later the same day, he’s pulled aside by a pair of secret service agents who inform him that at the large hadron collider in Switzerland, they momentarily opened a black hole…and a man named Max Nomax stepped out and asked to speak with Ray Spass before disappearing. When Ray gets back to his apartment and reaches his creation, he learns the truth: Max is all-too-real, fleeing the repressive authorities of his reality who will surely tear ours apart in search of him. He was forced to beam his memories of his life ahead of his physical form into a tumorous data packet in Ray’s skull; only by writing the story can Ray shrink the packet and save himself, and in turn get the information needed to save the universe.

At its core, it’s the flipside to Flex Mentallo in the same way The Filth holds up a cracked mirror to The Invisibles. It’s still about the power of stories to save us all, and Morrison can’t bring himself to be fully cynical in that particular regard, but if Flex was about how art can ennoble and inspire the lives around it, Annihilator is the reminder that it’s at least as often the product of ego or petty rebellion or a simple need to get paid as any real creative impulse or desire to make anything better. Phonogram as compared to The Wicked + The Divine would be a good way of framing the difference between them; one’s about what art does to fans, the other about how fucked-up the actual artists are. All that aside though, it’s clever, it’s spiteful, it’s hilarious, it’s incredibly well-constructed, it follows up on some of the themes of Morrison’s time on Batman in some very interesting ways, and it’s absolutely goddamn gorgeous. It’s honestly probably in my top 5 Morrison comics period, and I really can’t recommend it enough. Baby Bug-Eyes alone was the sensational character find of 2014.

youtube

Oskar Eustis, artist director of the Public Theater, announcing Hamilton’s move to Broadway (2015):

…the building that was founded upon the premise that by putting Shakespeare next to the work of contemporary dramatists, that you could hold up a model for drama to aspire to. And I have to say, Lin-Manuel Miranda is Shakespearean in his ambition and in his achievement. What he has done is what Shakespeare did - take the language of ordinary people, raise it to verse and by doing so, ennoble both the speakers and the language itself. He’s done what Shakespeare did his history plays, which is to retell the story of the founding - the foundational myth of our country in a way that realises the promise of those myths, that makes sure the country belongs to everybody. And Hamilton doesn’t just say that; Hamilton embodies that.

Lin-Manuel Miranda on the same occasion:

I’ve wanted to work at the Public [Theater] as long as I have known I wanted to be a writer. So this run at the Public is a dream come true.

(Watch til the end for Lin getting emotional and quoting Alexander Hamilton.)

People of Germany: Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) was a German poet, philosopher, physician, historian, and playwright. He was born in Marbach, Württemberg as the only son of a military doctor. He grew up in a very religious family and spent much of his youth studying the Bible, which would later influence his writing for the theatre. He had 5 sisters. He was named after King Frederick the Great, but he was called Fritz by nearly everyone. As a boy, Schiller was excited by the idea of becoming a cleric and often put on black robes and pretended to preach. Later, he entered the Karlsschule Stuttgart (an elite military academy), where he eventually studied medicine. During most of his short life, he suffered from illnesses that he tried to cure himself. While at the Karlsschule, he read Rousseau and Goethe and discussed Classical ideals with his classmates. At school, he wrote his first play, The Robbers, which dramatizes the conflict between 2 aristocratic brothers: the elder, Karl Moor, leads a group of rebellious students into the Bohemian forest where they become Robin Hood-like bandits, while Franz Moor, the younger brother, schemes to inherit his father’s considerable estate. The play’s critique of social corruption and its affirmation of proto-revolutionary republican ideals astounded its original audience. Schiller became an overnight sensation. Later, he would be made an honorary member of the French Republic because of this play. In 1780, he obtained a post as regimental doctor in Stuttgart, a job he disliked. In order to attend the first performance of The Robbers in Mannheim, Schiller left his regiment without permission. As a result, he was arrested, sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment, and forbidden by Karl Eugen from publishing any further works. He fled Stuttgart in 1782, going via Frankfurt, Mannheim, Leipzig, and Dresden to Weimar. Along this journey he had an affair with an army officer’s wife Charlotte von Kalb. In 1789, he was appointed professor of History and Philosophy in Jena, where he wrote only historical works.

Goethe convinced him to return to playwriting. He and Goethe founded the Weimar Theater, which became the leading theater in Germany. Their collaboration helped lead to a renaissance of drama in Germany. For his achievements, Schiller was ennobled in 1802 by the Duke of Saxe-Weimar, adding the nobiliary particle “von” to his name. He remained in Weimar, Saxe-Weimar until his death at 45 from tuberculosis in 1805.

9

charité // historical figures {2/?}

emil von behring (1854-1917) was a german physician and scientist. he is credited with the discovery of a diphtheria antitoxin and the development of an antiserum (together with his colleagues kitasato shibasaburō, paul ehrlich and erich wernicke), thereby creating an effective cure for the infection that was a major cause for child death at the time. the press hailed him as the “saviour of the children”. later, he was also to become known as the “saviour of the soldiers” when he developed an improved cure for tetanus that was used to treat the soldiers fighting in the dirty trenches of world war one.

in 1901, he received the first nobel prize for medicine. in the same year, he was ennobled.

emil von behring was unpopular with colleagues, employees and students, due to his ruthless character. he cheated his jewish colleague paul ehrlich out of his fair share of profits for the diphteria anti-serum. behring himself, who had worked his way up from a poor background, became rich through the production of the anti-serum; but he remained tough on himself and others. he suffered from depression for most of his life and was addicted to morphine and opium, spending several years in psychiatric institutions.

10

gifset per episode    Westworld “the bicameral mind” (ep.10 of season 1)  |  (second gifset of two)

“Since I was a child I’ve always loved a good story. I believed that stories helped us to ennoble ourselves, to fix what was broken in us, and to help us become the people we dreamed of being. Lies that told a deeper truth. I always thought I could play some small part in that grand tradition. And for my pains I got this: a prison of our own sins. ‘Cause you don’t want to change. Or cannot change. Because you’re only human, after all. But then I realized someone was paying attention, someone who could change. So I began to compose a new story for them. It begins with the birth of a new people and the choices they will have to make and the people they will decide to become. And we’ll have all those things that you have always enjoyed… Surprises and violence. It begins in a time of war with a villain named Wyatt and a killing. This time by choice. I’m sad to say this will be my final story. An old friend once told me something that gave me great comfort. Something he had read. He said that Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin never died. They simply became music. So, I hope you will enjoy this last piece very much.”