Hi, that title was deceptive. This is actually about how promoting the above message is civilly irresponsible.
Pictured: a successful business woman, fantastic speechgiver, cultural leader, and, so far as anyone can tell, a kind and intelligent human being. She is the American Dream story made real, and so inspiring that it seems fair to wonder if she is really just a human like the rest of us.
She is not a viable political candidate for President. Please, please, please, do not pass around those messages. Even when you are joking, you are doing something dangerous for our democracy.
Oprah Winfrey is a brilliant, inspiring, and moral person so far as I can tell. But American culture cannot survive confusing the boundaries between celebrity and politics.
A large part of the problem with President Trump is not his morals, intelligence, and (lack of) politics- it is his ignorance, inexperience, and disinterest in law and politics and many complicated institutions and histories.
Maybe, if Oprah threw her hat in for a (comparatively) smaller game like becoming a governor, representative, or senator, she would gain the knowledge and skills necessary to be a good president. It is possible, if implausible, that she would be prepared by 2028 after only two terms working in government. She absolutely will not have that experience in 2020. Do not jump on this bandwagon of normalizing the confusion of celebrity and the political.
A cult of personality was a large part of what elected President Trump. That problem has plagued other countries, and we can look to them for examples about how terribly that can play out, no matter how good a person is- or is perceived to be.
Literally in the year 2018, right now, there is a country being led by a woman who was given a Nobel Peace Prize and supported to power on a basis of personality and celebrity rather than administrative, legal, or military accomplishments. Her government is participating in genocide. Right now. In 2018. It certainly looks as though she is at best indifferent to this, possibly supportive in ways that that the global blindly overlooked- but she possibly would not be able to take effective action against it anyway. She doesn’t know how to lead.
If you don’t know who I am talking about offhand, that is a sign that you don’t know very much about recent history and current events. That’s not a moral or intellectual failing- but it is a sign that you should seriously consider learning more before jumping on a political bandwagon that is drastically outside norms.
Turning a figure of admiration, in this case a martyr, into a political leader, is dangerous. American left- I know I’m being a buzzkill, and that Oprah is by no means a direct comparison for Trump. But this campaign of enthusiasm is a dangerous and irresponsible mirror of what the right did in 2015. We saw that mistake play out. The problem is not those specific people- it is confusing the boundaries between civil, monetary, and political interests.
A lot of the problems in American politics, as the left sees things, is money as politics. Sometimes wealthy people support democratic interests that we support, but that does not make the blurring of the distinction any less wrong. The terrible decision to call money ‘speech’ is a weapon that can cut both ways, just as electing a celebrity who we like could work for us for 4 years but ultimately degrades our democracy.
This is another line that we should not cross. We desperately need to pivot to normality, not counter by propping up our kind of celebrity. Don’t do this.
Google’s search engine runs
two-thirds of all searches in the United States and 90 percent in Europe.
“Platform monopolies” like this can
squelch innovation. Google might favor its own services, such as Google
Maps and Google Product Search, for example. This is one reason why the European
Commission hit Google with a record 2.42 billion-euro fine in June.
Why hasn’t Google run into similar problems
with antitrust authorities in the United States?
It almost did in 2012. The Federal
Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition recommended that the Commission sue Google
for conduct that “has resulted — and will result — in real harm to …
But the commissioners decided not to pursue
the case, which was unusual. They didn’t explain their decision, but it may have
had to do with Google’s political clout.
Google is among the largest
corporate lobbyists in the United States, and a major campaign donor.
Google also has enough financial
power to stifle criticism coming from independent researchers.
Last week the New York Times
reported that the New America Foundation, an influential center-left
think tank, fired Barry Lynn, a sharp critic of platform monopolies. Lynn had posted
a congratulatory note to European officials on their Google decision, and called
for American antitrust officials to follow suit.
Since its founding in 1999, the New America
Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google (and its parent
company, Alphabet) and from the family foundation of Eric Schmidt, the executive
chairman of Alphabet who previously served as chairman of New America’s board.
According to the Times,
Schmidt didn’t like Lynn’s comments, and communicated his displeasure to the president
of the New America Foundation. She then accused Lynn of “imperiling the
institution as a whole,” and fired him and his staff.
Few powerful institutions or people like criticism.
But it’s never smart to use power to try to stop it.
Consider Donald J. Trump. It may seem odd to mention
Trump at the same time I’m talking about Google. Google’s executives tend to be
on the left. Eric Schmidt was a major backer of Hillary Clinton.
But power is power, and Trump has demonstrated a
similar tendency to throw his ever-expanding weight around. Like Google, he
doesn’t particularly like to be criticized, if you hadn’t noticed.
Trump also has a record of paying off
politicians. During the 2016 Republican primaries, when attacked by his GOP
rivals for having once donated money to Hillary Clinton, Trump explained “as a
businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you
give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
After Trump’s charitable foundation made a
$25,000 contribution to a campaign organization linked to Florida’s Attorney
General, she decided not to open a fraud investigation of Trump University that
her office had been considering. Not quite the Federal Trade Commission, but a
To support his ambitions, Trump has also paid
for, shall we say, fake news. His presidential campaign seems to have financed a lot of
fictional dirt on Hillary.
Google doesn’t pay for fake news, but it does
pay off academics to help sway public
opinion and policymakers in its favor.
The Wall Street Journal recently
reported that Google has financed hundreds of professors at places like Harvard and Berkeley to write research papers that help Google defend itself against
regulatory challenges of its market dominance. Google’s payments range from
$5,000 to $400,000.
This research has been used by Google in courtrooms, regulatory hearings, and congressional hearings.
Some professors have
allowed Google to see the papers before they’re published, enabling Google to
give them “suggestions,” according to emails obtained by the Journal.
The professors’ research papers don’t disclose that Google sought them out, and don’t necessarily reveal Google’s backing.
I’m not suggesting their
research has been faked. But the failure to fully disclose Google’s connection
with it does raise questions about its objectivity.
Google and Trump are wildly different, of
course, but they’ve been playing much the same game. They’ve used their clout to
stifle criticism, paid members of Congress to pull their punches, and bought
fake or at least questionable facts to support of their goals.
Whether it’s a giant left-leaning corporation
or an unhinged alt-right president, the underlying problem is the same. It imperils our democracy and breeds distrust in our system. Such abuse of power is morally wrong.
you know what I’m fucking sick to death of politicians and pundits saying we as a nation are too divided and need to work together. that everyone is sad when their side loses, and tomorrow we have to pull together. that it is our responsibility to be more open-minded to those with whom we disagree.
it’s a nice thought, but when one side advocates for the violent oppression of the other, reaching across the aisle is meaningless. when one side fears the other because they’re different and one side fears the other because they don’t want to be killed, there is a bigger problem.
so here’s a different message: you don’t have to be kind to people who want you dead. you don’t have to pull together with those who hate you. you are not responsible for the government’s inability to function. when someone hates your entire being, the bedrock of what you are and what you stand for, when someone is so frightened of your inner light they want to snuff you out you do not have to be kind to them.
Why is everyone assuming that Marinette will immediately accept Chat’s real identity and will be the only one insecure about hers????
Do you people even watch the show??
Mari finds Chat’s attempts to flirt annoying as fuck and she’ll never accept the fact that his awkward and clumsy partner and Adrien Im-literally-Prince-Charming Agreste are the same person. If the reveal happens before she falls in love with Chat she’ll be too uncomfortable around that dork, and she’ll question his feelings about him.
So PLEASE stop with this crap.
Marinette is a human being and has the right to feel negative emotions towards Adrien/Chat Noir
And also, she’s not insecure, AT ALL
Maybe at the beginning she wasn’t sure about her being Ladybug because CMON SHE’S A 14 YEARS OLD FIGHTING AGAINST A PSYCHOPATH AND HIS ARMY OF CRAZY BITCHES but now she figured out how to be a capable hero and she’s too good at it!
She’s confident about herself and her abilities as a superhero, a stylist and a class president and her only problem is that she’s a bit clumsy, especially around Adrien but you know she’s a 14 years old with a crush so let this poor girl live!
I once wanted to learn a language called Esperanto, i got so much into it that by the third day of researching I had already mastered the grammar. All left was to learn the vocabulary. I found that so boring that I dropped it.
so I figured I’d give my hot take on 2020 Democratic nomination because why not?
No Country for Old Men:
Jerry Brown: Brown’s name, to my shock, has come up a few times. The first a most major problem is that Jerry is ALREADY 79 years old, and will be in his 80s by 2020. Not to be grim, but it’s mathematically unlikely for a man who is 82 on taking office to live to serve two full terms, even one term would be a gamble. Past the mathematical issue, Jerry is a household name in California politics but over 40 years has never managed to build up a base of support outside is home state. Best known as “Moonbeam” two flopped runs for President hint how round 3 would go even if he was 10 years younger.
Bernie Sanders: It’s pretty clear that Bernie is at least thinking about another run at the Presidency. His problem is in the same as Brown, if slightly less intense. He’s 75 right now meaning he’ll be 79 election day 2020 asking people to vote for a President who will be in his 80s in office is a tall order. I realize that age for whatever reason didn’t hunt the 70 year who eats trash, never sleeps and hates work outs, but I feel like a nearly 80 year old can’t get away with it. I’ve heard many of his supports saying he should run on age alone. Past this Bernie failed to connect with black and latino voters in 2016 and has made a few notable missteps since becoming a mega political figure. More and younger progressives are interested in running and the fandom around Bernie is unlikely to relight with the same flame in 2020, even if it did, it was not enough in 2016, he needs to widen his support outside of white liberals and college kids to win the primary.
Joe Biden: again age is the biggest single problem he’ll be 78 years old on election day 2020, and like Bernie it’s pretty clear Joe is at least thinking about it. Again I think asking voters to have a President in his 80s is a bridge too far. Though the health of the sitting President might be a factor, if Trump very unhealthy lifestyle plus the horrible stress of being President leads to Trump looking sick, weak and unhealthy after 4 years, even a older man who was slim and fit and sharp might benefit next to a fat slow unhealthy mess. Though it might also serve to highlight the risks of an older President. Past age Joe has no geographic or Ideological base. While remembered with a level of fondness by Democrats, his image is as something of a drunk uncle (I know he does not drink) who’s fun and says what we’re all thinking. I’m unsure that translates and the warm fuzzy feeling people have about him as a member of the Obama team I don’t think boost him much. His last two tries to run for President were total failures and his 2015 non-run didn’t show very impressive polling for a sitting VP
Hillary Clinton: While much younger than the 3 other people in this camp (she’ll be a youthful 72 come 2020) and younger than Trump, she’s a woman and as we saw in this campaign women are badly punished for showing signs of age. It seems fairly clear Hillary does not want to run. Her running would set all the former Bernie people’s hair on fire and generally the press would have a field day printing nasty stories and playing the 2016 primary all over again along with “have the Democrats learned nothing?” all pretending that Hillary didn’t win the popular vote and is super out of touch, blah blah blah. What’s more many of her hardcore supporters suffered a soul crushing loss and might not have the energy to gear up for a 3rd bitter battle to the nomination, while many feminists who like Hillary but aren’t worshipers likely feel it’s time for a new younger woman to try to take down the glass ceiling
When you’re famous, they let you do it:
Kanye West: he said he will run for President, if he means it, or remembers saying it, who knows. A lot of people will say in the age of Trump we should count out any rich or famous person. However this over looks that the Republican Primary voter and the Democratic Primary voter are very different. The later is more likely to be college educated for one thing, as well as ethnically diverse and think experience is important. Getting back to West, he’s generally seen as a huge egomaniacal crazy person. His troubles with mental health are public record with his very public break down in November 2016 (and some other things). His ego and weird need to pick a fight with the First couple of hip hop Jay Z and Beyonce has made him a messy and controversial character even with-in Hip Hop and the black community. What’s more is November trip to Trump Tower and on stage weird pro-Trump rant are unlikely to go away. Also there’s the in-laws, his wife is someone a lot of people love to hate, and his step-mother-in-law Caitlyn Jenner has gotten a lot of well earned stick for being a Republican Trump supporter and rather tone deaf on most issues.
Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson: He has a history, low key granted, as a Republican, has not really voiced any support for any policies or issues. On the plus side he’s handsome, can laugh at himself and seems generally likable and well liked. That said there’s no proof he’s smart in any way and much of his history has been playing over the top characters and then over the top characters making fun of the fact that he’s the Rock. All of which might give Democratic votes Trump flashbacks. If he can speak clearly on issues and takes progressive stands on things he’ll have an outside shot, but if he can’t sound like an adult and draw a line under the guy who stars in the Baywatch remake he has no hope
Mark Cuban: As boorish and bullying as Trump, with vague political ideas that mostly circle around Ayn Rand and discount libertarianism Cuban is unlikely to get Democratic voters hot. Voters will likely also dislike his early softening on Trump after the election. That said Cuban has clearly made a lot of money, a lot of Democratic Primary voters loath Trump and might wish for a candidate who only bullies, attacks, and mocks the object of their hate, his money and experience with politics before now puts him above Johnson or West but behind the next guy
Mark Zuckerberg: One of the handful of business people in the 21st century to be a household name. Young, tech friendly he and his company seem the very embodiment of white millennial ideas of diversity and inclusion. Sadly for the Zuck the place one might expect him to most popular, with people under 35 who are on-line a lot is the place he’s the least popular. Justified or not a lot of people get a creepy big brother vibe from Facebook and Zuckerberg has become something of a Hollywood stock villain type, with Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor just being a retread of his performance from The Social Network. indeed that movie is a major problem for Zuckerberg, he’s a villain and a creep in a hugely popular movie all about him. Zuckerberg is and always has been a slightly awkward, slightly off nerd, and lacks the charm to fight off attacks that he stole Facebook from someone, he’s too California tech kid to be relatable for much of America. That said weirdly Zuckerberg might play well with older voters who didn’t see the Social Network, don’t understand the problems people have with Facebook and see a young, fairly good looking young man who built a company they know and likely use, who’s used his money to do good stuff, who has a charming and beautiful wife and a multi-ethnic family, basically a kind of anti-Trump. Outside of the story of how Facebook started I’ve never heard any stories of him being a jerk on a personal level, and while we laugh at him feeding cows, some people like when the big city liberals come out and get their hands dirty.
The (White) Dude abides:
Steve Bullock: Freshly re-elected in a bad year for Dems out of a Red state. All sounds good, but the state is Montana, who’s Democratic party is hardly reflective of the national party. In a party headed to the left it’s unlikely a western conservative will get people off. past this he has no national name recognition, and his last name is a British slang term for a testicle, something the internet will love
John Hickenlooper: a two term governor of a key swing state that Democrats need to win, Hickenlooper has a fairly progressive record, will likely make stoners and college students happy because his state has legal pot (even though he didn’t support it, that’s likely to be a detail glossed over by 2020). counting against him is that he’s largely unknown outside his state and political nerd circles, and he has a frankly ridicules name and is skinny and odd looking. A strange looking man with a very weird lass name, politics can be piety that way.
Terry McAuliffe: another governor from a key swing state, but like Bullock and Hickenlooper with very little name recognition outside is own state. Past this McAuliffe will have been out of office for 3 years, the 2017 race is likely to get far more attention than his race and if Tom Perriello replaces him, he’ll have been beaten in what looks and feels like a Clinton Bernie rematch, with Perriello as Bernie, close links to the Clintons will likely get him tarred as a corporate Democrat.
Still feeling the Bern:
Tulsi Gabbard: A lot of ink has been spilled about Gabbard, but she’s young, very pretty, multi-ethnic from a minority majority state with a military record. Her support for Bernie endears her to a block of his voters. However, she’s just a Representative, no one since Garfield has jumped from the House to the Presidency. Again remember Democratic Primary voters different from Republican ones. Her support for Assad has won her alt-right fans, but both those facts will likely be horrifying to most Democratic voters. It’s unclear if she’ll be able to use her status as a minority and woman to hide from attacks based on past homophobia and islamophobia. Finally her early meetings with Trump, her statements about Russia and Putin and the bridges she burned down with non-Bernie supporters in the party are all likely to hurt her badly
Elizabeth Warren: Likely the only person the American Left liked more than Bernie going into 2016, and her being a lady and feminist well known for forcefully speaking her mind warmed her to one group Bernie struggled with, Feminists. That said Warren likely suffered damage by sitting out the 2016 primary as long as she did, hardcore Bernie supporters feel betrayed and did nothing to win the hearts of Clinton fans. Past that Warren’s tone and attacking passion has made her a hate figure for Republicans but not widened her appeal past the left of her own party.
The Senator from somewhere
Sherrod Brown: A populist leftie in a key swing state. Downsides being he sided strongly and early with Hillary, thus is “no longer a progressive” to Bernie supporters. Much ride on if Brown can be re-elected in a state that is getting redder all the time, his raspy voice has never lent itself to rising oration, and it’s a little unclear what he brings to the table, despite his best efforts he’s never captured the left of the party’s hearts and minds the way Sanders and to an even greater degree Warren did before 2015.
Chris Murphy: having been in room with Chris Murphy, Chris Murphy thinks he should be President. He’s young, good looking and has laser focus on one easy to understand policy idea that is fairly popular with base Democrats. Sadly for him, that policy is gun control. While nothing he’s saying is radical the NRA will do anything to stop him, and his campaign will likely get attacked early and often by Newtown truers fueled by Alex Jones. bluntly Murphy is not a great speaker or a very interesting guy, nice enough but likely to struggle in any state without be cities with gun crime problems, like say Iowa or New Hampshire.
Cory Booker: He’s young, he’s black, he’s hot. Sadly for Cory every time he opens his mouth people want to hear Obama. Booker lacks Obama’s speaking skills and has failed to impress basically every time he’s gotten a prime time shot at the mic. Past that he doesn’t have a lot of accomplishments to his name, For whatever Reason Bernie supporters went after him hard early in the year for voting against Bernie, if this is a sign of the progressive reaction to him or not is hard to say. Booker seems to be skating on Street Fight 15 years later. Past that Booker is a single man, in politics being young, handsome, and always single makes people talk
Mark Warner: Senator from a key swing state, looks like he was sent from casting to play the President some time between 1940 and 1964. This hinges a lot on what the next 4 years looks like, Warner is not the fire breathing Trump slayer a lot of Democrats want right now, but will they still want that in 2020? Will Warner slowly become a national figure based off being the face of the Congressional inquiry into all things shady Russian and Trump? who can say, if not Warner is too bland and boring, if he’s the claiming face of justice slowly wading toward the truth, thats a leg up
Al Franken: Funny, witty, and good on the attack. Al is the kinda guy millions of liberals are turning to every week, the grandfather of political humor in the style of the Daily Show, as well as of left wing TV (MSNBC’s Maddow got her start with Franken on Air-America Radio) It’s the world he help build that’s keeping millions of Democrats sane. However most of them don’t know this, Al’s more or less been on ice since getting elected though his first book in 12 years might help people rediscover him. Another problem is Franken has been in comedy for 40 years, jokes that were funny and/or off color in the 1970s are surely offensive now, so there are surely hours of clips of Al saying racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic things as joke on SNL and later stand up and in his often crassly funny political books from the 1990s and 2000s
The Ladies doing it for themselves
Tammy Duckworth: A lot of women were put out and also made spitting mad that a sexist monster beat a woman for the Presidency and want a woman badly. Duckworth is a war hero with an inspiring story, a fresh and new face in the Senate. Sadly for her, her disability will surely be an issue, it wasn’t in her Senate race because she was running in a deep blue state, against someone who also had a disability and couldn’t walk well. However a FIT President is important and the standard to be a fit woman President was clearly higher, people won’t be comfortable with a President who has to sit to talk to world leaders. Past that she’s never been a great public speaker and would face “well she’s been a senator for what? 15 minutes?” criticisms
Tammy Baldwin: A strongly feminist Democrat from a state Democrats normally win but lost in 2016 and want back badly. Having heard her speak she’s not amazing but pays the bills. Sadly for her she’s a lesbian, her sexuality, the electability of same, would likely take over her campaign, with people gun shy about “identity politics” it would likely handicap her against more well known candidates.
Amy Klobuchar: One of the longer serving Democratic Women in the Senate, Al Franken’s other half, a well established member of the establishment liberal wing of the party. She likely will suffer by not being as well known as others, she’s also awkward both physically and in speech, funny she’s just a little big too nerdy, to nasally, plus as an establishment woman she’s likely to rub Progressives the wrong way
Kirsten Gillibrand: Young, beautiful, experienced in the Senate and having built on a rock hard anti-Trump record, one of the one’s to watch, the connections to Hillary (a blonde NY Senator holding Hill’s old seat) likely will get those hardcore Hillary supporters behind her, but also runs the risks of setting off progressives, her hardcore anti-Trump stand and not having jumped into the Clinton campaign as forcefully as some may help
Kamala Harris: A lot of people see her as grown in a lab as an admixture of Obama and Hillary. Young, Beautiful, smart, well spoken, black multiethnic and coming out of the State that is framing itself as the anti-Trumpland. Kamala has downsides of course, first being no one is gonna know how to say her first name, but if Obama got over it so will she, second the “what she’s a been a senator for 5 minutes?” her race is likely to get people talking about “identity politics” though she’s managed to make a good case on that, likely her time as Cali AG will bring the wrath of some parts of BLM but we’ll see how much that matters
Too Slick by half
Andrew Cuomo: Governor of a major anti-Trump strong hold, managed to score some out of state progressive brownie points with a very public free college plan that had both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton next to him. However Cuomo is loathed by the progressive base of his state’s party and is seen by basically everyone in the know as a low-key political mobster, his New York sleaze factor is unlikely to go over well in Iowa or New Hampshire (just ask Chris Christie)
Gavin Newsom: Still young, still pretty Newsom has waited a long time to get from “rising star” to Star but he’s almost there, just has to manage to win the California governorship, but that seems pretty likely. Newsom has the record of granting gay marriages at the unthinkable time of 2004 which likely will buy him support of the LGBT community (or at least it’s professional activists) likewise he’s been pro-pot something likely to endear him to college students, much will depend on what he does with real power once Governor, and many will say that he’s only been in high office a year. Past that many again see Newsom as “establishment” making him not very popular with the left of his state party, how much this will be translated outside of Cali, if his slick California air and style will play poorly in eastern rural early primary states is hard to say
This is a simple analytical case study of Charles Manson in which I will focus primarily on the astrological explanation behind certain quotes of his. You may need basic knowledge of Manson’s life and crimes in order to understand what he’s saying. (It’s a pretty long post so I put it under the cut.)
“Never question a man’s patriotism by the blood that runs in his veins, or by the nationality of his ancestors; we should judge a man by what he is, rather than where his forefathers came…” ~Manuel L. Quezon
(( So maybe a few of our half-blooded Filipino brothers and sisters are insecure about being a Filipino just because they’re not pure or are teased that they should go back to wherever they are stereotyped to have belonged to because of their looks even if they themselves know deep inside that they are Filipinos who love the Philippines and all. Well don’t be insecure, friends! If you have that Filipino blood, then you are Filipino! If you’re a naturalized Filipino, don’t be insecure! You’re still a Filipino! -just be sure you’re a legal Filipino peep ok, so that problems with the law will be avoided ;;w;“- Even though there are some bad or not so good things with being a Filipino, well, isn’t that the same with other nationalities as well? So don’t let those petty words put you down, stand proud; be proud to be a Filipino! ^_^b ))
MANUEL L. QUEZON
-was a Filipino statesman, soldier, and politician who served as president of the Commonwealth of the Philippines from 1935 to 1944. He was the first Filipino to head a government of the entire Philippines (as opposed to the government of previous Philippine states), and is considered to have been the second president of the Philippines, after Emilio Aguinaldo (1899–1901). Quezon was a Spanish Filipino, with both his parents being Filipino mestizos.
In 1907, he resigned from the governorship and tried for a seat in the First Philippine Assembly, and he won by the largest majority, for he was popular with the masses as well as the ilustrados. He became floor leader of the Assembly and distinguished himself with oratory, delivered in flowery Spanish phrases.
During his presidency, Quezon tackled the problem of landless peasants in the countryside. His other major decisions include the reorganization of the islands’ military defense, approval of a recommendation for government reorganization, the promotion of settlement and development in Mindanao, dealing with the foreign stranglehold on Philippine trade and commerce, proposals for land reform, and opposing graft and corruption within the government. Credit must also go to Quezon who used diplomacy to convince Americans that Filipinos were prepared in governing their own sovereign government.
> Based on Aida Rivera Ford’s HEROES IN LOVE [Four Plays], published by Anvil Publishing, Inc.
> McArthur, Douglas (1964). Reminiscences.> Quezon, Manuel L. (1946). The Good Fight.
> Perret, Geoffrey (1996). Old Soldiers Never Die: The Life of Douglas MacArthur.
SasuSaku Month - Day 1: First Love || [Fanfic] Prospective Partners I (Sasuke)
Title: Prospective Partners I (Sasuke)
Notes: First revision done. I’ll probably re-read it again a few times just to make sure there are no more mistakes ^^ Also, I forgot to clarify a couple of Japanese terms that I used. They’re at the end of the story. I hope you like it :)
PROSPECTIVE PARTNERS I (SASUKE)
Tired after a long day of meetings, Uchiha Sasuke, President of the Uchiha Corporation threw his briefcase onto the enormous desk of his office and sighed, pulling at his tie while plopping down unceremoniously on his chair. His head was throbbing uncomfortably, the prelude of a massive headache.