textual-relations

anonymous asked:

In your essay on Catelyn, you write: "Catelyn gives away both Robb’s hand and Arya’s, missing a hint that Walder would have settled for Edmure marrying one of the Frey ladies. (Note how focused Walder is on slights paid to him by Hoster Tully.) It’s just not a good deal that Catelyn made." This particular observation intrigues, due to its subtlety. Can you relate the textual evidence for this 'hint'?

Here we go!

[Walder Frey’s] head bobbed up and down. “Your lord father did not come to the wedding. An insult, as I see it. Even if he is dying. He never came to my last wedding either. He calls me the Late Lord Frey, you know. […] Your family has always pissed on me, don’t deny it, don’t lie, you know it’s true. Years ago, I went to your father and suggested a match between his son and my daughter. Why not? I had a daughter in mind, sweet girl, only a few years older than Edmure, but if your brother didn’t warm to her, I had others he might have had, young ones, old ones, virgins, widows, whatever. No, Lord Hoster would not hear of it. Sweet words he gave me, excuses, but what I wanted was to get rid of a daughter.”

-Catelyn IX, AGoT

Walder is speaking to Catelyn as Catelyn Tully in this interaction, rather than Catelyn Stark, and his preoccupation with the matter of Lord Hoster’s “slights” - specifically how he brings up a match for the still-unmarried Edmure - probably should have tipped her off that Walder would be sufficiently satisfied as grandfather to a Lord of Riverrun.

Now, giving away Edmure’s hand is technically well outside the scope of Catelyn’s authority as an envoy for Robb (acting Lord of Winterfell), but as we see with Catelyn’s call for a Great Council to Renly, she’s not shy to act outside the technical scope of her mission when she thinks there’s a need. At this point of the story, she’s also got Hoster to back her up (at this point he’s with it enough to give orders concealing the extent of his sickness - if Catelyn goes to him and explains, he’s capable of approving her actions and likely to agree with her reasoning).

anonymous asked:

How do you feel about constitutional originalism?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me fucking tell you how much I hate orginalism. 

It is so obvious that the Constitution of the United States was written in such a way to be able to evolve with a changing society (because the framers weren’t idiots and knew that it wasn’t going to stay 1787 forever) that it astounds me that anyone (especially a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE) would think otherwise. To me, it’s not even up for debate. The Constitution was, is, and always will be a living document. 

Both the original intent theory and the original meaning theory are absolute bull and undoubtedly the product of rich white men wanting to keep their power, status, land, and money. 

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.

In what world is this even acceptable? In what world is what “reasonable persons” thought in 1787 relevant to today or pretty much any year after 1865?

Furthermore, there is no single “original” intent or “original” meaning. The Constitution was hashed out by 55 guys who all had very different opinions on EVERYTHING and I’m willing to bet every single one of them would have interpreted the Constitution’s meaning in different ways.

Not to mention the document itself is very inconsistent in terms of brevity and clarity. There are portions of it that are very straight forward and/or succinct and there are others where it is incredibly vague and/or long winded. It was essentially written on the basis that 1. The average person should have rights and power to make decisions in their own governance BUT 2. The average person is unreasonable and can’t always be trusted to make the right decisions. Neither of these aspects would be necessary if it was mean to be a rigid set of rules frozen in time. Times change and people change. The unreasonable person of 1787 isn’t the same as the unreasonable person of 1890, or 1950, or 2014 .

ALSO, IT’S FUCKING AMENDABLE. 

Why would you make a framework for a system of government AMENDABLE if you meant for it to be taken literally, with ZERO deviation, for the next 368746248270 years? 

At the end of the day I firmly believe that the majority of the framers believed in progress, equality, and liberty but they were also cowards. We can see this in their compromise on slavery. Don’t think for one second that across the board (legal) equality didn’t cross at least one person’s mind for even just a minute. But they didn’t do it because they were afraid. So they left it open for later generations to fix (and they knew they were doing this).

And this is the crux of the problem: They did not create a government of perfect liberty and equality. They created a government that aspired to perfect liberty and equality. This is where the conflict began almost immediately. There was, and is, a disconnect between what people (politicians, average citizens, everyone) perceive the US government to be and what it actually is. It has been a work in progress from the very beginning but the general consensus seems to be the opposite. Many Americans seem to think that the framers birthed a fully formed, fully functional system of government over a few hot summer days in the late 18th century. But they didn’t. And they knew they didn’t. Hell, the Supreme Court didn’t even have a real job until John Marshall decided to give it something to do in 1803 (because even REASONABLE PERSONS back then had no idea how to interpret article III section 1). 

Ultimately the entire cultural attitude in the US toward its government’s history needs to change before SO MANY of the problems caused by it can be addressed. We need to stop glorifying the founders and framers and hanging on their every word. We need to stop pretending that the late 1700’s were “the good old days” when everyone’s rights were paramount to anything else. We need to stop romanticizing these “sacred” documents like they are the word of the Lord and Washington will smite you for regulating firearms. 

Listen, I’m the first to admit I get choked up every time I hear the Declaration of Independence read aloud. I’m very passionate about this period in US history and there are many aspects of it that I find inspiring. And that’s what it should be. Inspiring. It should inspire people to live up to the leaps taken then in the name of equality and freedom so that those goals can finally be reached. 

4

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. ✗

We’re all in hell.

We are trapped in a hellish system where each Filipino struggles in their faith, in conformity, in oppression, in identity and in survival. We live our lives in lies and injustice, inferior to those in power and in control.

Ramon Digal Gulle writes in his poems about the truth, “aspiring for heaven,” the real life that we do not have, and the beauty despite living in darkness and in hell.

In this magazine, we analyze seven of Ramon Digal Gulle’s poems, revolving  around the idea of struggle. (Textual Relations, An Analysis of Ramon Digal Gulle’s poems, Introduction)

Check out our lit project which I had to layout. Not bad for my first time, eh? Tee hee. Let me know what you guys think!

External image


it’s really funny how straight ppl don’t understand what i mean when i say that i’m gay??

they say stuff like, ‘but you’re dating a dude’ as tho that makes me less gay

like, who taught you gay math, friendo?

i’m BIGENDER , IDing masculinely AND femininely 

which means:

me + girl = gay

me + boy = gay

me + nonbinary person = gay^2

warsofasoiaf  asked:

Hi there, question for you that I'm not sure I've ever seen a solid explanation for: One of Cersei's titles that she is given in ASOIAF is "Light of the West." Is there any significance to this other than the fact that she is "of the West" and the title is simply a sobriquet?

bryndenbfish, trying to get me to participate in reddit discussions, eh?

The only place Cersei is styled as “Light of the West” is in AGOT, CH 57, Sansa V, when Sansa attends Joffrey’s first court:

All hail his lady mother, Cersei of House Lannister, Queen Regent, Light of the West, and Protector of the Realm.

It’s never mentioned again, not even in the appendices (I checked my kindle versions), so I’m inclined to think it’s nothing more than a flowery honorific within the text. 

However, I do think the title may have a lot of meta-textual meaning, relating to Cersei’s desire to eclipse her father. (He had been a great man. I shall be greater, though.”) I’m certain Tywin’s death was something GRRM planned even in AGOT. Cersei thinks of Tywin as “the bright star of the west” just after she learns of his death: 

By the time they left Maegor’s Holdfast, the sky had turned a deep cobalt blue, though the stars still shone. All but one, Cersei thought. The bright star of the west has fallen, and the nights will be darker now.

If Tywin was the “star of the west,” Cersei is the “Light of the West”, styling herself as a brighter beacon than her father ever was, and in so doing, prophesying her own inevitable downfall. I’m sure you — and GRRM — are familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s quote about a rising or a setting sun. A Western light is a setting sun. As certain as a setting sun, Cersei’s reign is doomed. 

What does Google have to say? Apparently there was a book published in 1898 bearing that title: “The Light of the West is the beauty of womanhood. It inculcates the hatred of warfare, and of empires established by the greed of nations or rulers. It preaches woman’s desire for the empire of love.” [source] If GRRM is aware of this book, the title seems fitting; Cersei was considered a great beauty. The anti-war connotations of “Light of the West” are rather ironic when applied to Cersei, but they are appropriate to ASOIAF’s overall anti-war theme. GRRM has said that Cersei loves Jaime, and she does desire him: “it had never been any good with anyone but Jaime.”

“Light of the West” is the meaning of the name of Lucy Westenra, a character in Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897). Hmm, is there anything in common? Daughter of a wealthy family, mother barely mentioned, three suitors (Jaime, Rhaegar, Robert?), and aaah, her lover is the one to finally kill her. That might be reaching, but … interesting. 

What I am most interested in for obvious reasons, and unfortunately what only GRRM can answer, is whether “Light of the West” is a female hereditary title for House Lannister.

i’ve been thinking about it since last night and it’s interesting to me how some people interpret sexuality purely based on biology and genitalia, and some people don’t

i.e some cis women who describe themselves as het mean that they would only date someone with a penis regardless of gender, whereas some would only date a person who IDed as a boy, regardless of what stuff they have, etc

IT’S interesting