Witch boy

I am not late to Heated Rivalry, or even those other darlings like me who like their blorbos more filled out- even fat you might say- comma BUT I didn't know what my kind of POV, my USP even, on Hollanov would be considering that I am first and foremost a lover of folklore, fantasy, the supernatural, monster fucking, etc.

But I digress

I've been doing a rewatch of IWtV and now all I want is Ilya styled after Lestat (equally as possessive) with Shane as his human lover/pet that he can spoil and feed and fill up and soften 🤤🤤. I see a few parallels...

So I'll be mulling this over more and, as ever, I'm open to chatting about ideas with like-minded folks! I miss writing but I've always done better with a partner or a sounding board 💔

Like I mean 👀

The year is 1900 well into the Gilded Age, it's the Belle Époque, and Paris is gearing up for the Exposition Universelle.

Shane’s parents, the heiress of a Japanese merchant family and a member of the Treasury Board in Ottawa’s Dominion Government, use their power and connections to arrange for their son to attend the World’s Fair as an attaché to the Canadian diplomatic/ambassadorial team, acting as a reporter/liaison/interpreter.

Despite having a political economics degree from McGill, Shane was a middling student who much preferred his time in athletics; captaining the men’s ice hockey team (the Redbirds) in the winter, and fencing in the spring.

The pressure he is under is intense: the pressure to be the perfect son, excelling academically, physically, overcoming the anti-Japanese sentiment of his Mother’s generation. He has to prove himself in Paris, to his commissioner, provide excellent actionable reports, handle logistics and correspondence, attend countless receptions and events providing whispered, simultaneous interpretation when needed.

It’s a whirlwind of intensity and obligation during the day, but at night…

At night, all of Paris is electrified and it’s a time of unparalleled wonder. At night, he can put down the weight of responsibility he carries. At night he’s free.

That’s something Ilya is intimately acquainted with.

There's not an arrondissement in the whole of Paris unacquainted with Ilya Rozanoff. He knows everyone worth knowing, knows every place worth going. It's not uncommon for him to be accompanied by dignitaries, heads of state, artists, luminaries, and thinkers. Yet no one so famous has ever proven so elusive.

He has a dreamy detachment to the wonders all around him. He enjoys them, but there’s something he thinks he would enjoy more. Someone, really.

Ilya knows the torment of a prison of your own making. He has known it since he was that pitiable village boy, too pretty and gentle to suffer to live in a world that hadn't yet language for mercy.

they also made the following changes:

It was the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation that refused the surgery to the inmates.  When the inmates fought the policy in court, as Attorney General of California, it was Harris’s job to represent the Department.  Yes, she did it, but it wasn’t something she decided on her own to do.  (Also, not for nothing, the inmates won the case.)

Her characterization of the episode:   “On that issue I will tell you I vehemently disagree and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed and deserved,” Harris said.

A policy now exists for inmates to receive transition-related care in California prisons (although apparently the DoC isn’t doing a great job of holding up its end of the bargain*--quelle surprise).  

(*For the record, Harris finished her time as AG and became a Senator shortly after this agreement was reached, so it’s someone else’s job now to enforce it.) 

The thing to keep in mind here is that, as Attorney General, Kamala Harris couldn’t wave her hand and have everything in the entire California Department of Justice go exactly as she wanted it--and she won’t be able to as Vice President, either.  We currently have a president who thinks that’s how it works, and we’re damned lucky he’s wrong.  

She had (and will have to) work with large number of people who hold different views.  (Another article I read said that the California Department of Justice, which she ran as AG, employs about 4,800 people--that’s a lot of different views.)  If she had refused to back the Department of Corrections in their case, she would have alienated people whose cooperation she needed to be able to rely on.  (If she even had the option of not backing them and staying AG--I’m not sure how it works, exactly.)  Even people who agreed with her about the specific matter might have disapproved of her hanging her subordinates out to dry.  (Another thing our current president does constantly--notice how Harris isn’t saying that the person in her office who actually wrote these briefs is a bad guy that she barely knew.)

So here’s what actually happened when Kamala Harris “fought against transwomen in prison seeking gender affirmation surgery”:

The Department of Corrections had a policy denying gender-affirmation surgery to inmates.  

Two inmates fought that policy in court.

Harris defended that policy in court (or, more accurately, was the supervisor of the person who did so--but the legal documents went out under her signature, and she takes responsibility for their content).

Harris also worked to change the policy.  

If you’ve had a job, you’ve probably been in the position of having to carry out a policy that you don’t agree with.  Your choices are to quit your job in protest or stay and argue that the policy should change.  If you pick option B, you still have to follow the policy while you’re working to change it--again, just about the only person in the world who doesn’t know this is Donald J. Trump, because he’s never had a real job where he answered to anybody.  

The law, especially in a democracy, is a slow and frustrating thing. Lawyers are sometimes put in positions where they are presenting arguments for something they may disagree with.

The reason why a lawyer would agree to do this often comes down to the political theory that we must rigorously and honestly test ideas, and that requires cogent emphatic arguments from both sides.

It’s easy to say in this case that the correct result should be obvious, But we can’t just design a system that says “oh but you can skip the full legal process for stuff that is clearly right/wrong”

BECAUSE THEN THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU TAKE THAT IDEA AND USE IT TO PUT YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS IN JAIL OR EXECUTE YOU.

So yes, we apply this really onerous process to things that seem really obvious because we must apply the same standard to everything.

Voting to punish evil. I see lots of variations of this. Biden is supporting Israel, therefore we can’t vote for him. Is there any viable candidate who would stop the genocide? I don’t think the anti voting crowd actually cares. They are appealing to moral feelings rather than political strategy, because strategically, you have to realize that voting is not going to change foreign policy, and that change has to be pushed by other means. It’ll probably be something in the long haul.

Democrats should run someone else. First of all, this is a shit strategy. You don’t primary your president in the second term unless your party is falling apart. This may come from people from countries where replacing the head of government is easier, but the POTUS is the de facto party head. Also, going to the lack of thought to the goal — do you know someone willing to primary Biden and able to win who would do the things you want?

Biden hasn’t done anything anyway. This is just a way to bat away pro arguments. There’s plenty of lists of progress on lots of things. Student loans, insulin price caps, regulations, anti-trust.

Putting the entire Palestinian genocide on Biden. I’m not saying there’s not culpability there, but understand that the entire US government is in support of Israel, on both sides. It was a miracle we got a handful of Senators to call for investigations. We should cut off aid, absolutely. Who’s running to do that? And keep in mind that Israel chose to engage. US officials would have liked a more limited response, not out of care for Palestinians, but because they know from experience that it will come back to bite Israel in the form of newly radicalized Hamas recruits.

Liberals just have no hope for change. This is a new one. Just some idea that people are stuck in a rut and that’s the reason the two party system exists. The two party system is a mathematical consequence of the way we vote. There is reason to hope for change. The change, though, whatever means you choose, will take decades. Keep working at it. The hope is not that this election will fundamentally change things. The hope is that many small political actions over the years will push things forward.

Funnily enough, I haven’t seen a whole lot of third party promotion, just lots of this rhetoric aiming to punish. When voting, ask yourself:

Is this problem I have with this candidate something that the other candidate would be better on?

Are there other political actions I can take that will help?

What things can change with a different President or Congress, and what needs to be pursued by other means?

Withholding your vote as a punishment isn’t really going to help. Biden doesn’t know who you are or why you are not voting for him, and there is no one with a chance of winning that will do everything you want. But you have other means. Protest, organize, donate, build up alternatives, advocate for a different system.