#Application Security Fundamentals | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

kleopatra45 · 1 year ago

Text

Asteroid Ceres (1)

Asteroid Ceres (1) in astrology represents nurturing, caregiving, and maternal instincts. Its placement in a birth chart influences how one nurtures and seeks nurturing from others. Ceres signifies emotional sustenance, family dynamics, and the ability to create a nurturing environment. Understanding Ceres' position reveals fundamental aspects of one's approach to care and emotional fulfillment in relationships and personal life.

Ceres in the Houses

Ceres in the 1st House: This placement suggests that nurturing and caretaking are integral to your identity and self-expression. You may have a nurturing presence and be seen as someone who takes care of others. Your personal growth and well-being may be closely tied to how you nurture yourself and others. Ceres in the 2nd House: Material security and values are important themes in your nurturing style. You may find fulfillment in providing for others or being provided for in practical ways. Financial stability and comfort may play a significant role in your nurturing relationships. Ceres in the 3rd House: Communication and intellectual stimulation are emphasized in your nurturing approach. You may express care and support through conversations, teaching, or sharing knowledge. Siblings and neighbors may play nurturing roles in your life. Ceres in the 4th House: Family and home are central to your nurturing style. You find fulfillment in creating a nurturing environment at home and may take on caregiving roles within your family. Your emotional security is closely tied to your sense of belonging and domestic harmony. Ceres in the 5th House: Creativity, playfulness, and children (if applicable) are emphasized in how you nurture and express care. You may find joy in creative activities with loved ones or in nurturing the inner child. Romantic relationships may involve a nurturing and supportive dynamic. Ceres in the 6th House: Service, health, and routines are integral to your nurturing approach. You may express care through practical acts of service or by promoting well-being in others. Work environments and daily routines may provide opportunities for nurturing interactions. Ceres in the 7th House: This placement suggests that nurturing and partnership are intertwined. You may express care through committed relationships or seek partners who provide nurturing support. Collaboration and mutual care are important in your relationships. Ceres in the 8th House: Intimacy, shared resources, and transformation play significant roles in your nurturing style. You may nurture through deep emotional connections or by supporting others through life transitions. Issues of trust and vulnerability are part of your nurturing dynamics. Ceres in the 9th House: Philosophy, beliefs, and higher learning influence how you nurture others. You may nurture through sharing wisdom, cultural experiences, or spiritual guidance. Travel and exploration may provide nurturing opportunities. Ceres in the 10th House: Career, public image, and achievement are important in how you express nurturing qualities. You may nurture through leadership roles, mentoring, or by achieving goals that benefit others. Your nurturing style may influence your professional life. Ceres in the 11th House: Friendships, social causes, and group activities are emphasized in your nurturing approach. You may nurture through community involvement, humanitarian efforts, or by supporting friends in their aspirations. Group dynamics play a nurturing role in your life. Ceres in the 12th House: Spirituality, compassion, and hidden strengths are integral to your nurturing style. You may nurture through acts of service, healing, or by providing emotional support behind the scenes. Intuitive and empathetic qualities enhance your nurturing abilities.

Ceres in the Signs

Aries: Ceres in Aries nurtures through independence, action, and self-discovery. You may nurture others by encouraging their autonomy and supporting their initiatives. Taurus: Ceres in Taurus nurtures through stability, sensuality, and practical support. You provide nurturing care by creating a secure and comfortable environment. Gemini: Ceres in Gemini nurtures through communication, intellectual engagement, and adaptability. You support others by sharing knowledge and engaging in lively conversations. Cancer: Ceres in Cancer nurtures through emotional support, home, and family. You provide nurturing care by creating a nurturing home environment and offering empathetic understanding. Leo: Ceres in Leo nurtures through generosity, creativity, and warmth. You express nurturing care by celebrating others' uniqueness and encouraging their creative self-expression. Virgo: Ceres in Virgo nurtures through practical assistance, organization, and attention to detail. You provide nurturing care by offering practical solutions and reliable support. Libra: Ceres in Libra nurtures through harmony, fairness, and cooperation. You express nurturing care by promoting balance in relationships and encouraging mutual respect. Scorpio: Ceres in Scorpio nurtures through depth, intimacy, and transformation. You provide nurturing care by supporting others through emotional challenges and promoting personal growth. Sagittarius: Ceres in Sagittarius nurtures through optimism, exploration, and freedom. You offer nurturing care by expanding others' horizons and encouraging their independence. Capricorn: Ceres in Capricorn nurtures through responsibility, discipline, and long-term goals. You express nurturing care by providing stability and supporting others' ambitions. Aquarius: Ceres in Aquarius nurtures through innovation, humanitarianism, and progressive ideas. You provide nurturing care by fostering individuality and promoting social change. Pisces: Ceres in Pisces nurtures through compassion, spirituality, and creativity. You offer nurturing care by providing emotional support, inspiring dreams, and fostering healing.

Ceres in Aspects

Conjunctions: A conjunction of Ceres with another planet intensifies the influence of that planet on your nurturing style and relationships. For example, Ceres conjunct Venus emphasizes nurturing through love and harmony, while Ceres conjunct Mars highlights nurturing through assertiveness and action. Sextiles and Trines: These harmonious aspects indicate ease and support in integrating the energies of Ceres and the other planet involved. For example, Ceres sextile Mercury suggests smooth communication and intellectual nurturing, while Ceres trine Jupiter indicates nurturing through growth and expansion. Squares and Oppositions: These challenging aspects can indicate tension or conflict that needs to be addressed in nurturing and caregiving dynamics. For example, Ceres square Saturn might indicate issues with boundaries or responsibilities in caregiving, while Ceres opposition Uranus could highlight a need to balance independence with nurturing connections.

©️kleopatra45

#astrology community #astroblr #astrology #astrology tumblr #astrology readings #astro notes #astrology observations #astrology asteroids #asteroid astrology #asteroids in astrology

483 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 11 months ago

Text

[Dawn is Pakistani Private Media]

The heinous killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh risks tipping the Middle East into “wider conflict”, the chair of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) told a meeting on Wednesday.

The comments from Gambian Foreign Minister Mamadou Tangara came as a senior Iranian official said during the meeting that the Islamic republic would need to defend itself from Israel, which it blames for Haniyeh’s death last week in Tehran.

Iranian and Palestinian officials called for Wednesday’s gathering of the 57-member OIC in the Saudi coastal city of Jeddah, saying the body needed to respond to the killing of the Hamas leader.[...]

Haniyeh’s killing “will not quell the Palestinian cause but rather it amplifies it, underscoring the urgency for justice and human rights for the Palestinian people”, [Tangara] said. “The sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation states are fundamental principles underpinning the international order.

“Respecting these principles has profound implications and their violation equally carries significant consequences.”[...]

“Currently, in the absence of any appropriate action by the (UN) Security Council against the aggressions and violations of the Israeli regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to use its inherent right to legitimate defence against the aggressions of this regime,” Ali Bagheri, Iran’s acting foreign minister, told the OIC.

[NewStraitsTimes is Malaysian Private Media]

Malaysia has proposed four key measures to support the Palestinian cause, including the establishment of a group of eminent persons tasked with assessing and identifying measures to implement the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion.[...]

He said the measures emphasised the need to expand global support for Palestine, leveraging the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) rulings and the unity achieved by Palestinian factions through the Beijing Declaration.

"Such measures should focus on universal jurisdiction and ensure the consistent application of international law," he stated during the meeting in Jeddah, yesterday.

Second, Malaysia called for the reinstatement of the United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid.

The primary task of this committee would be to halt the illegal occupation of Palestinian Territories (OPT) by Israel and to address the apartheid policies imposed on Palestinians, he added.

Third, Malaysia proposed that the OIC, in collaboration with like-minded countries, request a resumed session of the 10th Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on the Issue of Palestine.

"This suggestion is to discuss the means and ways to implement or "give effect" to the ICJ's Advisory Opinion.

"Finally, we should extend our undivided support and fully assist, in the rebuilding of the Palestinian economy and livelihood post-conflict. This is a key step that would ease their return to normalcy," Mohamad said.

Following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, who also led Hamas' political bureau, Malaysia called for a concerted effort to counter Israeli propaganda and misinformation.

"Malaysia has always been a strong advocate for peace and stability. As much as we condemn the assassination, we urge all parties to restraint, to avoid escalating the situation into a regional and global crisis.

"The attack in Tehran could well be an attempt to derail the ongoing peace negotiations in the Middle East.

"We should not fall into their trap. Cool heads must prevail. We should support the continuation of the peace process to be resolved at the negotiating table. Diplomacy is the way to go," he noted.[...]

According to [Turkish State Media] Anadolu Agency (AA), the world body also urged the UN Security Council (UNSC) to impose an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire on Israeli aggression and "ensure adequate and sustainable access to humanitarian aid throughout Gaza Strip."

7 Aug 24

158 notes · View notes

trans-axolotl · 2 months ago

Text

"Since then, there have been many times when thoughtful and delicate models and codes of ethics drawn up by caring minds and offered to the public--or just as often, to politicians--in hopes of a paradigm shift have been readily absorbed into the segregative function of mental institutions or ended up in the hands of wardens and cops. The introduction of psychiatric frameworks in corrections has only served to euphemize the violence of punishment, as in when veritable trauma-factories like prisons have unironically imported the language of 'trauma-informed care,' or has even paradoxically concentrated such violence in a monstrous hybrid like the psychiatric ward of a maximum-security prison examined by Lorna Rhodes in Total Confinement: Madness and Reason in the Maximum Security Prison. In the 1970s, one of the central demands of the antipsychiatry and psychiatric survivor movement was that any mental health care practice must integrate the experience and expertise of the patient or sufferer. This has roots in the disability movement's demand for 'nothing about us without us.' At various times and place, this is--in itself--a radical political demand that fundamentally challenges the way knowledge is formed and practice is legitimated. But the incorporation of mental health service users does not in itself guarantee fundamental or radical transformations: increasingly, clinical and institutional workplace employ peer-support specialists, researches of all stripes have made strides to incorporate accounts from patients and service users in their studies (however superficially), and some psychiatrists and social workers have no qualms referring patients to peer-run alternative support groups, like a Hearing Voices Group, so long as it doesn't disrupt their own work.

What does this suggest? First, that no model and language is universally applicable and will not have the same effect in every locality or with every group of people under such a massive umbrella as 'psychiatric patients.' Second, it signals that we must be wary of the risk of confounding the production of novel ethical principles (like the centrality of peer voices or the modification of language) or prefigurative models for a transformation of the social matric through which power flows. This matrix can withstand a breakage with a single link (a certain language, a particular practice, a specific law), while still maintaining the general relations ( of guardianship, of imprisonment) in general stability."

-Storming Bedlam: Madness, Utopia and Revolt by Sasha Warren, pg 45-46

#personal #psych abolition #antipsychiatry #antipsych #i think we've had this conversation several times about the co-optation of peer support in the psych abolition chats with charlie #book quotes

33 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 8 months ago

Text

In this 2024 “super election year,” a common concern across Europe and the United States has been the growing popularity and electoral successes of far-right movements and narratives. Though right-wing parties exhibit clear distinctions in different countries, they echo each other strongly in their nationalist orientation, their softness on Russia—and skepticism toward support for Ukraine—and their harsh anti-immigration stance. In the European Union (EU), one election after another has demonstrated the centrality of irregular migration and border security in public discussions and forced mainstream parties to take more restrictive approaches to calm fear and anxiety fueled by xenophobic, far-right rhetoric. The conflation between regular and irregular migration has also severely distorted the debate.

The results of the European Parliament election, France’s snap election, three German state elections, and the Austrian election all showed a strong rightward drift and signaled voters’ distrust in their national governments, confirming the notable shift in tone on migration in Europe toward a more securitized, hardline approach, even among mainstream parties. A look at the numbers indeed reveals a challenging situation as the European Union faces its highest number of asylum applications since 2016, which is straining resources for processing, accommodation, service provision, and thus integration.

In the aftermath of Europe’s so-called “refugee crisis” or “migrant crisis,” which began in 2015, EU member states tried and failed repeatedly to rethink and renew the union’s common policy, until a breakthrough this summer concluded the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. In the interim years, however, national governments made separate plans, implementing ad hoc measures to fortify their borders, restricting access to their asylum systems, and negotiating deals with non-EU states to limit movement.

This patchwork of policies did little to deter an increasing number of displaced persons worldwide from heading toward Europe in search of safety. It did, however, create divisions within and between member states, thus impeding progress on effective EU-wide responses. This political incoherence, together with fluctuating irregular arrivals, has since been exploited by populist parties, who propagate the sense that governments have lost control over their sovereignty and can no longer protect their populations.

To provide a better understanding of the complex situation Europe finds itself in today, this explainer aims to clarify the EU’s role in migration and asylum policy, why the issue became so controversial, how to understand recent developments in the migration space, and what opportunities the new pact offers.

How does migration and asylum policy in Europe work?

The free movement of goods, services, capital, and persons has been a fundamental pillar of the European idea, as enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome that founded the political and economic community that today constitutes the European Union. Within the EU, national borders became almost fully invisible with the creation of the Schengen Area in 1995, which today includes 25 EU member states and four non-EU countries, collectively home to more than 450 million people.

When it comes to regular migration, the law stipulates that the EU has the authority to establish the conditions for entry and legal residence in member states, “including for family-reunification purposes, applicable to nationals of non-EU countries. Member States retain the right to set quotas for admitting individuals from non-EU countries seeking employment.” The fight against irregular immigration requires the EU to implement “an effective returns policy, in a manner consistent with fundamental rights.”

The EU’s Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was established in 1999 to enhance coordination across member states and streamline systems for processing asylum claims and supporting refugees granted protection. More specifically, the “Dublin Regulation” governs relations among member states and manifests that the country of an individual’s first arrival in the EU is responsible for asylum processing and refugee reception. For years, the Schengen regulation of free movement has made the Dublin system difficult to administer, as it unintentionally permitted asylum seekers to self-select destination countries—often based on linguistic abilities, families, perceived hospitality, and benefits. It has also placed disproportionate obligations on EU border countries at the forefront of irregular movements to Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean (Greece, Italy, and Spain) and the Balkans (Hungary, Croatia, and Bulgaria). Finally, a lack of enforcement to relocate applicants in instances of violation has sustained pressure on more “popular” destination countries and undermined authorities’ credibility.

Before this year’s overhaul of common EU policy, as reflected in the agreement on the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum—more on that below—member states at the national level and EU leadership implemented incremental measures to deter irregular arrivals. While some actions temporarily led to decreases in arrivals in certain member states, however, they failed to address the underlying drivers of displacement.

Most notable have been a series of EU deals with third countries in Europe’s neighborhood to improve border management and halt irregular departures toward the EU, in exchange for the provision of financial support. A 2016 agreement with Turkey became a model for future EU deals with North African and Middle Eastern countries, including Lebanon, Egypt, Mauritania, and Tunisia. Italy, on its own, concluded a memorandum of understanding with Libya in 2017, which pledged millions of euros in assistance to enhance the maritime surveillance capacities of the Libyan Coast Guard. In exchange, Libyan authorities would prevent people from departing the Northern African country and intercept irregular migrants at sea to return and detain them in Libya. Yet these “migration partnerships” have been severely criticized by humanitarian groups and lawmakers alike, who express concerns about how the policy legitimizes and increases Europe’s dependency on autocratic regimes, disregards human rights, and threatens migrants’ physical safety. A recent investigative report by The Washington Post and Lighthouse Reports further revealed that local authorities, aided by EU funding and equipment, have violated human rights and asylum law. Several research studies have further criticized the migration deals’ lack of effectiveness.

Why is migration so controversial?

When over 1.2 million people entered the EU in 2015 to claim asylum under international law, most of whom were Syrian refugees fleeing civil war, the CEAS and the Dublin Regulation quickly proved dysfunctional and ineffective in absorbing the shock to European processing and integration systems. The situation sparked tensions among frontline countries—which were challenged by the arrival of 1,216,860 and 1,166,815 asylum seekers at their borders in 2015 and 2016, respectively—and countries further inward, which in many cases resisted migrant transfers to share responsibility and restricted access to their asylum systems under fear of adverse domestic consequences. Municipalities in major destination countries were overwhelmed by the speed and scale of arrivals and faced difficulties mustering enough resources for housing, financial support, and integration of newcomers in their local communities.

Despite agreements by the European Council to relocate up to 160,000 asylum seekers from frontline countries Italy and Greece to other member states to reduce pressures on the Italian and Greek asylum systems, fewer than 12,000 relocations were realized by the end of 2016. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, for instance, refused orders from Brussels to take in 1,294 asylum seekers and instead organized a national referendum on whether the EU should have the authority to “mandate the obligatory resettlement of non-Hungarian citizens into Hungary,” which he used to validate his harsh domestic anti-immigrant approach. Stoking fears of a Muslim “invasion” and claiming his country was the “last Christian-conservative bastion of the Western world,” Orbán’s approach also included the construction of fences at Hungary’s southern borders, changing asylum laws to speed up processing and reduce protections, and introducing “transit zones” at Hungary’s border with Serbia, which have been condemned as “container prisons” surrounded by barbed wires.

In stark contrast, German Chancellor Angela Merkel valiantly declared “Wir schaffen das!” (“We can do it!”) and decided to keep her country’s borders open, leading to the arrival of around 1.2 million asylum seekers in Germany between 2015 and 2016. The real pressure on municipalities and the sense of chaos and disorder, however, benefitted the far-right populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), which entered the federal parliament for the first time in 2017 and became the largest opposition party.

Over the years, asylum seekers have become convenient scapegoats for disillusioned and frustrated Europeans who have seen their societies change and economies tumble because of successive external shocks, from climate change and a global health crisis to rapid technological change and a disruption of Europe’s decades-old security order. In this time of great uncertainty, a rights-based vision of migration and asylum has become a perceived political vulnerability, replaced with a security approach stressing law and order.

In a 2021 effort led by Marine Le Pen, the head of France’s National Rally party, 16 right-wing parties from across Europe—including the governing parties of Hungary, Italy, and Poland at the time—declared their opposition to a “European Superstate” allegedly being created by “radical forces” within the EU. They objected to a perceived “cultural, religious transformation and ultimately nationless construction of Europe” and instead pressed for “respect for the culture and history of European states” and “respect for Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage.” Uniting diverse national political actors, their communique demonstrates the focus on national identity and Christian values that the far right has portrayed as being under threat because of the EU’s migration policy. Hence, the EU finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place: its policy is weaponized by right-wing populists as too weak, and it is denounced by nongovernmental organizations and observers as not respecting its own values.

How does the new Pact on Migration and Asylum address prior shortcomings?

A sound European policy that attempts to better manage the drivers of irregular migration in countries of origin and centers on the collaboration of all EU member states is needed to handle rising global displacement trends. The passage of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum in May 2024 offers a chance to transform the EU’s current governing framework if implemented effectively by the time the new legislation takes force in 2026. It represents the first major agreement on migration and asylum policy in over a decade, intended to accelerate procedures and enhance cooperation and solidarity between member states.

Framed by the European Commission as a “fair and firm” approach, the new legislation consists of 10 major reform proposals that cement Europe’s policy shift to fortify borders, enhance scrutiny in asylum processing, double down on deporting rejected applicants, and partner with non-EU states of origin and transit to limit irregular arrivals. A key aspect is a new accelerated procedure for asylum applicants from countries with a low recognition rate, whose probability of getting their asylum application request granted is low. The mechanism will take a maximum of 12 weeks (about three months) and permits fast-track processing at EU external borders, during which migrants, including families and children, will stay in collective detention-like facilities. Further, the pact aims to correct the failures of the Dublin Regulation through a new solidarity system, which obliges all member states to share responsibility, either by receiving up to 30,000 asylum applicants per year, paying a fee of 20,000 euros per asylum applicant to assist hosting countries or contributing other resources.

Critics have pointed out, however, that the focus on securitizing EU borders as opposed to addressing humanitarian implications is unlikely to reduce arrival numbers and increases the risks of human rights violations. The European Union must satisfy its obligations under international law to ensure fast-track processing facilities satisfy human rights standards and that all asylum claims are evaluated fairly, as required by the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. These principles should apply equally to EU-funded migration management projects in Europe’s neighborhood.

As the European Union enters a new governing cycle—following the European Parliament election in June and with a new college of commissioners later this fall—it has an opportunity to prioritize a new common migration and asylum policy and take functional steps to achieve a more balanced and orderly system among member states, which provides for the dignity, safety, and rights of those seeking international protection. The number of displaced people globally has increased consistently over the past 12 years and is expected to have exceeded 120 million persons in 2024. However, it is imperative to remember that 75% of displaced persons remain in low- and middle-income countries in the “Global South,” which often struggle with political, economic, and social insecurity themselves. As war continues in Ukraine, conflicts escalate in the Middle East, political instability grows across sub-Saharan Africa, and the secondary effects of climate change jeopardize people’s lives and livelihoods, the EU will be forced to grapple with irregular migration for the foreseeable future.

The nationalities of first-time asylum applicants in the European Union in recent years demonstrate the global nature of migration today. In 2023, for instance, Syrians (183,250), Afghans (100,985), Turks (89,985), Venezuelans (67,085), and Colombians (62,015) represented the five largest nationalities among first-time asylum applicants in the EU. Certainly, contemporary migration flows to Europe are mixed and not all persons applying for asylum fall into the protected categories of the Geneva Convention.

It is also true, however, that many EU countries are changing demographically as birth rates fall across developed economies and are experiencing severe shortages of workers across professional and blue-collar sectors, threatening future social and economic vitality and stability. Immigration, therefore, offers an enormous benefit for Europe to counteract downward demographic and economic trends. Beyond the pact, leaders should dedicate greater efforts to expand legal pathways at the national level for people not considered refugees under international law, but who desperately seek greater economic opportunity and are eager to contribute meaningfully to host societies.

Recent political developments in the European migration space

The yearslong EU effort to agree to a set of clear, cohesive policies as represented by the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, however, appears to be undercut by a recent shift in tone on migration across the bloc. National, xenophobic rhetoric is no longer contained to the fringes of the political spectrum across the European Union. Anti-immigrant sentiment today features dominantly in public debates, after years of far-right populists amplifying cultural anxieties and accusing governments of having lost control of their sovereign borders. Right-wing leaders, from Hungary’s “illiberal democrat” Viktor Orbán to Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party has its roots in a 20th-century fascist movement, have increasingly shaped the direction at the EU level toward a more restrictive approach focused on border security and a defense of European culture and values.

Recent electoral outcomes across the EU revealing strong support for far-right parties have sent shockwaves across the continent. Following June’s European Parliament election, parties to the right of the European People’s Party—the center-right Christian Democrats—now hold over one-quarter of seats in the EU’s lower legislature (187 out of 720). The vote produced a snap election in France, from which a center-left coalition barely emerged ahead of the far right. In Germany, the extremist AfD emerged from the European vote as the second strongest party, ahead of all three governing coalition parties. In three recent regional elections in eastern Germany, the AfD and the Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht—a new party on the extreme left founded in January 2024 that has also adopted a harsh anti-immigration stance—fanned the flames of fear and xenophobia and soared to a combined 42%-49%, both landing among the top three strongest parties in each state. Finally, Austria’s September election saw the far-right Freedom Party become as the strongest new parliamentary grouping, whose campaign included promises of “remigration” as part of a larger theme to create a “Fortress Austria.”

In response to these volatile political trends, member states—including many led by centrist governments—are once again turning to reactive, unilateral measures to contain the far right by way of a more restrictive stance on migration and asylum.

Most notably, Germany’s center-left government has drastically shifted its tone on combating irregular migration and enhancing domestic security after two fatal knife assaults occurred in Germany this summer, whose perpetrators turned out to be foreign nationals. In a stark break with Merkel’s hopeful and humanitarian spirit, the government expanded temporary controls to include all German borders—defying the Schengen regulation—imposed stricter rules on benefits and protected status for asylum seekers, and even began deportations of convicted Afghans to Afghanistan. Not only are these actions inconsistent with the principle of EU solidarity and grounds for heightened tensions with Germany’s neighbors, but the German police union has deemed the border checks largely ineffective, particularly as people claiming asylum can still enter.

Emboldened by the German turn on the issue, Orbán most recently threatened to send buses of migrants to Brussels—copying his conservative MAGA friends in the United States. The new French government, led by Prime Minister Michel Barnier, has also vowed to crack down on irregular entries and strengthen controls at France’s borders. In Poland, Prime Minister and former President of the European Council Donald Tusk announced a temporary suspension of the right to seek asylum for irregular migrants entering through the Polish-Belarusian border, claiming that Russia and Belarus were “weaponizing” migrants in attempts to destabilize the EU. The policy could violate the right to non-refoulement—which protects individuals from being returned to a country under international human rights law—and set a perilous precedent for other member states trying to restrict irregular entries.

In a novel move, Meloni concluded a new “partnership” with Albania—a non-EU country—under which Italy will send up to 36,000 asylum applicants per year to process their claims externally. Though the policy only applies to adult male individuals intercepted in international waters prior to arrival at Italian shores, several attempted transfers of migrants to Albanian processing centers have already been invalidated by an Italian court. Together with six other EU countries, Meloni has also tried to advance normalization with the Assad regime in Syria, in part to reconsider the possibility of returning Syrian refugees to the war-torn country.

At the October 2024 European Council summit, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Charles Michel, and leaders of EU member states gathered to discuss a full agenda of topics in which migration featured prominently. In a letter setting the tone for the summit, von der Leyen stressed to European leaders the centrality of expanding third-country partnerships like those concluded with Turkey and countries in North Africa and the Middle East, to improve processes of return and counter the “weaponization” of migrants by Russia, Belarus, and others attempting to instigate political instability in Europe. During the meetings, the agreement between Italy and Albania was lauded as a model for the EU to emulate, confirming the shift toward externalization that has gained traction in Europe.

Notably absent from the summit communique was any mention of the new common EU Pact on Migration and Asylum or strategies for its timely and comprehensive implementation. The recent uncoordinated measures by EU members and their preoccupation with “weaponization,” third-country deals, and “return hubs” at the EU level are unlikely to provide the sense of reassurance, cohesion, and opportunity that people expect of their national and European leaders.

37 notes · View notes

supa-kuwameshi-bros · 4 months ago

Text

team urameshi’s moral alignments, and how that impacts the kuwameshi dynamic (and also some stuff about hiei)

not quite the promised narrative parallels follow up just yet, but hopefully this is good enough in the meantime!

given yusuke and kuwabara’s nature as rivals first and foremost, i’ve found their dynamic at its core is largely defined by their contrasting values/moral codes (or lack thereof.) these differences, i believe, are a key factor in why they make such a good duo, both romantically and otherwise.

something i’ve always really loved about kuwabara, for instance, is how he is constantly a tether to yusuke’s humanity, showing how kuwabara is willing to challenge him not only physically, but philosophically. and yes ik that’s likely a needlessly fancy way of phrasing it but hear me out, right?

i’ve found that team urameshi exists on a scale of humanitarianism: the left side being where hiei resides, and the right, kuwabara. kurama exists somewhere between the middle and left, still compassionate enough to seek out mercy wherever viable, but willing to get his hands dirty if the situation demands it. i believe yusuke exists in the exact middle of this scale, which reflects his status as a half-demon, allowing him to swing one way or the other depending on the situation. spontaneous as always!

i actually went ahead and made a little visual accompaniment to better illustrate what i’m talking abt here, bc im a goddamn nerd

it’s very rough looking but whatever it’s a tumblr post. would very much like to know any greater thoughts anyone has on the placements made here, particularly kurama bc he is easily the most morally layered out of these four. i live for the discussion aspect of these things hehehehehe

ANYWAY back to the aforementioned twink (more of a twunk, really.) the interesting part about this application of the scale metaphor is that it more or less visualizes hiei and kuwabara as the theoretical devil and angel on yusuke's shoulders, which may not be too far off from the roles they play in yusuke's life, something we see most often shown in the dark tournament.

for hiei, this manifests as him often being the one to push yusuke to finish things quickly, without consideration for greater consequence because either it’s more efficient or “it must be done.” hell, most of the time he goes beyond that and just. does it himself. bc he’s hiei and yk what we love him for that. this attitude fed into yusuke’s affinity for doing things the easy way, rather than the “right” or most traditionally morally upright way, which one could argue only further chipped away at yusuke’s already fraying tether to his humanity.

in particular, i think of the moments just before kuwabara vs. risho, where yusuke and hiei had more or less decided they were just gonna blow the whole stadium sky-high when faced with possible disqualification.

in response to yusuke’s increasing anger, hiei — being the absolute anarchist he is — is quick to suggest they do away with the tournament as a whole, securing themselves a victory by relying on survival of the fittest, something hiei is quite familiar with given his hephaestus trauma and general upbringing in makai. basically, “fuck that noise, this shit is rigged anyway. lets pop SEVERAL caps in their asses and be done with it.”

and of course, given his temperament and previously stated leanings, yusuke is quick to concede to hiei’s point regardless of the fact it would be endangering literally everyone in the vicinity including their allies in the stands. but neither of them consider that— or perhaps, they just don’t care in this moment. which could honestly lead me into a whole other analysis of how fundamentally similar yusuke and hiei are, BUT THATS FOR ANOTHER DAY….

either way, yusuke definitely would’ve gone through with this plan if not for kuwabara volunteering himself for the round in spite of his debilitating injuries, which leads me to kuwabara’s opposing force, and (finally,) the kuwameshi aspect to all of this.

kuwabara’s a character known for his strict moral code, and he’s no stranger to preaching openly to others about said “honor code.” and of course, as his rival, yusuke is far from an exception to this. at multiple points throughout the series he can be seen lambasting yusuke’s amoral behavior, such as what is seen in the build up to kuwabara v. risho.

it’s common knowledge to anyone who’s read/watched yu yu hakusho that yusuke is a character who behaves almost entirely upon impulse; it’s something established as early as chapter 15!

as a consequence, he’s extremely reckless; one could even say inconsiderate or hedonistic. it’s one of the fundamentals of his character! he’s incredibly flawed, and his morality is painted in shades of grey as a direct result. and here, we see kuwabara challenging this directly. it’s done in a way that speaks volumes to what these two mean to each other, as well, given the fact that shortly after, we see that yusuke has allowed kuwabara to step up to the plate.

kuwabara holds a unique position when it comes to yusuke in the sense that he remains a constant tether to yusuke’s morality. granted, keiko also holds a similar position, but while her tether to his humanity is more physical, given her role as the “girl at home,” kuwabara’s is an ethical one, in how his philosophy has shaped yusuke and pushes him to do better. though granted, they’re both emotional tethers to yusuke’s humanity. keiko and kuwabara stop paralleling each other challenge. it’s rlly not helping yusuke beat the bisexual allegations.

either way, kuwabara’s bullheaded determination to go the straight and narrow no matter the seeming futility of it is something that has left a noticeable mark on yusuke, enough so that when he sees that effort be tossed aside or taken for granted, yusuke— for lack of a better term— crashes the fuck out.

it means a lot to him! that fundamental goodness in kuwabara that yusuke didn’t even see himself, until chapter 7 showed him plain and simple that kuwabara’s genuinely just a great guy. and so even though yusuke’s own internal philosophy tends to align more with hiei’s “survival of the fittest” outlook on the world, he still finds real value in kuwabara’s beliefs, remaining fiercely protective of those ideals and the boy that holds them. enter the eternal cycle of: kuwabara tries to do heroic shit, gets absolutely blasted, yusuke has a full on fucking crash out, powers up, wins, repeat. still, kuwabara will always challenge yusuke in this way, and yusuke will in turn always challenge him. it’s what makes their bond so special, because really, all yusuke wants is someone who can match his pace and shove back when he pushes. and luckily for him, while yusuke’s certainly stubborn, kuwabara may be even more so.

it harkens back to the earliest days of their relationship, the quintessential example of unstoppable force (kuwabara) vs. immovable object (yusuke.) only now, while he has yet to overcome yusuke physically, kuwabara (likely without even realizing it himself) has earned yusuke’s respect enough that when he tells yusuke that winning the tournament the clean way is the best route, yusuke listens— which, getting yusuke to listen to ANYONE other than himself is a goddamn miracle. he won’t even listen to KEIKO, and that girl’s got him wrapped around her finger approx. 13 times over.

kuwabara pushes yusuke to be better, basically, and yusuke is receptive to that because he genuinely respects kuwabara’s input in spite of all the ribbing they engage in (though i do maintain that he definitely has some… thoughts on kuwabara’s methods. cough cough ichigaki.) im contrasting this aspect of kuwabara with hiei, here, but really, a much more explicitly kuwameshi adjacent parallel that makes me even crazier is kuwabara and itsuki, but that could be a whole post on its own.

this is something the source material (IN THE DUB) may have acknowledged, too, with genkai’s parting words to kuwabara before her demise at the hands of toguro. she tells kuwabara, “You have a gentle heart. Use it.” what exactly this could be referring to specifically remains ambiguous (likely bc it’s a dub specific piece of dialogue), but given how the line is framed by genkai requesting kuwabara tell yusuke not to follow her, and the camera panning to yusuke’s sleeping face to conclude the scene, i’d figure it involves him. in specific, i believe this is in reference to the crux of this analysis: kuwabara’s influence over yusuke’s moral decisions. perhaps she felt kuwabara may have been able to sway yusuke, or at the very least hold him off from doing something too rash and marching right into death. who knows? this line doesn’t even rlly matter anyway bc it’s not even present in the original translation but WTVR my analysis my rules.

overall, this is just one example of how yusuke and kuwabara make up for one another’s individual shortcomings/blind spots to create a better whole. in soso many ways, they make each other better!! but they can also make each other worse, and i’m not just talking about the insane codependency that kuwabara develops by the time three kings begins. ALAS, i have not the time to divulge right now. either way, these two mean so much to each other, and honestly, i think they should kiss about it. hold hands, maybe. i know their asses were cuddling during the dark tournament. they should get married but instead of kissing after their “i do”s they punch each other in the mouth.

that’s pretty much all i’ve gotta say on this subject as of right now. this ended up way longer than i anticipated uhhh whoops. tune in next time for how yusuke’s negative traits rub off on kuwabara, as opposed to kuwabara’s positive traits rubbing off on yusuke and HOPEFULLY that plot analysis that’ll give more context to what i’m talking about here. do hope this was more kuwameshi specific than my last little analysis bc it was. barely shippy at all. forgive me.

OH YEAH ALSO if any of yall have any thoughts on this, whether it be adding onto this analysis or even pointing out something you personally disagree with, i’d love to hear your input!! discussion makes me go YIPPIE and i’d love to engage :D

#WOA it’s been a while since i’ve posted uhhhh i should fix that #btw— thank you to everyone who’s been soso nice surrounding this blog so far!! esp all the love that initial post has been gettibg #i love love this pairing sm and even if just a wee bit i’d like to help push back against the growing correlation between kuwameshi and #keiko hate. bc truly that could not be farther from the case at least for me!!#note this applies to yuskeiko as a pairing as well. don’t get it twisted it may not be my cup for tea but it’s still a perfectly fine ship #n e way yeah mwah you’re all lovely #also pardon how incoherent this can be i wrote it at like 4 am #kuwameshi #analysis #green anon #yu yu hakusho #kazuma kuwabara #yusuke urameshi #hiei #yyh hiei

22 notes · View notes

poorrichardjr · 6 months ago

Text

An open letter to Congress

(I know only a small handful of people will ever read this, but I think more than a few Americans feel this way)

America has been a constitutional democratic republic for almost 250 years now, the age at which most such experiments fail. Part of the reason we have lasted this long has been because of the belief that our constitution would steer us in the right direction. One of the founding elements held within was the belief that no branch of government should have too much power. Checks and balances were put in place to keep tyranny or progressivism in check.

I have heard all my life that Republicans were the people who "loved" the constitution and the country the most. However, right now, all I see are a group of wealthy individuals lining up to kowtow to a man they have proclaimed the new messiah. They seem more than happy with installing a king and forgetting that their job is to represent the people and protect the constitution's checks and balances. More than a few congressmen are decrying longstanding practice of vetting executive appointees and the Senate's role of advise and consent.

These people are being as hypocritical as they can be. They would never let a democratic president pick whomever they wished despite not having qualifications for a position. No man should be in a position of power if they have no experience or knowledge of the duties of that job. I don't care how smart or how much they seem to love the new president. An unqualified applicant is still unqualified and therefore unfit for the role at which they aspire. You don't hire a welder to be a brain surgeon even if he is a great guy or smart as a tack. The person lacks a fundamental understanding of the task at hand. In the same vein you do not let a fox guard the henhouse. Sure, the fox is cute and playful, but if you want any chickens at all, you don't put someone in charge who is likely to violate the trust you put in them.

This is where Congress becomes involved. We already know that far too many congressmen are going to violate their oaths to the constitution and just do whatever the president tells them to. They are not taking their duties seriously. These people do not care about the country or the constitution. They are only there to get head pats and go on television to defend anything they are told to do. These people are simply loyal henchmen who have given up their own choices simply because they are afraid that the man in power is going to say something bad about them.

The rest of you, and I hope that is a majority, though that looks like an over estimation at times, need to hold fast to the principals of the constitution. We do not elect kings. A president, no matter how much you like them, isn't entitled to appoint any unqualified individual he wants to help him run things. Let me just point out a few of the biggest problems I see in the people he has so far chosen to help run things.

Tulsi Gabbard has been credibly accused of being too close to Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban. If you wouldn't trust Hunter Biden to run a foreign office because you believed he had ties that were too close to China and Ukraine, you cannot let someone like Gabbard into the position for which she has been nominated. Will she really be working for the American people or will she let slip important national security information to our global enemies because she just likes them?

Pete Hegseth has never been a high ranking member of the military and has serious problems of self control. His drinking problems and womanizing are just warning signs that the man doesn't have the experience or character to tell the people with the most powerful weapons in the world what to do on a daily basis.

Robert Kennedy Jr is supposed to lead a government office where science is relied on heavily, but he doesn't believe in many facts based on scientifically proven evidence. Linda McMahon has no educational experience, though she is going to be in charge of the department of education. I could go on and on about how almost every single pick for the cabinet is either unqualified or has massive conflicts of interest where their judgement in running that office would make a rational man question their every decision. And I am not even going to start with the DOGE run by Elon and Vivek simply because they cannot be vetted or affirmed by Congress, though their suggestions should be suspected almost immediately.

Almost none of these people should be in the positions they have been nominated for. Their only qualifications are that they are wealthy and are willing to do what Donald Trump wants. Those are not true qualifications, and you would not hire someone to run your own businesses if they were this unqualified.

So, the American people look to you to do your job. Do what is best for the country. Not your party. Not you personally. And not anything the president asks simply because he is president. You have a duty to uphold, and we are all waiting to see whether you will take those responsibilities seriously or whether or not you are going to be the cowards and cravens we all believe you to be. The people of this nation who worked so hard to help create and defend it are watching and judging your next moves. Will you be a Clay or Webster or will you be a McCarthy?

#politics #america #donald trump #republicans #poorrichardjr #Responsibility and duty #Checks and balances #advise and consent

31 notes · View notes

sayruq · 1 year ago

Text

Joe Biden has attacked as “outrageous” an application by the international criminal court for warrants seeking the arrest of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, along with senior members of Hamas, for actions carried out in Gaza. The US president sided unambiguously with Israel after the ICC’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, announced he was pursuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister. Khan is also pursuing the arrests of three leading Hamas figures, Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri – better known as Mohammed Deif – and Ismail Haniyeh over Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel on 7 October last year. The prosecutor’s announcement prompted Biden’s most outspoken remarks in Israel’s support in months, with the president accusing the ICC of drawing a false moral equivalence between the country and Hamas, a militant Islamist group that has run Gaza since 2006. “The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous,” Biden said in the statement. “And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.” Biden’s comments were echoed by Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, who said the US “fundamentally rejects” the decision to seek the arrests of Israeli officials and warned that it could jeopardise efforts to reach a ceasefire.He also accused the ICC of overstepping its authority. “The United States has been clear since well before the current conflict that ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter,” Blinken said. “The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.” The ICC’s move follows a separate case currently being heard by a different court, the international court of justice, of accusations – brought by South Africa – that Israel is committing genocide in its response to last October’s attack. Israel strenuously denies the allegation.

817 notes · View notes

thebreakfastgenie · 2 months ago

Note

public health-related question, what are your thoughts about the NIH compiling medical records for studying autism? i'm concerned about the idea of autistic people being registered, as well as about privacy in general, but it also seems like having this data available could be beneficial for medical research in general? this is not my field at all, but in my science niche, lack of data is always a huge problem, so i can see how this could be beneficial.

I share both your concerns about privacy and your inclination that this could be beneficial for research. Balancing the potential benefit of research with the potential risk to research subjects, as well as how to protect privacy in the process, is the fundamental ethical challenge of human subjects research. There are people whose entire job is dealing with this.

I'm going to quote a CBS news article:

The National Institutes of Health is amassing private medical records from a number of federal and commercial databases to give to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new effort to study autism, the NIH's top official said Monday.

This sounds like the NIH will be taking information that is already available and compiling it in a more efficient way. Here's a quote from RFK Jr himself:

"The idea of the platform is that the existing data resources are often fragmented and difficult to obtain. The NIH itself will often pay multiple times for the same data resource. Even data resources that are within the federal government are difficult to obtain," he said in a presentation to the agency's advisers.

If this is accurate, it sounds like this is medical information the NIH already had access to. Public and private institutions often maintain databases for their own research or other purposes and allow other institutions or researches access to their databases, often for a fee. He also mentions that some of the existing resources already belong to the federal government, which makes sense. Anyone who has listed autism on their application for disability benefits, for example, is already identified in government records.

My primary privacy concern, with the information I currently have, is whether all of the patients whose records are included signed an informed consent form indicating that their records may be shared with other institutions for the purpose of research. If some of the databases belong to healthcare providers or insurance companies, patients may not have universally consented to that, and those companies should only provide the records of patients who did. If this mostly involves existing research databases that RFK Jr wants to compile into a single, more comprehensive NIH resource, I'm less concerned about that because I would expect the original institutions to have included sharing data in their informed consent document. If any of them did not, however, those records should not be given to NIH.

I don't have experience with this kind of research, so I'm not certain what the standard is with medical records, but in the kind of research I do, it's standard practice to anonymize data. Theoretically, you could create a database of anonymized medical records, allowing scientists to conduct autism research but not to identify the subjects. RFK Jr's mention of an autism registry makes me think the records he's after are not anonymized, but I'm not sure. Again, the government already has access to at least some identifying information about autism through other government agencies, but I'm not sure of the numbers, and I know a lot of autistic people don't qualify for disability benefits.

The National Institutes of Health exist to conduct publicly funded health research. In theory NIH is an organization we should be able to trust with sensitive medical information. Under other circumstances, I would think the NIH compiling and maintaining a secure comprehensive database for autism research would be a pretty good idea. A single database is more efficient and the NIH should be an organization that can be trusted with sensitive and confidential data. Unfortunately, the current administration has a pretty bad track record with information security already, so some level of concern is not unreasonable under the circumstances. This is yet another reason not to put right wing lunatics in charge of the federal government!

I know you don't need this reminder but just for anyone else reading who might, "autism research" sometimes gets associated with the Autism Speaks crowd, but that's an unfair association. Autism research does not mean trying to find a "cure," it means gaining a deeper understanding of how autism works. This is beneficial to the autistic community, because it helps develop better ways to support and accommodate autistic people.

In terms of how we should feel about this right now... that's hard to say. "Autism registry" sounds scary but I don't think there's any reason to jump from that to the government trying to round up autistic Americans. I think RFK Jr is more interested in trying to prove vaccines cause autism (they don't) than in any kind of systemic control of autistic people. I think the biggest issues facing autistic Americans right now are disability benefits being cut and the Department of Education, which handles special education resources, being dismantled. This government compiling any kind of registry is something to keep an eye on, but I don't think this is an immediate cause for panic.

8 notes · View notes

us-cj · 2 months ago

Text

Democrat lies DEBUNKED

Democrats have been spreading LIES about the SAVE Act because they don't want to secure our elections.

Here are the FACTS:

Radical progressive Democrats took drastic steps to fundamentally remake America through open borders

and a full-scale assault on election integrity laws.

Rep. Chip Roy's SAVE Act (H.R.22) will address this by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in Federal elections to ensure the integrity of our elections. It amends the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to require states to verify US citizenship when registering an individual to vote in federal elections, give states the tools to remove non-citizens from their voter rolls, and penalize officials that knowingly register non-citizens.

MYTH: "The SAVE Act would prohibit married women - or anyone who has changed their name - from voting."

FACT: This is fake news. Under the SAVE Act, those individuals (i.e. most) who have updated their documentary proof of citizenship (which can include things like a REAL ID, passport, or government-issued identification with their place of birth), no action is needed, and they can register to vote. For the small fraction of individuals who have not yet updated their documentation to reflect a name change, which most do immediately for other life purposes, the SAVE Act explicitly directs states to establish a process for them to register to vote irrespective of those discrepancies. Like other areas of the law, citizens will be able to use combinations of existing identification documents, certificates of birth from the state, and other similar documentation to demonstrate citizenship. No one will be left unable toregister to vote due to a name change.

MYTH: "The SAVE Act would require everyone to have a U.S. passport to register to vote."

FACT: The SAVE Act merely requires documentary proof of United States citizenship to register to vote. This is not just limited to passports, but can include: a REAL ID (in use in all 50 states now), a US military ID card together with paperwork showing place of birth was in the United States, and any valid government issued identification card issued by Federal, State, or Tribal government showing the applicants place of birth was in the U.S.

MYTH: "In federal elections, we have no evidence of illegals voting."

FACT: There is ample evidence of non-US citizens registering to vote. One 2014 study of the 2008 and 2010 elections found that non-citizens voted and likely impacted the outcome in several races. Virginia removed 1,481 voter registrations for "non-citizen status." In 2014, North Carolina conducted a study that found over 1,400 registered voters on its rolls appeared to be non-citizens. Numerous states and local jurisdictions are actively seeking to register non-citizens in their elections. One illegal ballot cast is one too many and can impact the outcome of tight elections.

MYTH: "The SAVE Act is unnecessary because it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote."

FACT: While only U.S, citizens can legally vote in Federal elections, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) effectively stops states from checking citizenship during registration, preventing the law from being enforced. The SAVE Act is needed to require states to verify US citizenship when registering individuals to vote in federal elections,

give states the tools to remove non-citizens from their voter rolls, and penalize officials that register non-citizens.

MYTH: The SAVE Act will make it impossible for U.S. Servicemembers to vote if deployed aboard."

FACT: This bill does not amend the Uniformed Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and leaves in

place existing procedures and safeguards for servicemembers abroad to vote absentee in federal elections.

MYTH: "The SAVE Act is unconstitutional and violates the principles of federalism."

FACT: The Elections Clause, the Naturalization Clause, and the 15*, 19*hi, 24*, and 26* amendments clearly give Congress the authority to enact the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act is a narrow bill that simply strengthens the law that has governed the federal voter registration process for 30 years - the NVRA - by requiring states to verify citizenship for registration in federal elections.

8 notes · View notes

skaruresonic · 10 months ago

Text

My games:

On a Sunday

Join Sonic the Hedgehog as he experiences a not-so-average Sunday in this slice-of-life visual novel! Inspired by games like Doki Doki Literature Club and Undertale.

[***] Project is complete.

___

Antigravity

The colony's gravity has been cultivated for the maximum security and comfort of all those aboard.

We urge you not to disengage the antigravity dampeners unless it is absolutely necessary.

Be careful! This state induces powerful but unstable and irreversible effects.

Further research is needed.

___

Play as Shadow the Hedgehog, the ultimate life form living aboard the ARK: the world's most advanced space station, where scientific breakthrough is as routine as the colony's orbit around Earth.

Although gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces, its span can reach forever. The researchers warn you that it is not a toy to be played with. You must never tamper with it unless an emergency arises.

...Well. A rolling blackout may just count as an emergency.

___

Gameplay

Antigravity is half point-and-click, half turn-based visual novel. Battle enemies through the application of gravity and your Chaos powers. Show them why they call you the ultimate life form.

As Shadow investigates items on each map, he will unlock new areas of the colony to explore. Memos will help you figure out how to defeat enemies.

[***] Project is a demo; currently in development.

---

Moon Touched

"Arthur the king is dead. Arthur the ravager yet lives."

Arthur expected headhunters to loot his corpse as he lay under the bodies of his men in the blood-soaked fields of Camlan. He never predicted the enemy would instead crave his prowess for spoil.

Cold executioner of justice, Creoda of the Gewisse, has been blessed by the moon god to taste death but not to succumb. Every murder he suffers demands blood as the price of his divine wergild. As long as he serves Mōna, he will pursue his butchers with neither fear nor mercy in his heart.

But even a tireless wolf like Creoda suffers the occasional thorn of conscience. In order to sever his thralldom and live as a normal man, he must slay the source of his curse: his brother.

Emboldened by Arthur's fiery spirit but wary of his reckless nature, Creoda offers his captive a grim proposition:

"Fight." "Flee." "Die." "It makes no difference."

A hard-bitten skeptic, Arthur tests the Saxon's limits by fire, water, and blade. Each brutal encounter teaches him a little more about Creoda - and himself - than he cares to admit.

Armed with only his wits, a hexed sword, the loyalty of his companion, Bedwyr, and the cold whispers of death swirling about him, he must find a way to conquer his demons... Or find his head on a pike.

Reports of the king's death may be exaggerated. How much depends on you.

[***] Project is a WIP currently in development.

#vn stuff #on a sunday #save #antigravity #renpy #moon touched

23 notes · View notes

gigi-the-crab · 6 months ago

Text

Budget with me, Leftist edition

⚠️I am not a financial advisor. I’m sharing my personal thoughts and methods. Please research for yourself and seek financial advice from a professional if you can ⚠️

Okay, PSA over

I’ve been an on and off budgeting fanatic since I took a personal finance course in high school that rocked my world. I’ve gotten so much out of the personal finance space, but let’s be real, it’s inundated with hyper-individualistic perspectives. I’ve been craving a blend of personal finance and budgeting with leftist ideas, mutual aid, solidarity, community, free resources, and anti-capitalist relearning for a while. I’m trying to expand my media diet and find that community, but in the mean time I want to take a stab at it myself!

So that brings me to a good old fashioned budget with me. My method of budgeting is constantly being reworked, but after ~10 years of trial and error I’m in a pretty happy place with my system. It takes time and bandwidth, but this is what currently works for me. Hopefully at least one person might find some of this useful, and then I will be eternally gratified.

For important context:

I work part time roughly 24 hrs a week and make $22 an hour. I live at home with family, so rent, utilities, groceries etc. are covered by them. This is possible through intergenerational wealth, being an only child, and existing in a loving and functional family (❤️) among other privileges. My income covers my individual personal expenses.

This situation may not be entirely relatable for many people, but I believe the fundamentals of budgeting are widely applicable.

This is what I do:

I start with budgeting for my weekly payday. I work part time so my salary fluctuates, but I can estimate my gross salary in advance based on my hours worked, then deduct the ~15.33% taken out by my employer for taxes and social security to get my net income.

This week my net income is $271.13 (which is lower than average because I worked fewer hours). This will go into the spreadsheet I use so I can track my paychecks.

I have a general guide for my monthly anticipated expenses (aka my budget) that looks like this:

Because I get paid on a weekly basis, I divide each of these estimates by 4 (roughly 4 weeks in a month) to get my weekly budget.

This is what my monthly budget looks like translated to my paycheck this week, which is lower than average:

I use the zero sum budget method. This means every dollar is allocated to a place, so I should have zero dollars leftover by the end.

I also follow the “pay yourself first” school of thought. 10%+ of my net income will go towards my emergency savings, and another 10% will go towards my mutual aid fund. This might seem particularly high for mutual aid (@pocketchangepools on insta, a resource I like, suggests starting at 1% of yearly income), but I feel strongly about redistributing my intergenerational abundance. I also live a very comfortable life with my basic needs met, so 10% is a comfortable amount for me. This will likely vary depending on your financial situation, but budgeting for aid is a great way to ensure you give what you can afford (and your offerings can include time/labor/skills as well!).

I use a mixed system of digital and cash. For digital, I use my checking account and debit card for most bills and regular purchases. I regularly go through my account history on my banking app and write down every incoming or outgoing item in a physical spending tracker notebook.

This helps me pay attention to every individual movement of money in and out of my account so I’m more conscious of what’s going on. I also use these numbers in my spreadsheet tracker:

I use what are called “sinking funds” for most categories. I might allocate $5 a week for self care, for example. I could certainly afford my self care snacks with that $5, but not my self care nail polish. In order to get a bottle of nail polish I might be interested in, I continue to put in $5 a week to let it accumulate, and maybe buy the nail polish when I hit $15 in the sinking fund. If I have $1 leftover from that purchase, it remains in my sinking fund. This way, I can build a fund for each category and spend the money in it on an irregular basis.

Cash gets a different treatment. I take out cash from my checking account every week for things like “walking cash” (money in my wallet I don’t track and spend as I please) or my cash savings envelopes:

In the past I’ve tried putting all of my cash and card purchases into an app while on the go, but I found it takes me out of experiences. Would I rather buy my friend a coffee and enjoy a chat in a coffee shop, or buy a coffee, take out my phone to record how much that coffee cost me, THEN turn back to the conversation we’re having? Some people prefer to track cash spending with things like tracking apps and receipts. I’ve found I am not one of those people! (It’s also worth being wary of tracking apps considering the state of surveillance)

I do still like the feeling of taking cash out of my checking account and filing it away in little envelopes for different savings goals. These cash savings come from any leftover money after my essential and non essential expenses are budgeted for. Currently my priority is a $1000 emergency fund, but I sprinkle cash around other envelopes, too.

And tada! After all that work, I have completed my budgeting for the week.

In conclusion:

This is how I get to know and direct my money flows! I tend to like things complicated, so this system works for me, but the best way to budget is whatever way you find works for you.

I think if knowledge is a step towards empowerment, then getting to know your personal money flows ought to be empowering, too.

#personal finance #budgeting #budget #leftist #leftism #a leftist budgets #budgetblr #solarpunk #hopepunk

16 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 8 months ago

Text

Georgia’s president accuses Russia of election meddling and urges the West to back protests

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) — Georgia’s president on Monday urged the West to support opposition protests of the official results of a weekend parliamentary election in which the governing party was declared victorious amid voting irregularities and allegations of Russian meddling.

President Salome Zourabichvili, who refused to recognize the official results, told The Associated Press that the South Caucasus nation has fallen victim to Russian pressure aimed at derailing Georgia’s plans to join the European Union.

“We’ve seen that Russian propaganda was directly used,” said Zourabichvili, a fierce critic of Georgian Dream, the governing party. She said the government has been “working hand-in-hand with Russia,” and “probably” received help from Moscow’s security services.

EU Commission spokeswoman Nabila Massrali said Monday that Georgian Dream’s election campaign was “directly inspired” by Russian propaganda and there were “unprecedented levels of disinformation.”

On Sunday, Zourabichvili stood alongside opposition leaders and urged Georgians to join a rally on the main street of the capital, Tbilisi, on Monday night to protest what she called a “total falsification, a total stealing of your votes.”

The Central Election Commission said the Georgian Dream party received 54.8% of Saturday’s votes with almost all ballots counted. The party — established by Bidzina Ivanishvili, a shadowy billionaire who made his fortune in Russia — has become increasingly authoritarian in the past year, adopting laws similar to those used by the Kremlin to crack down on freedom of speech and LGBTQ+ rights.

Protest is the only way Georgians can “express that their votes have been stolen, that their future has been stolen,” she told AP in an interview.

She said she hopes the U.S. and EU back the demonstrations.

“We need to have the firm support of our European partners, of our American partners,” Zourabichvili said, adding that it was in the interests of “a powerful Europe” to be present in the Caucasus and for the region to be stable.

Asked if she wants sanctions imposed on Georgian officials, Zourabichvili told AP that it’s up to Western leaders but that “certainly time has not come to to renew relations with authorities that are not legitimate at this point.”

In a statement, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged Georgia’s political leaders to “respect the rule of law, repeal legislation that undermines fundamental freedoms, address deficiencies in the electoral process, and move Georgia toward its Euro-Atlantic future.”

Massrali said the EU expects the Central Election Commission and other authorities “to swiftly, transparently and independently investigate and adjudicate electoral irregularities and allegations.”

The Kremlin has rejected the accusations of interference.

“We aren’t meddling in Georgia’s internal affairs, and we have no intention of meddling,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. He countered that it was the West that had tried to influence the vote.

Asked about Zourabichvili’s call for the Georgians to join protests, he described it as an attempt to destabilize the country.

Parliament speaker Shalva Papuashvili, a member of Georgian Dream, accused the president of creating “a coup scenario” that goes “against the constitutional order and democratic elections.”

The EU suspended Georgia’s membership application process indefinitely because of a Russian-style “foreign influence law” passed in June. Many Georgians viewed Saturday’s vote as a pivotal referendum on the opportunity to join the EU.

The election campaign in the nation of 3.7 million people, which borders Russia, was marked by a bitter fight for votes and allegations of a smear campaign. European observers said the election took place in a “divisive” environment marked by intimidation and instances of vote-buying, double voting and physical violence.

During the campaign, Georgian Dream used “anti-Western and hostile rhetoric ... promoted Russian misinformation, manipulations, and conspiracy theories,” said Antonio López-Istúriz White, head of the European Parliament monitoring delegation.

Election observers said instances of intimidation and other violations were particularly noticeable in rural areas.

Georgian Dream scored its highest share of the vote — almost 90% — in the Javakheti region of southern Georgia. In the capital it received no more than 44% in any district.

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, a member of Georgian Dream, described his party’s success as “impressive and obvious,” and that “any attempts to talk about election manipulation ... are doomed to failure.”

Initial figures suggested voter turnout was the highest since Georgian Dream was first elected in 2012. The party has vowed to continue pushing toward EU accession but also wants to “reset” ties with Georgia’s former imperial master, Russia. In 2008, Georgia fought and lost a brief war with Russia, which then recognized the independence of two breakaway Georgian regions and bolstered its military presence there.

European Council President Charles Michel urged Georgian officials to “swiftly, transparently and independently investigate” the electoral irregularities and said Georgian Dream should demonstrate its “firm commitment” to the EU.

Hungary’s Victor Orbán was the first foreign leader to congratulate Georgian Dream and will visit Georgia on Monday and Tuesday.

Zourabichvili said he was a “special friend” of Georgian Dream and dismissed his visit as a “political play.”

Orban does not have “any mandate from the EU Council” to visit Georgia, Massrali said on behalf of the EU.

14 notes · View notes