#Check Network Coverage

[gyantechnolgy]

Before buying a SIM, please check the network area

[labelleizzy]

Reposting from Morgana Alba on Facebook.

It's a reality check for white US Americans that there's WORK involved in emigration or asylum.

One comment on the original post was, "we're not leaving, my husband would never, he's too attached to his family" and the reply "if that's so, you could be the point person looking after /helping manage things for someone else who's got to flee.

Another point: the assumption that folks have $$ wherewithal and physical health enough to do the process as described. I understand that's not true for all of us, but there's a few items in this list that are good for anyone to try and accomplish:

Get a passport

Get all your important documents in a safe, grabbable space

Set up power of attorney for legal matters (your home, your pets if you have to leave them behind, etc)

Research and network for a possible safe landing person or location.

Otherwise, read the list, have a good think about what might apply to your situation, and start doing your research.

....

Morgana Alba:

You need to have a plan - Actually, you need 3.

(TL/DR - get a passport, a foreign one if you qualify, and start with anything in plan B to take actionable steps today to set yourself up for success)

Just in case you should ever need to uproot your life and move out of a country, for any reason, nothing in particular: you should have 3 plans. Not options. Not ideas. Plans. And I realize not everyone as raised like I was so I’m going to tell you how to make them. (And Step 1 is to have a passport. Do that immediately)

First of all, to be a plan it needs a clear objective, identified required steps, and a trigger point. A trigger point is the deciding factor or event that will automatically activate that plan. You must decide what your lines in the sand are in advance. Historic events rarely feel historic when you’re in them and if you don’t decide what you will not accommodate before you’re in it, incrementalism will paralyze you.

For the best coverage, start with plan C and work backwards.

*****

Plan A: Leaving under the best possible circumstances.

This is where a lot of you get stuck. Leaving under the best possible circumstances is a privilege but it’s not the only way out. This takes a lot of time and research and honestly you should have started this plan a year ago if it was what you wanted. To leave via plan A you should:

1. Research what countries you can live in long term and make a living in. This could mean countries you could transfer to with your current employer, countries that are expat friendly, or countries where you qualify for a work visa. If you have living grandparents or aunts that are citizens of and living in a foreign country you may even qualify for a foreign passport. Start that process now.

2. Start learning the language

3. Apply for jobs in that country

4. Find temporary or long term housing

5. Once you have residency and financial support/employment you can sell anything you aren’t moving and leave.

Trigger point for plan A is typically finding employment for most people.

*****

Plan B: Creating the flexibility for short or long term, potentially temporary, absence

This plan is about restructuring your life so that you could leave quickly even if you don’t have the security of Plan A.

1. Determine where you could go, short term. With a U.S. passport you could stay in most countries up to 3 months as a tourist but wouldn’t be allowed to work locally. Call up friends who live abroad and see who would be ok with a long visit if need be.

2. Start selling things you don’t necessarily love. Do a clothing and items purge. If you do have to leave without plan A there may not be the time for storage and sales so start reducing possessions now while you have the time to be mindful.

3. If you own a place, consider getting a roommate or having family move in so that you may not necessarily have to sell if you have to leave. Having someone else to look after the place and the added financial cushion of rent takes a lot of the pressure off during the departure. You’d have someone back home to ship or store your stuff or sell your car if you aren’t returning but you don’t have to make that call at the time.

4. Plan your financial support. Build up savings as you sell things. Look up what jobs will qualify for a digital nomad visa in the countries you’re considering visiting friends in, and very seriously start applying for remote work that fits those restrictions. Open a non-US based bank account to hold your savings. Get a credit card for this and only this. Stick it in the back of your wallet and forget about it.

5. Hoard Medication. Build up a 3-6 month supply of any required daily medications so that you have a cushion to hold you over between leaving and finding new medical care.

6. Digitize all your vital docs, including deeds and medical files. Store them in the cloud and email them to a friend who lives abroad

7. Have a plan for pets. With plan B you may be leaving them behind if you don’t know how long you’ll be gone or where you might settle. Talk to friends and family now about who would be willing to take them in in this situation.

Plan B is about giving you the most flexibility and options. You make big changes now so that you can be prepared to react to changes around you down the road. Trigger Point for plan B is often unique to the individual and involves law changes like access to medical support or the safety of their finances/job/marriage.

*****

Plan C: Run.

This plan is a last resort. It’s easier and less scary than most people think. But you absolutely need to be ready, and you need to know, firmly, what your trigger point is. This plan is for leaving in an emergency, potentially under scrutiny and persecution, with absolutely no plan to return. You should do as much of Plan B as you can, but you can still do plan C without that prep.

1. Have a go-bag. Your go bag is a waterproof, fireproof, personal-item sized piece of luggage that lives pre-packed with your vital documents (passport, medical records, SSN card, birth certificate, marriage certificate, name change docs, any extra photo IDs etc), your medications, around $1000 in non-sequential twenties, your emergency CC, addresses, phone numbers, and info written down for who you could go visit, proof of ownership docs for your house and/or car, and a single change of utilitarian clothing. Keep a pair of sturdy boots next to it if they don’t fit in it.

2. Pack your carry on. In this bag pack your jewelry, photo albums, grandma’s ashes, etc: whatever bits of precious you couldn’t possibly abandon. You need to make those decisions now, not in the moment. This suitcase must meet the SMALLEST restrictions on carryons for international flights (often smaller than what we’re used to in the U.S., typically 22" x 14" x 9") fill any extra space with toiletries or clothing as they reduce suspicion, but don’t prioritize packing clothing or comfort items. You can get that wherever you’re going.

3. These bags live packed in a safe place near the back door of your house; or in your car.

4. Decide where to run to and have a conversation about cover. In this scenario, if your trigger point is a certain executive order, your goal is to get to airport before enforcement goes into place. You need to know where you’re going and “why” your ticket is last minute in advance. Call up whoever is the safe person you’re running to and build the story. “Someone died suddenly” is a good one. This person needs to be ok with you showing up with 0 warning, and automatically going to the cover story if they one-day randomly get a call from a customs agent asking them to confirm why you’re traveling. If you have kids, have go bags for them as well, and only tell them the cover story.

5. Plan for your pet. Once you decide where you will run to look up what you would need to bring your pet and have those things ready to go (carrier, shot record, etc). Also plan for a situation where you have to leave your pet behind. Discuss with friends and family and get a commitment on who would take then in

6. Have a point person that is remaining behind that you trust to handle your affairs. If you have to run with no notice like this, you need someone here to sell your car, ship any possessions you need, cancel your lease, etc. Find your person and have the conversation about that now.

7. If you need to run you grab your go bags and maybe your pet carrier and you get on a plane. Use your normal bank accounts if you can, and your cash and emergency credit card if you can’t. Buy the ticket online if possible. If it has to be in person look for a visible minority ticket agent and if you’re questioned about the last-minute travel lean on the “my mother just died while visiting my aunt in France (or wherever you’re running). I have to go, I’m so distraught, taking my emotional support cat and kid cause idk when I’ll be back, there’s just so much to figure out. My Aunt has dementia. I have to get there before she does something crazy”

8. Try not to worry about what comes next. Humans have cut and run for thousands of years. You can do it. Immediate defense of life comes first. Everything else can be figured out after you’re safe. Don’t let worry over the logistics keep you in a dangerous situation.

Those are three plans you should have. But keep in mind there’s a lot of middle ground. Do as much of B as you can, and if you have to leave without a job, you can figure it out there. The place you run to doesn’t have to be where you’ll settle. You’l have more time to plan after you’re safe.

Americans have this warped idea of immigration. We believe other countries are as insanely draconian about it as we are but that’s not the case. Do your research. Make your plans. And don’t let fear of the unknown or a lack of planning keep you in danger. You can always just pack your bags and get on a plane to a friend’s place or a Sikh temple, and figure the rest of it out when you get there.

But definitely get your passport

[hitlikehammers]

regular-guy!Eddie absolutely did not expect the emotional gut-punch of the ✨RED CARPET INTERVIEW✨ from famous!Steve's movie premiere (or: Part Nine)

He kinda already knew that, and sure he feels exactly the same but…

Fuck if hearing it out loud isn’t something else.💛🎥

<<< back to the obligatory dose of lingering insecurity // back to the beginning

It’s a whole eight-and-a-half hours since Steve left, and Eddie’s opening the door to a delivery guy who’s holding a box from Eddie’s favorite bakery. Eddie didn’t even know they did delivery, but like—

He shouldn’t even be fucking surprised anymore. He’s not surprised by how his heart fills, and trips over itself for how clumsy it gets when it’s a giddy-lovedrunk fool like the rest of him, beating Steve-Steve-Steve through his veins, stumbling like it’s never moved before which is true in a way, maybe the biggest way, because this territory of loving his Stevie demands blissfully, and consumes entirely, all that Eddie is in a way he’s never known before, or feltbefore so yeah, yeah his heart can just shiver madly with it as long as it goddamn wants.

(And it wants forever, so.)

And this is apparently who Eddie is, now, what he’s be reshaped into for the love of Steve Harrington. And fuck, but he wouldn’t trade it; wouldn’t change it for anything.

His pulse does an extra little tumble when he unfolds the note waiting for him in the fold of the box:

you are what my heart is for

for always, if you’ll have me

~S <3 <3

He doesn’t fight the way his face stretches into a smile, so soft and just, just…so in love, right, and he laughs with the size of the warmth flooding him when he opens the box to see his favorite donuts—Boston Cream and chocolate glazed—nestled alongside enough varieties of the flakiest, butteriest croissants to feed a small army. He shakes his head and checks the clock: not too late for a coffee, so he goes to the machine and—

Finds it all set up, ready to brew. Cup set next to it and everything, complete with a post-it with another <3 scrawled in the middle, stuck to the handle.

Eddie cannot fight the way his eyes prickle as he switches the machine on and takes the note from the mug, holds it to his chest like it’s precious.

Because it is precious. This feeling, this…this this, is so fucking precious he doesn’t know what to do with himself. He doesn’t know how he found something this profound, this invaluable and dear to its core, to his core, he’s, he just…

If his fucking coffee gets a couple tears in it, he figures that’s just, like, the taste of true fucking love, so he’s actually really goddamn grateful for it.

Maybe it makes him heartsick a little, for how much it already feels like his home is empty without Steve, just for a few hours now, but…he thinks maybe that’s how it’s supposed to be, how he’s supposed to feel.

He…he’s not going to willingly sign up for this feeling way again, though. He’s gonna get over his bullshit and give in to what it feels like to love this big and complete, fuck his discomfort and his hangups, he’s never letting his world feel this dull and bereft again if he can fucking help it.

Maybe he googles tuxedos, then…maybe he googles ‘what do men wear to the red carpet’ because maybe it’s just really nice tailored suits, he doesn’t fucking know, he just knows he’s going to fucking get one, he’s going to buy it himself and have it ready for the next time Steve asks him to come with him, so he can show his Stevie that he’s in this in every way, no caveats, no heartbreak, even the little temporary going-to-work kind.

Then he looks at the clock, bites at his lip, and decides no, it’s not took early to search for the most unhinged network to have started their coverage of the premiere.

Because seriously. He was always gonna fucking watch his boyfriend be amazing, and beautiful, and just…

Everything.

—

Eddie nearly drops his pain au chocolat when he sees Steve’s perfectly swooped hair peek on-screen in the so-far-kinda-interminable premiere coverage. Like…Eddie knows he’s watching with a deeply single-minded goal, but seriously.

How are these other people taking up time that could just be Steve, instead?

Insanity.

“Steven,” the interviewer greets him in that over-friendly way the press has with celebrities, that Eddie always thought was weird as fuck because it’s not like those vultures were the famous people’s friends.

“I hate to say this because it feels cliche,” the woman smiles that sort of apologetic-but-only-because-people-are-watching smile that’s fucking nauseating; “but you’re looking exceptionally striking tonight,” she nods to his outfit, and ‘striking’ is an understatement but then she once-overs him head-to-toe and…

Fuck.

Fuck, but Eddie did not anticipate the welling of rage in his limbs, the protectiveness that surges in him laced with a potent possessiveness he should maybe be ashamed of but…no, he’s fucking not, because his Stevie isn’t a pice of meat and he’ll fucking fight anyone who treats him like a paycheck or a prize or a—

But Steve laughs, and it sounds real, so…Eddie can let it slide.

For now.

“Am I?” Steve asks, playful almost, coquettish—he’s got a handle on this, has these bastards eating out the palm of his goddamn hand and if his masterful command of the encounter from the jump, here, isn’t sexy as fuck, leads to something wholly different but just as red-hot as the protective ire in Eddie leaping through his blood all over again? Well.

Fuck him, then, because: dayum.

The interviewer laughs, comfortable, and Eddie gets the impression that maybe they’ve done this dance before; a lot of times, even. There isn’t camaraderie, there, but there’s a…collegiality.

Eddie will table his desire to key the interviewer’s car and…stuff.

For now.

“Is it weird to tell you you’re glowing?”

Steve does what Eddie imagines is the movie star equivalent of the snort that he lets loose so often, so freely, so unguarded in Eddie’s home, next to Eddie and it’s like his smiles that don’t reach his eyes versus the ones that do.

And Eddie’s fucking floored all over again at what a privilege it is, what a gift he’s living, to know the difference. To be able to hold the difference close.

“Maybe,” Steve huffs across the feed, and Eddie watches the little expressive quirks run across his face, framing that blinding smile because fuck, the man is kinda radiant, but then: Eddie knows for a fact that Steve is radiant always, so it’s not a surprise this lady’s pointing it out.

S’just obvious.

“But I don’t mind at all,” Steve adds as the interviewer ducks her head a bit, a little reticent all of a sudden though Eddie can’t tell how much of it’s an act, if it even matters: because Steve’s a master at reading people, at getting the body language and subtler cues just right—the number of times already that he’s picked up something’s off, from a frustrating work call to a headache from a coming storm, before Eddie even processes it for himself is unreal—but Steve always notices, so he leans in kind of conspiratorially as he grins, and invites her to share the energy:

“I’ll take it as a compliment,” and he winks, and she chuckles, and Eddie…

Eddie cannot help but imagine what it could be like to stand next to him. To brush his arm against Steve’s arm as he works the line of cameras. To smile at this woman and all these bloodsuckers and just…watch as they fawn over the man he loves, who loves him and who will go home with Eddie, and trust Eddie with all the intricacies of him that the world isn’t privy to, and Eddie could watch them fall over themselves and just…just know.

He wants that. He wants that…so much.

“Such a compliment,” the interviewer confirms enthusiastically, then tilts her head, her demeanor shifting ever-so-slightly:

“Anything different to credit as the cause? New skin routine?” she asks too innocent, and Eddie’s struck that this must be how the game is played, asking questions without asking the question.

He doesn’t think he could manage that. He’s in awe of Steve all over again if this is what’s demanded of him as a rule, on the regular.

Then he’s in awe of Steve—all over again, again—when Steve’s features soften and then, for the most blink-and-you’ll-miss-it second, Eddie sees the version of Steve that sits next to him on the couch, that strokes Eddie’s hair, that touches him gentle and reverent somehow, that shares his bed.

It’s gone in a second but, the idea that there’s feeling there that, knowing what to look for and how to recognize the known quantity, can leak into the careful public display that Steve allows the world to have of him?

It’s…it’s a heady, powerful thing. It’s fucking intoxicating to witness.

And then the man he loves speaks:

“I don’t think there’s a product money can buy that makes you glow from the inside,” and he sounds so tender, so genuine and fucking, like, just, luminescent with feeling and Eddie…Eddie cannot handle it.

Eddie needs him so much. Needs to reach for him. Needs to hold him. Needs to hold him to his chest and try to fit him inside, needs to make himself small in Steve’s arms to try and fit inside his chest and make a home there forever, he needs—

“Oh,” the interviewer is fucking, like, cooing; “oh, Steven,” and Eddie’s mouth twists instinctually because…okay. Okay, Eddie gets why Steve uses another version of his name for the masses and Eddie thinks he’s only going to use it for really really serious things, if only just to try and salvage the way he suspects this woman isn’t the first, or the worst, to simper around it like it has something to give, rather than exists as something to like…adulate.

Actively.

“You have to know that now I’m obligated to—” she says the words like she knows she’s required to, and maybe, maybe feels some degree of apology for prodding but…not nearly enough degrees.

Not even close.

But Steve just laughs, cuts into her words:

“Of course I knew,” he waves her prevaricating off with such a deft fucking hand, so hot; “I was counting on it.”

And he sounds sly, not quite like he’d played her but not exactly not, like he was pulling the strings all along and she moved exactly where he’d planned for her to.

More…just more sexy. And Eddie’s just really grateful he’s wearing sweats right now and there’s no one to judge him, basically.

“It’s not something I want to hide,” Steve’s saying all soft again, but burning like candlelight and Eddie melts for it accordingly because Jesus fucking Christ: “but you’re only getting the broad strokes, yeah?”

“Broad strokes, excellent,” the interviewer says, nodding like a bobblehead; “that is perfect,” and she’s clearly excited, and Eddie obviously knew Steve was private where he could be but to get this kind of reaction at the admittedly bare-bones he’s laying out as being willing to share?

It has to…mean something big. Has to be a little unprecedented. Maybe Eddie’s heart’s bouncing in his chest, pin-balling against his ribs more than a little for all the implications in it.

Heady, like he said: and then some.

“I met someone,” and Eddie, like: okay.

Okay, he probably could have guessed that’s where it was going via context clues, like, Steve was talking about something personal. Entertainment “journalism” was always rooted in who was fucking who, and…well.

Steve’s fucking Eddie, so, yeah. Context clues.

But tell that to the way Eddie’s heart damn well stops still, freezing all it’s chaotic momentum in his chest in a fucking second once he realizes what’s happening. What is…

Happening, on cable fucking television. On Al Gore’s internet. Fucking…live.

In front of millions. For posterity.

(If Eddie still trusted himself to follow such things—which for the record, after the no-Steve-in-your-contacts disaster, he absolutely does not, okay?—but if he did, he can only begin to imagine the extent of the gifsets, because Eddie found fuckton of a lot of them for the actor-who-he-definitely-didn’t-think-was-his-Steve, and he always did have a pretty good eye for the kinds of events that a fanbase would eat up and make like five-hundred-thousand versions of the same 10 seconds from, and now-definitely-his-Steve is offering a goldmine here, but—)

But see, even if Eddie trusted himself with that sort of thing still, he couldn’t care about it right now, and that would be because his heart’s still decidedly in limbo, twitching maybe with disbelief, with overwhelm, with the gravity of what’s happening because Steve is, Steve is—

About him and—

“I’m with someone.”

And Steve says it with so much feeling, so much…delight and wonder at the fact of it, the mere prospect of it, that it makes sense that the full weight of it hits Eddie as his heart feels like it gasps for air after being held under water, holding so much more inside it in his moment than Eddie thinks, no: so much more than Eddie knows he’s ever felt before and that’s why the way his heart jumps back to beating again is a whole ass the earth-shattering production, because the force of it could crack his ribs or quake the ground beneath him, definitely rocks him where he sits and shakes through his bones because it’s such a, like, volumetric force that cascades through him, that feels like expanding with the breadth of all things and then slamming closed to expel them into the universe to be caught and held by the only person, the only heart and soul that you want, that you need to have your everything—

“I found this incredible human who is,” Steve licks his lips, and Eddie’s hyper-saturated heart probably shouldn’t be able to beat faster when it’s beating with this kind of unprecedented force but it does, somehow, it can because Eddie is that far in love and maybe that transcends all the probablys in the whole fucking world.

“Like, this is amazing,” Steve pivots, gestures at the spectacle around them; “and it’s a privilege, and you know how much I appreciate it, how grateful I am and how much I would never dare to even think about taking any of it as a given.”

“You’ve always been,” the interviewer considers for a second before deciding on her words, and delivering them wholly-honest, and Eddie tries his damnedest to process what she says over the deafening rush of his blood in his ears: “probably the most gracious of your colleagues that I’ve had the pleasure to speak with,” and she shoots him a little grin as she adds:

“Humble, really, which has never failed to be impressive.”

And Eddie feels this…tingling warmth come over him, bubbly and magical like champagne looks in a sunset: he’s so proud, and he’s so…fucking lucky that this man wants him, that this man loves him, that this man lets Eddie love him back, and is willing to…tell the whole goddamn world.

“That is so sad,” Steve grimaces at being called out for being decent as something other than a bare minimum, which Eddie gets but he also knows for a fact that Steve is so much more than decent, and he deserves to be celebrated for it whether or not his own coworkers fucking suck.

Eddie’s gonna make a point to celebrate him. For all that he is and all that he does, for how he is exceptional in all the ways.

Always.

“But, like, you’ve seen that,” Steve gets back to his point, and perks up, goes back to the blinding brightness that pulls Eddie’s heart wide to do the thing where it’s trying to defy physics, to pump the whole unfathomable depth of this feeling; “so you know what it means when I tell you I met someone who blows all of this out of the water. Who puts everything this town, this industry,” he glances around himself again, takes everything in in this encompassing way then shakes his head and grins so true:

“Everything this job has to offer, even at its very best? This person puts all of it to absolute shame.”

And the interviewer is just staring at him, holding her microphone, looking a little dumbfounded, definitely surprised—Eddie knows Steve doesn’t date much, hasn’t been attached to someone romantically for years since a very high profile breakup with the lead from the those 80s-throwback monster movies that Eddie refuses to name, out of solidarity with the man he’s gonna spend the rest of his life with. But the red carpet lady’s thrown for a loop, maybe largely by the subject itself, but maybe likewise by the feeling Steve’s infusing every word with. Unabashed and brilliant.

“They’re so much…more, than all of this, any of this, that I don’t know the word to describe it,” Steve laughs lightly to himself for a second then tacks on:

“If a word for this even exists.”

The interviewer seems to shake herself out of her baffled kind of stupor to nod a little, smile a little—not reluctant, but more kinda…confused.

“Sounds special,” she says, and it’s like she does mean it, but then she adds; “almost like a fairytale.”

And Eddie doesn’t think it’s just his own insecurities—difficult to hold on to in the waves of what his pulse is doing, how his entire body is reacting to Steve’s every word, to the undeniable revelation of just what lives in Steve’s heart in detail, public now and proud of it, kind of fucking unequivocal—but Eddie doesn’t think it’d just be him who picks up the unspoken implication there:

Almost too good to be true..

“I mean every word,” Steve doesn’t even pause to consider that implication, fucking unfathomable saint of a man that he is; “and I am so grateful, I don’t take a breath spent with them for granted,” and fuck if Eddie’s eyes don’t sting because yeah, he kinda already knew that, and sure he feels exactly the same but…

Fuck if hearing it out loud isn’t something else.

“But I found someone who enjoys my company, like, seriously and genuinely enjoys my company, and doesn’t mind at all that I am kind of obsessed with them and want to be with them always,” and if Eddie mouths at the screen same, Stevie-baby, exactly the same with his heart in his throat, no one could even blame him, and he wouldn’t give a shit if they tried; “someone who supports the fuck out of me, who laughs with me, who lets me be stupid and filled with, like,” and Steve grins so big then and chuckles a little buoyant and it’s clear the interviewer is taken aback, had never seen Steve the way Eddie always sees Steve—

“Just, silly joy at the most random stuff,” and Steve’s gaze goes a little distant, a little starry, and Eddie wonders what he’s thinking about, which stupid thing they’ve giggled over’s filled his head just now and Eddie’s chest hurts for how much he wants to reach out and trace those features, wants to kiss the little space between those brows and feel those impossible lashes brush his skin because he leans so close, because he can be that close.

“Someone who takes me out, cooks me dinner, writes me songs, treats me randomly for no reason like I just deserve it as a matter of course,” because of course that should be the standard with Steve and fuck everyone who came before and failed to understand that; there won’t be anyone to come after, though, not if Eddie has anything to say about it: and he’s never going to forget what it means to treat Steve Harrington exactly how he deserves.

“And they let me do the same,“ and Steve sounds so grateful for the give-and-take of them, the way they meet and match, and Eddie just…he wants Stevie next to him right now, and he really and truly knows that after he kisses Steve senseless and they fuck about how much they love each other?

He’s going to promise this man every movie release and awards show and random event he wants for the rest of their lives, if he’ll let Eddie have the honor.

“Doesn’t turn it into like a competition on either side, either, it’s just us both doing what we want to do most in the moment, any given day,” and Eddie is struck all over again at how little time it took, especially given Eddie’s laundry list of hangups, for them both to sink into an established status quo of…not a millionaire and his management-grunt sidepiece, or some fucked up accidental sugar baby, but two men who just…love. As a rule. And show it.

Eddie…kinda didn’t process just how much that was, is, until it’s spelled out: never a competition. Eddie never feels bought when Steve sends him his now-routine gifts whenever he’s away. Steve never makes Eddie feels silly when Eddie makes a point to bring him breakfast in bed just because; kinda makes him feel the opposite, makes him feel like a fucking superhero or something, because they’re just—

“Cherishing each other,” Steve continues, and that’s…that’s it, that’s exactly it; “celebrating, y’know, what it means to feel this way.”

And Steve pauses, a soft smile less curling his lips than suffusing his whole body, softening his features and making him so much like a sun, a brighter star than the event can stand and Eddie’d called it: the world can’t handle that shine all the time. Steve can’t smile with his mouth and his heart and the full force of his everything, lest lesser mortals fall in the face of the magnificence of it.

But then he starts speaking again, and Eddie…Eddie, for his part, maybe falls in a wholly different way:

“I found somebody I want to see tomorrow with, but all of them. All the tomorrows, y’know? Somebody who wants to make my coffee in the morning, just so we can watch the sunrise,” and Eddie sees it as it happens on the little balcony he has, where he’s actually started using the chairs that were mostly for show before but now, now he sits with Steve, and they drink coffee and wake up slow and it’s…it’s perfection and Eddie aches at how much he’s in love with it, in love with Steve and what they have, what they’re making and building and keeping together and—

“Knows just how I like it,” and Eddie does, he makes sure Steve’s coffee has just the right amount of milk, is the perfect temperature—it’s muscle memory now: the knowledge of Steve held sacred in Eddie’s head as much as in his heart; “lets me hold their hand, play with their,” and Steve’s fingers twirl a little and Eddie knows: lets him play with Eddie’s hair, because fuck if they don’t both love that so fucking hard and maybe Eddie reaches for a curl and it’s nothing like having Steve play with it but it’s…it’s something.

“Never waited to call, because why wait,” he says wryly, and Eddie chokes on something between a cackle and a sob because Eddie had feared so hard that he’d lost this, but in truth?

He’d had no idea what he was losing, what he’d have gone without, even when he knew deep down he was maybe losing everything.

So yeah: he hadn’t fucking wasted any time that second go-around.

“Why play games when you can, when,” and Steve stops himself, shakes his head ruefully before thinking better of giving more than he wants to the people watching; “and now we, we’re like,” and this time when he trials off he just kinda sits with it, stares off camera kinda unfocused for a second, but looking so content.

Eddie loves him so goddamn much.

“Yeah,” Steve shrugs, but not in a way that minimizes any of what he’s said, or any of the feeling behind it; “sorry if it disappoints your viewers,” but Steve doesn’t sound one bit sorry, he sounds sly almost and then:

“But I’m not sorry at all that I found them, this,” and Steve smiles to himself, private-like again when he stumbles upon a reason to underscore the the reality that it’s:

“Us.”

Together. Inseparable. A single entity made of equals given wholly to what it means to love, like this.

Fucking magical, is what it is.

By this point, the interviewer looks a little dewy-eyed herself, and her smile really does read as honest. Like she’s…no one could be as happy as Eddie is, in this. And Steve’s feelings seem…comparable, against all odds but undeniable, though Eddie doesn’t think anyone could be quite as overjoyed by where he’s ended up, and with who.

Like: even if Steve were inexpressibly thrilled about it, and he may well be, the look on his face isn’t vague, but then Eddie…well, he’d just have to be so inconceivably giddy it topples empires; parts seas.

“You’ll head home to them?” the woman asks, and oh.

Oh.

Steve’s smile at that…it reaches his eyes.

“Long as I didn’t piss ‘em off too much, with what I’ve said,” and Eddie absolutely does laugh through the heaving sobs of the sort he’s not sure he’s ever experienced before: like the sheer magnitude of feeling in him just has no option but to crest and burst out of him the only way it can, as he giggles at the absolute absurdity of this man, this man, as if Eddie isn’t tempted to sleep in front of the fucking door for however many days between now and Steve coming home—home—so he can leap into those arms and cling and promise him forever, forever, forever in no uncertain terms, making concrete and certain all that they’ve implied in every possible way to now.

“They value their privacy,” Steve sobers a little, serious with it and Eddie loves him, he loves him and he loves so much more and bigger than privacy, than whatever fear lives and breathes in him: it’s nothing compared to the fact of Steve.

“Our privacy.”

“You were impressively discreet, even by your own standards,” the woman reassures him, as if it’s a question, as if Eddie could ever be pissed at Steve for the fucking declarations he’s given, for the care he’s infused in the delivery, just…Steve.

“Even I don’t think I could track this person down,” the lady tacks on and Steve chuckles at that.

“That’s pretty good, then,” he compliments lightly, like maybe he appreciates her actual journalistic skills in a sea of stolen photos and who-wore-it-best.

“Congratulations, Steven,” the woman leans in and seems to think twice before patting his shoulder or something, but definitely looks like she wants to. “I’m happy for you.”

“Thank you,” Steve tells her then glances over his shoulder, catches something out of sight and waves before smiling not-quite-apologetically. “Looks like I’m needed elsewhere.”

And then Steve’s off and Eddie…

Eddie starts searching for someone who’s better at technology that he is, and has saved the interview start to finish, so he can watch it again.

💛💛💛

on to THE CONCLUSION // part ten >>>

✨or✨

<<< back to the obligatory insecurity // part eight

for @pearynice 🖤

✨permanent tag list: OPEN (lmk if you want to be added/removed): @pearynice @hbyrde36 @slashify @finntheehumaneater @wxrmland @dreamwatch @perseus-notjackson @estrellami-1 @bookworm0690 @imhereforthelolzdontyellatme @nerdyglassescheeseychick @swimmingbirdrunningrock @goodolefashionedloverboi @sanctumdemunson @theheadlessphilosopher @sadisticaltarts @bumblebeecuttlefishes @shrimply-a-menace @wheneverfeasible @1-tehe-1 @themoonagainstmers @dreamercec @ravenfrog @live-laugh-love-dietrich @stealthysteveharrington @tinyplanet95 @theohohmoment @samsoble @tinyloonyteacups @askitwithflours @awkwardgravity1 @pretend-theres-a-name-here @dragoon-ze-great

divider credit here

[arinzeture]

One such story took place when Ali was visiting a veterans’ hospital in the mid-1980s.

While walking through the wards and meeting with wounded soldiers, Ali met a Vietnam War veteran who had lost both of his legs in combat. The man was deeply depressed, not just because of his injuries, but because he could no longer work to support his wife and children. His sense of purpose and dignity had been shattered.

Ali listened quietly to the man’s story. Without any cameras around and no media coverage, he took the man’s hand and said, “You fought for your country. Now let me fight for you.”

A few days later, through his personal network, Ali arranged a job for the veteran — a desk position with a veterans’ assistance organization that allowed him to work with honor and dignity while also supporting his family. Ali made sure the man had reliable transportation and even checked in later to see how things were going.

When asked why he did it, Ali simply said, “Helping others is the rent we pay for our time on Earth.”

[contemplatingoutlander]

FiveThirtyEight is gone. Its legacy will endure.

Nate Silver’s website suffered because of Trump and changes in political news coverage.

Opinion | Perry Bacon, Jr. | March 7, 2025

FiveThirtyEight became famous for its “forecasts” from founder Nate Silver. But the website (where I worked from 2017 to 2021) was trying to do much more than predict presidential election results. FiveThirtyEight was an attempt to improve and reimagine journalism. I think it succeeded — even though the website is now defunct. ABC News, which owned FiveThirtyEight, this week laid off the site’s 15 remaining staffers. The network had already made drastic cutbacks two years ago, with Silver himself departing back then. We are in the midst of staff reductions throughout the journalism industry. That said, ABC News is not a newspaper in a declining city in the Midwest. If the network wanted to keep the site going, it could have. This decision probably wasn’t just about money. [...] Political journalism has changed in ways that have made FiveThirtyEight less essential. Silver started the website during the 2008 presidential campaign. (There are 538 votes in the electoral college.) He correctly saw a flaw in American political coverage. Journalism professors and many within the news industry had for years argued that political news was too focused on the “horse race” (who was going to win the next election) instead of policy issues. What Silver argued was that horse-race coverage, while extensive, was often quite bad. It was overly fixated on a single poll or arguing that a candidate appeared to be surging after delivering a strong speech, without any other evidence. Averaging polls, scrutinizing demographics and voting histories of states — that all seems obvious now. It wasn’t 17 years ago. [emphasis added]

I will miss FiveThirtyEight. It was always a reliable source of aggregate polling data. It also provided a lot of background information about the potential bias and reliability of individual polls.

R.I.P. FiveThirtyEight March 7, 2008 - March 5, 2025

_________________ Collage sources (before edits, starting in center, then moving top left to right clockwise, ending bottom left): 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07

[See more excerpts from the column under the cut]

In 2010, the New York Times hired Silver and starting hosting FiveThirtyEight on its website. A few years later, ESPN hired him to create a FiveThirtyEight that would cover not only politics but also sports, science and other topics with statisticians and more traditional journalists working in a combined newsroom. The site grew in size and influence. And other news organizations started borrowing its methods, averaging polls and producing statistical models to analyze elections. [...] The site often had political scientists and scholars write pieces. Fact-checking was extensive, adding to the site’s reliability and reputation. But I knew FiveThirtyEight was in trouble when I saw not only stories similar to ours published in the Times and The Washington Post but also those larger organizations poaching our staffers. Another factor that made the website less relevant was Trump. He made politics more about tweets, firings and other drama that the data can’t really capture. [...] But for me, FiveThirtyEight staffers and its devoted fans, the site was about much more than election predictions and even Silver. It was an alternative, higher form of journalism. It was also a lovable community of nerds, wonks and junkies. Our readers were Democratic-leaning, but they weren’t people watching MSNBC just to hear how terrible Republicans are. They wanted us to tell them if a Democratic politician was going to lose. They loved that every article seemed to involve the writer examining election results down to the county level and producing three charts to support their thesis. Silver now has one of the most popular political Substack newsletters; former managing editor Micah Cohen is now politics editor for Apple News; reporter Anna Maria Barry-Jester has moved on to cover public health for ProPublica. But from my vantage point, FiveThirtyEight is everywhere in more subtle ways. The amount of charts and data in stories about politics in particular is much larger than it was two decades ago. The chief political analyst at the New York Times is a data whiz named Nate (Cohn) who joined the paper essentially as Silver’s replacement. If you tell someone about a poll, they will often ask whether other surveys show the same result. There is still too much horse-race coverage. I hate when I see polls of the 2028 Democratic primary. Can we wait a minute? But FiveThirtyEight made that coverage smarter and more rigorous — creating a legacy that will endure.

[soon-palestine]

The Palestine exception at CBC After October 7, I dreaded going into work: every shift, the impact of the biases went into overdrive. Even at this early stage, Israeli officials were making genocidal statements that were ignored in our coverage. On October 9, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said, “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel; everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” Even after this comment, my executive producer was still quibbling over uses in our scripts of the word “besieged” or references to the “plight of Palestinians.”

[..]

On October 20, I suggested having Hammam Farah, a Palestinian-Canadian psychotherapist, back on the network. In an earlier interview he had told us that his family were sheltering in Saint Porphyrius Greek Orthodox church in Gaza City. The following week, I learned from social media that his step-cousin had been killed in an Israeli airstrike on the 12th-century building. My executive producer responded to my pitch via instant message: “Yeah, if he’s willing. We also may have to potentially say we can’t verify these things though—unless we can.” I was stunned. Never in my nearly 6 years at CBC had I ever been expected to verify the death of someone close to a guest, or to put a disclaimer in an interview that we couldn’t fact-check such claims. That’s not a standard that producers had been expected to uphold—except, apparently, for Palestinians. 

[..]

In early November, I was asked to oversee production of an interview with a former US official now working for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank. During the interview, he was allowed to repeat a number of verifiably false claims live on air—including that Hamas fighters had decapitated babies on October 7 and that Gazan civilians could avoid being bombed if only they listened to the Israeli military and headed south. This was after civilian convoys fleeing southward via “safe routes” had been bombed by the Israeli military before the eyes of the world. As soon as I heard this second falsehood, I messaged my team suggesting that the host push back—but received no response. Afterwards, the host said she had let the comment slide because time was limited, even though she could have taken the time from a less consequential story later on in the program. The majority of Palestinian guests I spoke to during the first six weeks of Israel’s assault on Gaza all said the same thing: they wanted to do live interviews to avoid the risk of their words being edited or their interview not being aired. These were well-founded concerns. Never before in my career had so many interviews been cancelled due to fear of what guests might say. Nor had there ever been direction from senior colleagues to push a certain group of people to do pre-taped interviews. (CBC told The Breach it “categorically rejects” the claim that interviews were “routinely cancelled”.)

[]

Editing out ‘genocide’    Most shows on the network seemed to avoid airing any mention of “genocide” in the context of Gaza.  On November 10, my senior producer pushed to cancel an interview I had set up with a Palestinian-Canadian entrepreneur, Khaled Al Sabawi. According to his “pre-interview”—a conversation that typically happens before the broadcastable interview—50 of his relatives had been killed by Israeli soldiers. The part of the transcript that concerned the senior producer was Al Sabawi’s claim that Netanyahu’s government had “publicly disclosed its intent to commit genocide.” He also took issue with the guest’s references to a “documented history of racism” and “apartheid” under Israeli occupation, as well as his suggestion that the Canadian government was complicit in the murder of Gazan civilians.

The senior producer raised his concerns via email to the executive producer, who then cc’ed one of the higher-up managers. The executive producer replied that it “sound[ed] like [his statement was] beyond opinion and factually incorrect.” The executive manager’s higher up chimed in, saying she thought the interview would be “too risky as a pre-tape or live [interview].��� 

Despite the guest’s position aligning with many UN experts and Western human rights organizations, the interview was cancelled. (CBC told The Breach “the guest turned down our offer of a pre-taped interview,” but Al Sabawi had said to the producers from the start that he would only do a live interview.) Never in my nearly 6 years at CBC had I ever been expected to verify the death of someone close to a guest. That’s not a standard that producers had been expected to uphold—except, apparently, for Palestinians.

In another instance, a Palestinian-Canadian guest named Samah Al Sabbagh, whose elderly father was then trapped in Gaza, had part of her pre-taped interview edited out before it went to air. She had used the word “genocide” and talked about the deliberate starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. The senior producer told me the edit was because of time constraints. But that producer and the host were overheard agreeing that the guest’s unedited words were too controversial. (CBC told The Breach it “has not ‘cancelled’ interviews with Palestinians because they reference genocide and apartheid.”) By November 2023, it was getting harder to ignore the brazen rhetoric coming from senior Israeli officials and the rate of civilian death, which had few precedents in the 21st century. But you wouldn’t have heard about these things on our shows, despite a number of producers’ best efforts. (By early 2024, the International Court of Justice’s hearings—and later its ruling that Israel refrain from actions that could “plausibly constitute” genocide—forcibly changed the discussion, and the word “genocide” finally made some appearances on CBC.)

But back in late October, I booked an interview with Adel Iskandar, Associate Professor of Global Communication at Simon Fraser University, to talk about language and propaganda from Israeli and Hamas officials. The host filling in that day was afraid of complaints, was concerned about the guest wanting to be interviewed live, and judged him to be biased. Yet again an interview was cancelled.

A secret blacklist?  One Saturday in mid-October, I arrived at work shortly after the airing of an interview with the prominent Palestinian-Canadian lawyer and former spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization, Diana Buttu.  There had been a commotion, I was told. A producer from The National—the CBC’s flagship nightly news and current affairs program—had apparently stormed into the newsroom during the interview saying that Buttu was on a list of banned Palestinian guests and that we weren’t supposed to book her.  I heard from multiple colleagues that the alleged list of banned Palestinian guests wasn’t official. Rather, a number of pro-Israel producers were rumoured to have drawn up their own list of guests to avoid. Later, I was told by the producer of the interview that, after the broadcast, Buttu’s details had mysteriously vanished from a shared CBC database. By then, I had also discovered that the name and contact details for the Palestinian Ambassador Mona Abuamara, who had previously been interviewed, had likewise been removed. It didn’t seem coincidental that both guests were articulate defenders of Palestinian rights. While producers distressed by the CBC’s coverage of Gaza were speaking in whispers, pro-Israeli colleagues felt comfortable making dehumanizing comments about Palestinians in the newsroom. In one case, I heard an associate producer speak disparagingly about a guest’s decision to wear a keffiyeh for an interview before commenting that “[the host] knows how to handle these people.” This guest had dozens of family members killed by the Israeli military in Gaza.  It seemed the only Palestinian guest CBC was interested in interviewing was the sad, docile Palestinian who talked about their suffering without offering any analysis or solutions to end it. What they did not want was an angry Palestinian full of righteous indignation towards governments complicit in their family’s displacement and murder.  At this stage, I was starting to feel nauseous at work. And then one Saturday night, that sickness turned into anger.  I had been asked to finish production on a pre-taped interview with a “constructive dialogue” researcher on incidents of campus hostilities over the war and how to bring people together—the sort of interview CBC loves, as it’s a way to be seen covering the story without actually talking about what’s happening in Gaza.  I carried out the task in good faith, writing an introduction leading with an example of antisemitism and then another of anti-Palestinian hate, taking care to be “balanced” in my approach. But my senior producer proceeded to remove the example of anti-Palestinian hate, replacing it with a wishy-washing “both sides” example, while leaving the specific serious incident of antisemitism intact. He also edited my wording to suggest that pro-Palestinian protesters on Canadian campuses were on the “side” of Hamas.  I overheard the host thank the senior producer for the edits, on the basis that incidents of antisemitism were supposedly worse. While the introduction of these biases into my script was relatively minor compared to some other double standards I witnessed, it was a tipping point.  I challenged the senior on why he had made my script journalistically worse. He made up a bad excuse. I told him I couldn’t do this anymore and walked out of the newsroom, crying. 

Truth-telling about CBC That evening at home, the nausea and the anger dissolved, and for the first time in six weeks I felt a sense of peace. I knew it was untenable to stay at CBC. At a team meeting the following week, in mid-November, I said the things I had wanted to say since the start of Israel’s assault on Gaza. I prefaced the conversation by saying how much I loved my team and considered some coworkers friends. I said the problems weren’t unique to our team but across the CBC.  But the frequency of Palestinian guests getting cancelled, the pressure to pre-tape this one particular group, in addition to the unprecedented level of scrutiny being placed on them, demonstrated a pattern of double standards. I said there seemed to be an unspoken rule around words like “genocide.” I pointed out that Arab and Muslim coworkers, especially those who were precariously employed, were scared of raising concerns, and that I and others had heard dehumanizing comments about Palestinians in the newsroom. (The CBC told The Breach that there “have been no specific reports of anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic comments in the newsroom for managers to respond to or follow up”.) 

I said that two decades since the US-led invasion of Iraq, it was widely-acknowledged that the media had failed to do their jobs to interrogate the lies used to justify a war and occupation that killed one million Iraqis—and that as journalists we had a special responsibility to tell the truth, even if it was uncomfortable. A couple of coworkers raised similar concerns. Others rolled their eyes. (CBC told The Breach that it doesn’t recall there was anyone else who raised concerns in the meeting, but audio recordings show otherwise.) The question of why there was nervousness around this issue came up. I said one reason why we were adverse to allowing Palestinian guests to use the “G-word” was because of the complaint campaigns of right-wing lobby groups like HonestReporting Canada.  Indeed, in just 6 weeks, there were already 19 separate instances of HonestReporting going after CBC journalists, including a host on our team. HonestReporting had also claimed responsibility for the firing at two other outlets of two Palestinian journalists, one of whom was on maternity leave at the time.  All this had a chilling effect. Hosts and senior colleagues would frequently cite the threat of complaints as a reason not to cover Israel-Palestine. During my time there, a senior writer was even called into management meetings to discuss her supposed biases after a HonestReporting campaign targeted her. Her contract was cut short.

This policing of media workers’ output reinforced existing institutional tendencies that ensured CBC rarely deviated from the narrow spectrum of “legitimate” opinions represented by Canada’s existing political class.  Certain CBC shows seemed to be more biased than others. The National was particularly bad: the network’s prime time show featured 42 per cent more Israeli voices than Palestinian in its first month of coverage after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, according to a survey by The Breach.  Although some podcasts and radio programs seemed to cover the war on Gaza in a more nuanced way, the problem of anti-Palestinian bias in language was pervasive across all platforms.  According to an investigation in The Breach, CBC even admitted to this disparity, arguing that only the killing of Israelis merited the term “murderous” or “brutal” since the killing of Palestinians happens “remotely.” Images of children being flattened to death in between floors of an apartment building and reports of premature babies left to starve in incubators suggested otherwise.

It seemed the only Palestinian guest CBC was interested in interviewing was the sad, docile Palestinian who talked about their suffering without offering any analysis or solutions to end it.

I spoke to many like-minded colleagues to see if there was any action we could all take to push back on the tenor of our coverage, but understandably others were reluctant to act—even collectively—out of fear doing so would endanger their jobs. Some of those colleagues would have loved to have walked out, but financial responsibilities stopped them. There had been previous attempts at CBC to improve the public broadcaster’s coverage of Israel-Palestine. In 2021, hundreds of Canadian journalists signed an open letter calling out biases in the mainstream media’s treatment of the subject. A number of CBC workers who signed the letter were hauled into meetings and told they either weren’t allowed to cover the subject or would have any future work on the issue vetted. A work friend later regretted signing the letter because she got the sense that she had been branded as biased, leading to her pitches on Palestine being more readily dismissed. 

Smeared as antisemitic In mid-November, after laying out my concerns to my colleagues, the regular weekly pitch meeting took place. It was then that I pitched the two genocide scholars, before having to attend that virtual meeting with my executive producer—where he suggested I go on mental health leave—and yet another meeting with two managers who raised concerns over my pitch the next day. But the most unpleasant meeting with management was about to come. A week later, I was accused of antisemitism on the basis of something I didn’t even say. According to a manager, someone had accused me of claiming that “the elephant in the room [was] the rich Jewish lobby.”  (CBC told The Breach that “employees expressed concerns” that what she said was “discriminatory”.) The accusation was deeply painful because of my Jewish heritage and how my dad’s life—and, as a consequence, my own—was profoundly damaged by antisemitism. But I also knew I could prove that it was baseless: I had recorded what I said, anxious that someone might twist my words to use them against me.  What I had actually said, verbatim, was this:  “I just want to address the elephant in the room. The reason why we’re scared to allow Palestinian guests on to use the word ‘genocide’ is because there’s a very, very well funded [sic], there’s lots of Israel lobbies, and every time we do this sort of interview, they will complain, and it’s a headache. That’s why we’re not doing it. But that’s not a good reason not to have these conversations.”  I stand by my statement. HonestReporting Canada is billionaire-funded. In December 2023, HonestReporting bragged about having “mobilized Canadians to send 50,000 letters to news outlets.” The group has also published a litany of attacks on journalists at CBC and other publications who’ve done accurate reporting on Palestine, and created email templates to make it easier for their followers to complain to publications about specific reporters. Other, similar pro-Israel groups like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) and the Canary Mission employ similar tactics to try to silence journalists, academics, and activists who tell the truth about Israel-Palestine. I told the manager it was telling that instead of following up on the racist comment I had heard from colleagues about Palestinians, I was the one being accused of antisemitism and discrimination—on the basis of words I hadn’t even uttered.

The banality of whitewashing war crimes When I handed in my resignation notice on November 30, I felt relieved that I was no longer complicit in the manufacturing of consent for a genocidal war of revenge. Despite my experience, I still believe in the importance of the national broadcaster to act in the public interest by reporting independently of both government and corporate interests, presenting the truth and offering a diverse range of perspectives.  However, I believe that CBC has not been fulfilling these duties when it comes to its coverage of Israel-Palestine. I believe that in the future, historians will examine the many ways that CBC, and the rest of mainstream media, have all failed to report truthfully on this unfolding genocide—and in doing so likely accelerated their delegitimization as trusted news sources. Before resigning, I raised the issue of double standards with various levels of the CBC hierarchy. While some members of management pledged to take my concerns seriously, the overall response left me disappointed with the state of the public broadcaster.  After my appeal to my coworkers in mid-November, I had a phone conversation with a sympathetic senior producer. He said he didn’t think my words at the meeting would interfere with my chances of getting the permanent staff job I had long dreamed of. Despite this assurance, I was certain that I wouldn’t get it now: I knew I’d crossed the line for saying out loud what many at CBC were thinking but couldn’t say openly. Indeed, I wouldn’t have spoken out if I hadn’t already decided to resign. As a kid, I had fantasies of shooting Hitler dead to stop the Holocaust. I couldn’t fathom how most Germans went along with it. Then, in my 20s, I was gifted a copy of Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann In Jerusalem: A Report On The Banality Of Evil by anti-Zionist Israeli friends. I’ve been thinking a lot about that piece of reportage when trying to make sense of the liberal media’s complicity in obfuscating the reality of what’s happening in the Holy Land. As Arendt theorized, those who go along with genocides aren’t innately evil; they’re often just boring careerists.  To be sure, while there are a number of senior CBC journalists who are clearly committed to defending Israel no matter its actions, many journalists just follow the path of least resistance. The fact that permanent, full-time CBC jobs are in such short supply, combined with threats of looming cuts, only reinforces this problem.  I still hear from former colleagues that pitch meetings are uphill battles. Some shows are barely covering Gaza anymore.  Being a journalist is a huge privilege and responsibility, especially in a time of war. You’re curating the news for the audience; deciding which facts to include and which to omit; choosing whose perspectives to present and whose to ignore. I believe that a good journalist should be able to turn their critical eye, not just on the news, but on their own reporting of the news. If you’re unable to do this, you shouldn’t be in the profession. I purposefully haven’t given away identifiable information about my former colleagues. Ultimately, this isn’t about them or me: it’s part of a much wider issue in newsrooms across the country and the Western world—and I believe it’s a moral duty to shed a light on it. If I didn’t, I’d never forgive myself. Just as I’m not naming my colleagues, I’m writing this using a pseudonym. Although the spectrum of acceptable discourse continues to shift, the career consequences for whistleblowers on this issue remains formidable. I encourage fellow journalists who refuse to participate in the whitewashing of war crimes, especially those with the security of staff jobs, to speak to like-minded coworkers about taking collective action; to approach your union steward and representative; and to document instances of double standards in your newsrooms and share them with other media workers.  It was scary, but I have no regrets about speaking out. My only regret is that I didn’t write this sooner. 

[thedaddycomplex]

So, about that 2024 campaign coverage

I'm a former journalist and I'm fucking pissed at news networks… and myself. You see, 24-hour news networks are, by definition, hypocritical. Why? Because news doesn't happen 24-hours a day. Seriously, watch early CNN broadcasts. It's mostly just reporters repeating the same block of news over and over. So, very early on these networks found they had to fill time. That's because networks are expensive to run and ad dollars are critical.

Hence, CNN's endless breathless reporting of plane crash conspiracies, MSNBC's nightly parade of uncontested right-shaming, and Fox's straight-up admission that the majority of its programs are opinion, not news. (It's the only honest thing the network has ever said.) It's all a game to keep viewers so the ad dollars don't go away. Each network has their own game and it works. And we're kinda willing participants.

I mean, I personally can't watch Fox News because it angers me (not in the way they want). But, I was a loyal MSNBC viewer. I appreciated Rachael Maddow's deep-dives, Chris Hayes' quips, Joy Reid's righteous anger. It made me feel better to hear them dissect Trump's outlandish speeches. I was a member of the choir and they were preaching to me. It wasn't an echo chamber, it was an echo cathedral — huge, loud, and full of uplifting hymns.

The press is called the Fourth Estate because it's supposed to keep power in check and to inform the public. Back in the day, when rich white dudes bought a newspaper company, it was a point of pride, not a point of revenue. It was how they showed off — they helped the public, kept power in check, owned a business that lost money — because all papers did — and were still rich. (Now, rich white dudes buy and/or make spaceships. Wheeee!)

That shifted after the turn of the century when owners insisted papers turn a profit and even more dramatically with the creation of 24-hour news networks. And that's why Fox News just wants to keep its viewers scared and angry — profit, not watchdogging. And if fear is Fox's game, it's abundantly clear that left-leaning networks like MSNBC want to keep viewers happy and optimistic, even in the face of evidence that should frighten them. It keeps us watching and ad money flowing.

Yes, fellow lefties, even "liberal news" networks are guilty of this. It'd be a lie for anyone to claim otherwise. And that's why Trump's victory was such a surprise to us. I realized my cathedral had ignored actual reporting to keep me happy. Because an entire electorate's seismic shift this far to the right can not be done in secret. Real reporting should have seen that coming. But, the 24-hour news networks wanted us to smile, laughing with the anchors. KA-CHING!

And as a former journalist, I should've known to seek news elsewhere. In hindsight, I'd much rather have fact-based reporting than the giggly opinion panels and proselytization that filled MSNBC's campaign coverage. So, I encourage you to add news outlets like AP News and Reuters into your news diet. (And check bias with this chart.)

As for me, I'm leaving the echo cathedral. Bye, MSNBC. It was fun when it really shouldn't have been.

[mariacallous]

Usually held in the two weeks after the Olympic Games in the same host city, the Paralympics showcase the best athletes with physical disabilities from around the world competing for their home countries. (The Paralympics are not to be confused with the Special Olympics, which feature athletes with intellectual disabilities.) This year, the Summer Paralympics will take place from August 28 to September 8 in Paris, France.

Quick history lesson: The origins of the Paralympics began shortly after World War II, during the 1948 London Olympics, where 16 wheelchair-using veterans participated. The first official Paralympic Games took place in Rome in 1960 and featured 400 athletes from 23 countries. Since then, the Games have taken place every four years and now feature 4,400 athletes in 22 sports (the Olympics have 32), with 549 gold medals up for grabs.

There are athletes competing from 177 countries (this year’s Olympics had athletes from 184 countries), including 10 countries that have never been represented in the Paralympic Games before, along with representation from the Neutral and Refugee teams. In case you missed it, at the last Paralympics in Tokyo, China earned the most medals, with Great Britain behind it and the US in third.

Since the 1988 Summer Games and the 1992 Winter Games, the Olympic and Paralympic Games have been held in the same cities and venues. Although Paralympians still strive for equal treatment as Olympic athletes without disabilities, there is a large gap in funding between the Olympics and Paralympics.

Where to Watch

This year’s Games will make history as the first Paralympic Games to offer live coverage of every one of the 22 sports played. Like the Olympics, every event at the Paralympics will be available to stream on Peacock if you’re in the US.

If you prefer going old school and watching on basic cable, a select number of events will be airing on the NBC channels NBC, CNBC, and USA Network, along with E!, Golf Channel, and Telemundo, which offers coverage in Spanish. In an effort to make the Games more accessible, closed captioning will be available for every Paralympic event (regardless of the platform). You can also watch highlights and athlete interviews on Paralympic.org.

In the UK, Channel 4 has more than 1,300 hours of live coverage scheduled. Folks can also watch through their streaming service or Channel 4 Sport’s YouTube channel, which will show the entirety of the Games for the first time. BBC, BBC Radio 5 Live, and the BBC Sport website will also air highlights and select coverage. The Paralympics website also has a complete list of where to watch by country.

Opening Ceremony

The Opening Ceremony will begin August 28 at 8 pm Paris time, 7 pm BST, 2 pm EDT, and 11 am PDT. Similar to the Olympics opening ceremony, the Paralympics opening ceremony will be held outside of a stadium at one of the major squares in Paris, Place de la Concorde, and the iconic avenue Champs-Élysées will be transformed into the opening ceremony stage.

The competition starts the following day, on August 29, at 11 am EDT (8 am PDT). Like with the Paris Olympics, the start times will be similarly early and continue throughout the day. The specific timing of some of the events might change, so check the schedule of events on the Olympics' Paralympics schedule webpage.

Blind Football (Soccer)

Blind football is an adaptation of football (or soccer, if you’re American) for athletes with vision impairment played with an audible ball. This men’s competition starts early on September 1 and continues on September 2, 3 and 5, with the gold medal match on Saturday, September 7.

Boccia

Boccia is one of only two sports with no Olympic equivalent. It was originally created for athletes in wheelchairs who have impaired motor function or coordination. To win, each team must get the most balls closest to the white ball called the jack, with athletes allowed to make modifications according to their needs. Men’s and women’s individual games start August 29 and go through September 1, with the gold medal individual matches on September 1 and 2. Mixed pairs and teams start September 3, with gold mixed pairs and teams matches on September 5.

Goalball

The other sport of the Paralympic Games without an Olympic equivalent, goalball is a team sport for the visually impaired and blind, in which players wear special black eye-covering-type glasses so they fully can’t see and are thus more equitable (and honestly, look cool as hell). If there’s anything that the Olympic Games have taught us, it’s that the people go crazy for some out-of-the-norm eyewear. The audience needs to stay as quiet as possible because the ball has bells inside. Thus, the athletes have to rely solely on sound, while they use their whole body to try to block the ball from making it inside the goal. (Lets see Neymar try to do that.) Men’s and women’s games start August 29 with the gold medal games for both on September 5.

Para Archery

The first game played at the early iteration of the Paralympics in 1948, para archery now has men and women’s individual and mixed teams, with wheelchair or standing, and with recurve and compound bows used. Men’s and women’s individual events begin August 29 and continue through September 5, with gold medal matches in individual, teams and with different bows across multiple days.

Para Athletics

One of the most beloved sports in the Paralympics is para athletics, which has been a popular fixture in the games since the inaugural Rome Games in 1960. Today, it spans a wide range of track, jumping, and throwing events, as well as marathons. Because of the wide range of men’s and women’s events, competition begins on August 30 and happens daily with gold medal matches until the Games end on September 8. Check the full para athletics schedule for more specific events’ times.

Para Badminton

Para badminton debuted at Tokyo 2020, although it has been hugely popular for decades. Like badminton, players compete as singles and pairs, as well as standing and in wheelchairs. Group play begins on August 29, with men’s, women’s, and mixed doubles beginning August 31. Gold medal matches take place September 1 and 2.

Para Canoe

The Paralympic Canoe competition features two types of boats: the kayak and va’a (traditionally used in Oceania for travel between islands). Para canoes are basically the same as those used in the Olympic Games, but just have a wider bottom for greater stability. The races begin September 6 with gold medal games on September 7 and 8.

Para Road Cycling

Throughout the years, like many other events, Paralympic cycling has grown to adapt to many disabilities, and uses standard bicycles, handcycles, tricycles, and tandems. In road cycling, there are road races, time trials, and relay events. Both the men and women’s individual and relay events and gold medal races take place daily September 4 through 7.

Para Track Cycling

Para  track cycling is similar to road cycling but takes place on a velodrome track (as the name suggests). Competition is divided into time trials, individual, and tandem or team sprints, using standard bicycles and tandems (all of which can be adapted for the specific athlete). The various track cycling events and gold medal races take place simultaneously August 29 to September 1.

Para Equestrian

Unlike the three equestrian events at the Olympic Games, the Paralympic equestrian program only includes the dressage competition. Para dressage essentially focuses on how well the rider and horse gel, with riders judged on their riding and performance with the horse. All the events are individual mixed, and each competition has gold medal rounds, taking place August 3, 4, 6 and 7.

Para Judo

Para judo is one of two martial arts competitions at the Games. The Paralympics judo follows the same rules as its Olympic equivalent, except it’s practiced exclusively by athletes with vision impairments—and is way more badass, in my humble opinion. (I think I’m allowed to make that assertion since I’m also disabled, don’t come for me.) With the athletes unable to see their opponent, they must use their sense of touch and careful listening—including slight differences in breathing and movement—to sense what their rival may do next. Men’s and women’s matches take place September 5, 6, and 7 and have gold medal matches at the end of each day.

Para Powerlifting

Para powerlifting is a men’s and women’s bench press competition that tests upper body strength where the athletes compete in different weight categories. All of the events are individual and there are gold medal rounds for each competition (which varies by gender and weight class) taking place September 4 to 8.

Para Rowing

A relatively new sport, rowing debuted at the Paralympic Games in 2008. Now, there are five rowing events, including three mixed events. Para rowing rules are nearly identical to those at the Olympics and rowers are eligible for different events according to their gender and impairment categories. The races begin across all categories on August 30, continue to August 31, with final gold medal rounds on September 1.

Para Swimming

Para swimming has remained one of the most enduring sports in the Paralympics since its debut at the Rome Games in 1960. Its popularity is due in part because athletes with all kinds of physical and mental disabilities can participate and doesn’t require any specific equipment. (Prosthetics aren’t allowed either.) Featuring different swims at different distances, athletes compete in breaststroke, backstroke, butterfly, freestyle, and medley. As one of the most popular sports, there are men’s, women’s, and mixed events virtually nonstop with gold medal races near the end of every day, August 29 until September 7.

Para Table Tennis

One of the OG Paralympian games, table tennis actually has a longer history in the Paralympic Games than its Olympic counterpart. When it began, it was only open to wheelchair users, although today athletes are placed into 11 different classes based on their physical and intellectual impairments. Men’s and women’s doubles, singles and mixed games take place August 29 to September 7, with gold medal games every day except September 2.

Para Taekwondo

Para taekwondo is a new competition that made its Paralympic debut at the Tokyo Games. Focused on athletes with upper limb impairments, they are split into two sports classes and divided into weight categories. Men and women compete August 29 to 31, with gold medal matches at the end of each day.

Para Triathlon

A relatively new sport introduced at the 2016 Rio Games, the para triathlon is held over the “sprint” distance, which is half the Olympic distance for individual competitions, where athletes swim 750 meters, cycle 20 kilometers, and run 5 kilometers. The competition is divided by men’s and women’s, with medals being awarded for each race September 1 and 2.

Shooting Para Sport

Shooters compete in rifle and pistol events from distances of 10-meter, 25-meter, and 50-meter in men’s, women’s, and mixed fields. Depending on needs, athletes compete in a kneeling position, prone, or standing (or in a wheelchair or shooting seat). The games take place August 30 to September 5, with medals awarded each day.

Sitting Volleyball

Sitting volleyball is pretty much the exact same as the volleyball we know and love, except as the name suggests, is a sitting variation of the sport. It’s played by two teams of six players who move around the court using the power of their arms, along with a lowered net that’s 3 feet high. The games start on August 29 and continue until the men’s gold medal game on September 6 and the women’s on September 7.

Wheelchair Basketball

Originally used for rehabilitation and exercise for World War II veterans—wheelchair basketball is quintessential Paralympics. Now, it’s one of the most popular and beloved sports for wheelchair users around the world. Games start August 29 and go until the men’s gold medal match September 7, with the women’s September 8.

Wheelchair Fencing

What’s more badass than fencing? Wheelchair fencing. In this sport that requires discipline (and ability to not flinch when a sword is coming at you), athletes compete in a special wheelchair frame designed for the sport which is fastened to the floor—meaning the fencers cannot move and are always close to their opponent. Just like the Olympic equivalent, wheelchair fencing consists of three disciplines: foil, épée, and saber. The men’s and women’s matches take place September 3 to 7, with gold medal rounds at the end of every day.

Wheelchair Rugby

Wheelchair rugby is a four-person team sport played in specially designed wheelchairs. It combines elements of rugby, basketball, and handball, with players using a round ball. Because it’s such an aggressive sport, it’s often referred to as “murderball.” Need I say more? You’re gonna wanna watch this one. Mixed games start August 29, with the gold medal games September 2.

Wheelchair Tennis

Wheelchair tennis pretty much follows the same rules of able-bodied tennis, except here the ball can bounce twice before the player hits it back. Athletes are divided into open and quad classes, along with men’s, women’s, singles, and doubles. Games start August 30, with gold medal matches September 4 to 7.

[tangspeakpod]

The Kellogg's Brand Boycott and How It's Going So Far

In late February 2024, Kellogg’s CEO Gary Pilnick suggested that households with tight budgets save money by eating cereal for dinner during an interview with CNBC. Understandably, Americans didn't react too kindly to the suggestion. Federal data shows that Americans are spending more on food than they have in the last three decades. Many who heard Pilnick's remarks noted that Kellogg's brand cereal has risen by 17% in the last year. Angered consumers on TikTok called for a three-month boycott of Kellogg’s products.

(Story continues below the image.)

As far as I've seen, most of the current news on this boycott has been on social media or not at all. Sure there has been some coverage since the first week of March here and there. My guess is because Kellogg's is a major American advertiser who spent $756 million on marketing in 2022. Of the $64.5 million Kellogg's spent on TV advertising that same year, CBS, NBC, and ABC were the leading networks to receive that bounty and you can read about that here. Hence, why the links I shared above ain't from any of those outlets. They are not trying to screw with those ad buys by actually being impartial.

What I especially love is how content creators didn't just tell folks to stop buying Kellogg's. They gave boycotters helpful tips on alternative brands to buy in lieu of Kellogg's here, here, and here. They also offered DIY recipes for Cheez Its, Rice Krispies, Pop Tarts, and Frosted Flakes.

While, the boycott is not technically supposed to start until April 1st (and last through June 30th), folks (like me) have already stopped shopping and Kellogg's and Kellogg's is suddenly going nuts with special offers and changes in marketing tactics like these, these and these. We will check back in a few months to catch up on the boycott and social media developments. -Tangentially Speaking

[adampage]

hi everyone! over the course of the last couple months, some good friends of mine over at the Social Suplex Podcast Network have started up their newsletter. It’s really cool, and I’ve been able to be a part of it. It is meant to be an alternative news source for wrestling that is completely free, absolutely no paywall.

They also have really cool feature articles from other people in the wrestling community. Some of my favorites of the past newsletters so far have been Tim’s article on Tam Nakano and how important she was to him, especially during the early pandemic era. There was also a really cool feature on Saya Kamitani (archive link pending) that came out in the 3rd edition a couple weeks ago, and two of my favorite articles have been written by someone named Micah - who did a cool feature on John Cena and CM Punk, as well as another awesome one on MJF and Hangman.

Please consider reading it! It comes out every two weeks, usually on the weekend. The fourth edition released today, and it has extensive news coverage on wrestling all over the globe! (Did I mention it’s free?)

But the reason I’m mainly here is to let y’all know that I wrote a feature on Hangman and how much he means to me 🥰 I hope you’ll consider checking it out. Here is a link to the front page of this week’s edition, which is headlined by a review of John Cena’s career by Conor titled, “His Time Is Up.”

Here’s a link directly to my Hangman article, titled “Butterflies & Pink Flowers.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

A wildly flimsy internet rumor launched by a random pro-Trump X poster about an “ABC whistleblower” who purportedly claims that the network rigged the September 10 presidential debate went viral in MAGA spaces over the last several days, with Donald Trump and his allies floating congressional investigations and potential regulatory retribution against ABC News in response.  The right-wing pundits and Republican politicians pushing the story don’t actually know who the “ABC whistleblower” is, if their claims are credible, or even if the person actually exists — but the purported document supposedly supports their preferred narrative that ABC News’ moderators were biased, so they’re running with it.  The saga, while laughable, shows the right's ongoing tendency to embrace and elevate anything that confirms their worldview. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) laid out that strategy in a Sunday interview on CNN, admitting that he pushed a debunked, racist, and demagogic claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets because he wants to “create stories” that drive news coverage of immigration.

In the instance of the absurd “whistleblower” claim, Trump's allies trotted it out as they tried to cover for his flailing September 10 debate performance. Right-wing media figures lashed out at ABC News and its moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis with deranged invective and absurd conspiracy theories. And Trump himself said in an interview the following morning that “they ought to take away their license,” reiterating his support for government retribution against news outlets that displease him.  Then on September 12, a “verified” but obscure X poster with the handle “Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS” claimed they would release “an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower” by the end of the weekend. “The affidavit states how the Harris campaign was given sample question which were essentially the same questions that were given during the debate and separate assurances of fact checking Donald Trump and that she would NOT be fact checked,” the poster wrote.

Right-wing pundits had no reason to take claims from “Black Insurrectionist” at face value — other than the fact that the story confirmed their preexisting biases. A casual review of recent activity from the “Black Insurrectionist” account — which has posted to X more than 32,700 times over the 10 months since its November 2023 launch — reveals a strong tendency for unhinged, conspiracy-minded, and violent pro-Trump rants. 

MAGA media propagandists are running a baseless claim about a “whistleblower” from ABC as part of their war on ABC and Disney over the channel’s conduct during the 2024 Presidential debate between Kamala Harris v. Donald Trump.

[contemplatingoutlander]

JOURNALISTIC CHOICES: Telling the Truth vs. "Bothsidesism"

Ben Raderstorf does a great job in this article discussing the dilemma modern journalism has in covering a lying, dangerous authoritarian like Donald Trump, without "appearing partisan." Raderstorf argues against bothsidesism, and in favor of good journalists just simply telling the truth.

[T]he best way for independent, fact-based media to win back the audiences they’re losing to polarization is to not chase them.... But rather, to double-down on independence, objectivity, and honesty. To report reality as it is and to let the chips fall where they may. To draw a hard distinction between the normal political jockeying of healthy democracy and actions that threaten our system of government.   Back in 2022, in response to questions from reporters about how to discern between those two things, we wrote a report on how experts understand threats to democracy: The Authoritarian Playbook: How reporters can contextualize and cover authoritarian threats as distinct from politics-as-usual. 

"Modern autocrats don't crush journalism — they corrupt it." 

Raderstorf also talks about how 21st century autocrats like Viktor Orbán (who is a role model for Trump) apply pressure in subtle ways to eventually "corrupt" journalism.

These days, many autocrats don’t just smash printing presses, throw reporters in jail, and be done with it. Often they pursue a more nuanced, and more insidious, strategy.   With a combination of intimidation, coercion, and financial manipulation, they slowly corrode the independence and autonomy of the press until it ceases to be a meaningful check on power. The media still exists; it’s just an empty shell, a useful facade.   Put differently, modern autocrats don’t crush journalism — they corrupt it. 

[See more below the cut about the role of "anticipatory obedience" and the changes in leadership at CNN and The Washington Post.]

[edited]

"ANTICIPATORY OBEDIENCE": An Explanation for Why CNN and The Washington Post Changed Their Leadership

Raderstorf mentions how the two journalistic outlets that Trump targeted most vehemently as president are the two that eventually replaced their leadership--and as a result, weakened their journalistic integrity.

In an article this week in the Columbia Journalism Review, my colleagues Ian Bassin... and Maximillian Potter ... dive into several case studies. They connect troubling dots suggesting that Donald Trump deployed the Orbán strategy in his first term to greater effect than many realize. [...] In their piece, Ian and Max explore the two major instances in Trump’s first term when he attempted to wield the powers of the presidency against journalists for coverage he didn’t like. First, by threatening to block a proposed merger between CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Second, by looking to raise shipping rates on Amazon, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, also owns the Washington Post.  In both cases, Trump mostly failed to carry out his threats. But… it’s also true that both CNN and the Post subsequently went through high-profile leadership shakeups at least partly in response to Trump. For CNN, this was Chris Licht’s short-lived tenure and disastrous efforts to make the network “more neutral.” For the Post, it was Bezos installing a new publisher: “Will Lewis, a former Rupert Murdoch executive who has spent most of his career in right-wing media.” [...] Timothy Snyder writes in On Tyranny that autocratic leaders often succeed simply because the media, business leaders, and civil society look ahead to possible repression and move preemptively towards self-preservation. What he calls “anticipatory obedience."

[raccoonfallsharder]

᠊ᡃ࡚ࠢ࠘ ⸝່ࠡࠣ᠊߯᠆ࠣ࠘ᡁࠣ࠘᠊᠊°.⋆｡✶˖ the hunt ⌖˖✶｡⋆ preview part one of evasive maneuvers ✶ book two of kinktober 2024

[anticipated 10/22]

kinktober 2024 | navigation | fanfiction masterlist 18+ only | no use of y/n | f!reader | 2 parts | word count: pending.

rocket promises you an abundance of rewards in return for your assistance brushing up on some of his old résumé skills. an expansion on day 9 of kinktober 2023. KINKS/WARNINGS: predator/prey dynamics, dirty talk, little bit of breathplay at the end. mentions of: restraints & rope-play, blindfold & gag, gunplay, electricity play.

There’s a soft clicking sound, echoing somewhere — the quick repetitive tap-tap-tap of claws against metal. You gasp, and your nipples tighten — like the damn things have memories of their own and are recalling those same claws prickling over your areolas. You immediately drop into a crouch, and you try to remember the best route across the catwalks, the ones that might still have crates left on them, anything that can shelter you. He’s silent just long enough for you to start edging along the catwalk again, just long enough for you to hope he’d lost sight of you, that maybe he’d never been certain you were here and had just been trying to scare you into revealing yourself. The minute your heartbeat eases, though, there’s a soft rush of movement — just above you, to your right.  Fuck.

You dart toward the next intersecting catwalk and dodge left, trying to stay quiet and small. He certainly knows where you are now — is trying to scare you — and you’re heart’s beating so hard it hurts. He’s also probably trying to herd you — but you’re not even sure where you are now, much less where he wants you to go. When you find a rusted trunk on a landing, you sink behind it, trying to ease the burn in your crouched muscles and lungs. Somewhere, he snickers, and it sounds like it’s coming from all around you: echoing on duranium, reverberating on vibranium. Bouncing mockingly off railings and bulwarks.  “Little birdie—“  You swallow, and look up and to the left. He sounds like he’s clear across the enormous chamber.  “You nervous, sweetheart?” You crush your palm between your teeth, biting back a soft whine. Slowly, slowly, you inch your way toward the wall with the ladders and platforms. If you can get up five stories, there’s an access point to the gun turrets, you think.  Rocket will know them better than you, but it will at least give you some coverage while you run. Access to the gun turrets are networked together through the armory, with dozens of exits between them. If you can get out of his range long enough, you might be able to give him the slip— The longer you last, the nicer I’ll be.  Yeah, if you want to survive tonight without becoming nothing but a crawling, shivering, sobbing mess, you have to get out of here.  “Yeah, you are. I can tell you’re nervous,” he purrs from somewhere, and now you half-turn to check the deep shadows behind your right shoulder. “Can hear it — hear your heart fluttering like little frickin’ birdie-wings.” You chew your lip and shift sideways, edging along the railings.  “Pretty sure you’re all needy, too. All that adrenaline.” His snicker echoes along the catwalks. “Scared, but still all hot for a good dicking down. Bet your silly cunt can’t even tell the difference between the two anymore.”

part one of ᠊ᡃ࡚ࠢ࠘ ⸝່ࠡࠣ᠊߯᠆ࠣ࠘ᡁࠣ࠘᠊᠊°.⋆｡✶˖ evasive maneuvers ⌖˖✶｡⋆ kinktober 2024 | navigation | fanfiction masterlist

gray support/mdni banners by @/saradika-graphics | silver sparkle divider by @/strangergraphics

[eretzyisrael]

by Michael Rubin

On Jan. 7, an Israeli airstrike killed two Al Jazeera journalists in the Gaza Strip. The Qatar-run news outlet immediately accused Israel of targeting journalists and labeled their death an "assassination."

No serious journalist, diplomat, or human rights activist should give Al Jazeera benefit of the doubt. Terrorists have long used media to amplify reach. Chechen rebels would cancel missions rather than move without cameramen to leverage their attack into effective propaganda.

During the Iraq War, U.S. soldiers became accustomed to seeing Al Jazeera journalists pre-positioned to film booby-traps meant to maim and murder Americans. Legitimate journalists do not know about attacks before they occur; terrorists do.

Al Jazeera has a long history of crossing the journalistic line. Al Jazeera journalist Fahad Yasin, for example, used Qatari cash to propel himself to become Somalia's intelligence chief, a position he used to fund terrorism further.

Were Hamza Wael Dahdouh and Mustafa Thuria, the two Al Jazeera employees Israel killed, illegitimate targets? No. Both were traveling in a vehicle with a terrorist. They were operating a drone to surveil Israeli forces and enable Hamas attacks. To knowingly travel with a terrorist with the purpose of supporting that terrorist forfeits one's immunity, just as medics or school teachers lose their immunity if they transport terrorists or give cover for their operations. If press freedom groups are angry, they should not blame Israel but instead launch lawsuits against Al Jazeera for violating the Geneva Conventions in a manner that imperils all war correspondents.

It is in not only Gaza, however, where Al Jazeera violates the norms and ethics of journalism in pursuit of terrorism, violence, or espionage, but also on Capitol Hill. As Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI) has pointed out, Congress credentials 136 Al Jazeera "journalists" to enable them into House and Senate galleries and expansive access to senators, members of Congress, and staff. Compare that to the New York Times that credentials only 82 members. The discrepancy in coverage — the New York Times produces far more — suggests that something other than journalism may motivate Al Jazeera.

The danger is multifold. The Justice Department has designated Iran's PressTV, Russia's RT, and Turkey's TRT to be foreign agents. Al Jazeera is no different. They are agents of a foreign power that flirts dangerously with terrorism sponsorship even if the State Department and Pentagon are reticent to designate the emirate formally, often for narrow bureaucratic reasons such as the lavish lifestyle servicemen enjoy in Qatar or access to sheikhdom's strategically superfluous al Udeid Air Base.

Al Jazeera may cynically resist measures to bring its credentialed staff in line with journalistic needs by citing First Amendment protections, nevermind that Qatar does not respect any such privilege domestically, nor does it allow open access to its palaces. That Al Jazeera has violated journalistic ethics by conducting surveillance on alleged opponents of Qatar's pro-Hamas, anti-Israel policies simply underscores it is a network of operatives operating under the cover of journalism.

House Resolution 189, introduced by Bergman, is a commonsense measure that should appeal across the partisan spectrum. It plugs a loophole in which foreign agents can claim press credentials to avoid compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Perhaps its only flaw is it does not go far enough: All journalists receiving access to roam not only the halls of Congress but also the Pentagon and State Department should undergo background checks, whether they are American citizens or not. In addition, the access foreign journalists receive should be proportional to that which American outlets enjoy in their countries.

Democracies and liberal societies rest upon a basis of rule of law. Too often, illiberal opponents shield themselves behind their opponents' idealism and mirror imaging without subscribing to it. With Hamas, this has meant corruption of protected institutions such as schools and hospitals and treating journalism as a shield for terrorism and espionage.

Al Jazeera may mourn its journalists, but they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. For too long, Al Jazeera has played the outside world for fools. Enough is enough.

[mariacallous]

“This is going to be great television, I’ll tell you that.”

Those may have been the truest words uttered by U.S. President Donald Trump in the course of a dramatic and completely undiplomatic meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump knows a thing or two about television. A former reality TV star, he charted his path to power with a keen awareness of how to retain people’s attention. The more shocking, the more outlandish, the more boorish, the more unprecedented—the more ratings would tick up. Trump tracked this obsessively. He was known to dial TV executives willing to take his calls, dishing on the numbers every morning. If the ratings hadn’t inched up, he would try something else. Rinse and repeat. More ratings, more coverage, more attention. Attention must be paid.

The formula worked on the presidential campaign trail starting in 2015, in a country where politicians are forever soliciting attention and cable channels constantly gaming out the next political cycle (fueled, in part, by the sugar high of ratings and political advertising). It worked again in 2024, at least as defined by electoral success, and even as video consumption shifted to smaller screens and bite-sized clips—a transition Trump also seemed to quickly master. But does the shock strategy work as well while you’re in office? What are the metrics of success when you no longer need to win an election?

This past week, Trump pushed the boundaries of press attention—without needing to travel or organize a major rally. On Monday, Thursday, and then Friday, Trump received the leaders of France, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine in the White House, each time making sure a freewheeling discussion was aired out in front of the world’s cameras. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer presenting a letter from King Charles III inviting him for a second state visit? Check. Bonhomie with French President Emmanuel Macron? Check. Telling off Zelensky? Check. Actual accomplishments or diplomatic advances? TBD. Stay tuned for more. Perhaps after the commercial break. Watch this space.

Of all Trump’s televised meetings this week, the one with Zelensky was the most shocking. After CNN played out what is known in TV parlance as the tape turn—the recording, since the pool video didn’t air live—the network’s chief international anchor Christiane Amanpour was shown with her hands holding her face, stunned. “I have never seen anything like this in my life,” she said, still digesting the video. That image mirrored another emerging from the White House, of Ukrainian ambassador Oksana Markarova, who has lobbied for U.S. support in Washington ever since the start of Russia’s 2022 invasion of her country: head in hand, a shake of the forehead as if to ask “is this really happening?”

More ominously, perhaps: “What will this mean for the future of our country?”

OK, as a former TV producer, I now know that this is all enough of a tease. Here’s what happened (you should also read FP’s transcript of the key moments here).

It began as these sorts of things often go. “I want to see if we can get this thing done,” Trump said, of a potential cease-fire and peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. “You want me to be tough? I can be tougher than any human being you’ve ever seen … but you’re never going to get a deal that way.”

Normal, so far. Then U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance chimed in. “For four years, in the United States of America, we had a president who stood up in press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin … We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions.” Zelensky asked to respond. Speaking in English—he normally uses an interpreter—he described how Russian President Vladimir Putin had occupied various parts of Ukraine since 2014. “We had a lot of conversations with him … he broke the cease-fire. He killed our people. … What kind of diplomacy, J.D., are you speaking about?”

This didn’t go down well.

“I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country. Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media,” Vance said.

Zelensky upped the ante. “Have you ever been to Ukraine to see what problems we have? Come once,” he said. And later, of Putin’s aggression taking place far from American shores, he said: “You have a nice ocean and don’t feel [the problems] now. But you will feel it in the future.”

Around this point, it all went steeply downhill. Trump jumped back in. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel,” he said. “We’re trying to solve a problem. You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel very good. We’re going to feel very good and very strong.”

Trump then began to raise his voice. “You’re right now not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. You don’t have the cards right now with us. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III. You’re gambling with World War III, and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should have.”

The clips will go viral. The transcript will be pored over. Even Trump, ever aware of the drama of the moment, took to his Truth Social account and wrote, “We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House Today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion. … [Zelensky] disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”

And so it was that a scheduled second press conference, after lunch, never came to be. Stay tuned for the next visit.

World leaders have seen this show before. Many of them understand Trump’s love for the cameras, his zero-sum need to win every deal, his love for pomp and circumstance. Starmer, prepped for exactly this moment by his TV-savvy new ambassador in Washington, Peter Mandelson, came armed with flattery, flowery words, and an invitation for a state visit, signed by King Charles III. When Trump proudly displayed it for the cameras, Starmer was clever enough to point out that Trump hadn’t yet accepted—at which point he did, happily playing up the moment for the cameras.

Zelensky’s fatal flaw, in his now viral exchange with Vance and Trump, was that he dared to upend the script, which even drew Vance’s ire for “trying to litigate this in front of the American media.” (Ignore for a minute that it was the White House that had invited the media in the first place.) Zelensky forgot that Trump wanted to be treated not like a fellow leader, but as an all-powerful monarch, for the benefit of the cameras. “Have you ever said thank you?” Vance said at one point. For a former comedian used to the cameras, it was strange that Zelensky got the script wrong.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

By showing Musk’s X the red card, has Brazil scored a goal for all democracies?

At 10 minutes past midnight on 31 August, Elon Musk’s X (nee Twitter) went dark in Brazil, a country of more than 200 million souls, many of them enthusiastic users of online services. The day before, a supreme court justice, Alexandre de Moraes, had done something hitherto unthinkable: ordered the country’s ISPs to block access to the platform, threatened a daily fine of 50,000 Brazilian reis (just under £6,800) for users who bypassed the ban by using virtual private networks (VPNs) and froze the finances of Elon Musk’s Starlink internet service provider in the country. The order would remain in force until the platform complied with the decisions of the supreme federal court, paid fines totalling 18.3m reis (nearly £2.5m) and appointed a representative in Brazil, a legal requirement for foreign companies operating there. Moraes had also instructed Apple and Google to remove the X app and VPN software from their stores, but later reversed that decision, citing concerns about potential “unnecessary” disruptions.

Cue shock, horror, incredulity, outrage and all the reactions in between. Musk – who has been sparring with Moraes for quite a while – tweeted: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.” The animosity between the two goes back to 8 January 2023, after the defeat of Jair Bolsonaro in the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, when a mob of his supporters attacked federal government buildings in the capital, Brasília. The mob invaded and caused deliberate damage to the supreme federal court, the national congress and the Planalto presidential palace in an abortive attempt to overthrow the democratically elected president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Justice Moraes is in the firing line because before the 2022 presidential election the country’s supreme court had given him expansive powers to crack down on online threats to democracy and he has been an enthusiastic deployer of that capability ever since. A New York Times report, for example, said that he “jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posts and videos with little room for appeal.” And it is this last practice that brought him into collision with Musk, whose platform was one of the channels used by the 8 January insurgents.

Media coverage of this clash has predictably personalised it as ruthless enforcer versus tech titan. Who will blink first? Why on earth did Musk pick this fight? Has his fatuous obsession with free speech finally pushed him over the edge? After all, he could have complied with Moraes’s takedown orders, kept the office in Brasília and fought the issue through the Brazilian courts. Instead, he took his ball away, leaving more than 20 million Brazilian X users bereft. On the other hand, although Moraes turned out to be a pretty effective check on Bolsonaro – a cut-price Donald Trump who attacked the media, the courts and the country’s electoral system – some critics are beginning to wonder whether, in his mission to protect democracy, the judge may also wind up eroding it.

Who knows? But for now at least, one thing is clear: this is the first time a democratic state has shut down a main tech platform. Autocracies do this at will (for instance, China, Russia, Iran, Gulf states), but until now democracies have shied away from such an extreme measure. Listening to some of the chatter on the web about the Moraes order provides a clue to the timidity, for what you pick up is astonishment at the effrontery of a mere Brazilian who dares to take down a big American platform because it doesn’t obey the law of his particular land. Who does he think he is? Doesn’t he understand Silicon Valley’s “manifest destiny” to be the prime engine of human progress, leaving lesser breeds bobbing helplessly in its wake?

Continue reading.