#stating facts does not equal negotiating

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

There's things I am understand from Tony Stans when they write 'Steve mistake ',

1. They will using reason Steven choose bucky over tony

2. Steve hide / lie the fact about tony parents death

3. Steven is not read accord and not make negotiations about accord

4. Steve recruit clint, sama and wanda and make them in raft. So it's steve mistake

From the four point the third point is bothering me. I am not gonna lie I kind forget the detail civil war but, steve did and the only one that read accord. Also if I am not wrong Ross didn't give chance go steve and everyone to negotiations about accord at all, I meant he said avenegrs onel have three days accept or retired. I menat what kind f&** is that. They have no time to negotiations about accord at all

And Tony said the can make negotiations after they sign the paper, that not how work. You can't make negotiations after to signed the papers, the UN won't considered that they want control, you signed you follow what is inside

So I think it's was weord they blame steve no want negotiations at all. Because there's no time for that, also Steven considered the accord if they for innocent protection and not for government to controlling innocent peoples. So why they keep point that?

I think they need to come up with excuses, half-truths and lies because no matter how hard the Russos tried to paint both teams as equally right, Team Cap is the only one in the right.

To your first point, Steve is against the Accords way before Bucky is even in the picture.

This is something that not only the haters but many fans seem to forget: Not everything Steve does has to do with Bucky. He has a separate life and a mind of his own, and those Accords go against everything that makes him who he is.

To your second point, Steve had no way of knowing Bucky had murdered the Starks. Zola said this:

Zola: "For 70 years, HYDRA has been secretly feeding crises, reaping war. And when history did not cooperate, history was changed." Natasha: "That's impossible. S.H.I.E.L.D. would've stopped you." Zola: "Accidents will happen."

And this was shown:

This required Steve to assume Bucky had been the only Winter Soldier at the hands of Hydra. He could have guessed but he didn't know for sure. And going to Stark to tell him "I found out your parents were murdered but I'm not sure of what happened", over 20 years after the fact is not exactly ideal. Not to mention Stark had hacked Shield's systems two years prior. He didn't exactly do a good job of digging there, and Steve and he weren't that close.

To your third point, whoever says that is lying. Steve is the only one shown reading the Accords:

My man has perfect memory. He knew very well those Accords were an abomination.

And to your last point, Sam, Clint and Wanda have agency and they knew what they were getting into before they went to the airport. Unlike Peter Parker who was lied to by Stark, Steve was very clear that he wanted his team to know who and why they were fighting, and the consequences of doing so. Even with a stranger like Scott:

They chose to follow Steve because they knew it was the right thing to do. Clint left his family, Wanda risked her life and her freedom, so did Scott, Bucky and Sam. All of them followed and did the right thing because they're heroes, it's what they do.

Ross knew very well what he was doing. As Secretary of State, not only did he keep the Accords under wraps until only three days before the UN meeting, he kept from the entire team that an Accord is not the same as a law and it was a constitutional violation to try and enforce it on the team and the citizens.

They had no time to negotiate. They would have needed to lawyer up and do everything in a short period of time: the meeting was in Vienna and they were in NYC, if you count the time it would have taken them to get there, the time they needed to find a lawyer they trusted to go through the whole thing and come up with a good enough case to stand up not only to the US Senate but the UN… yep, they had no time to do so. That was Ross' plan all along.

Stark telling Steve the Accords could be amended after he signed them was no more than an attempt at manipulation. There is something important to keep in mind here: Stark would NOT be affected by these Accords at all. As shown in the movie, he broke them when he flew to Siberia and nothing happened. Ross called him and he put him on hold, and nothing happened.

Stark is used to doing whatever the hell he wants (like basically telling the government to suck it when he refused to give them his suits. What happened to him? Nothing) and facing no consequences whatsoever. So in his mind, signing these papers means nothing, he can break them whenever he feels like it and he'll find a way to get away with it. For Steve and Wanda, the Accords were a direct violation of their civil rights. It's not the same.

Steve was never against accountability. The Accords were:

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Is Lula Anti-American? It's complicated.

It’s the question in Washington that won’t go away: “Is Lula anti-American?” Since returning to Brazil’s presidency on January 1, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has repeatedly caused alarm in the U.S. capital and elsewhere with his comments on Ukraine, Venezuela, the dollar and other key issues. An unconfirmed GloboNews report in June said President Joe Biden may have abandoned any intentions of visiting Brasilia before the end of the year because of frustration with Lula’s positions.    

The question causes many to roll their eyes, and with good reason. Three decades after the end of the Cold War, some in the United States continue to see Latin America in “You’re either with us or against us” terms. Washington has a long record of getting upset with Brazil’s independent stances on everything from generic AIDS drugs in the 1990s to trade negotiations in the 2000s and the Edward Snowden affair in the 2010s. A large Latin American country confidently operating in its own national interest, neither allied with nor totally against the United States, simply does not compute for some in Washington, and maybe it never will.   

That said, there is a long list of reasonable people in places like the White House and State Department, in think tanks and in the business world who are perfectly capable of understanding nuance — and have still perceived a threat from Lula’s foreign policy in this, his third term. The list of perceived transgressions is long and growing: Lula has repeatedly echoed Russian positions on Ukraine, saying both countries share equal responsibility for the war. In April, Lula said blame for continued hostilities laid “above all” with countries who are providing arms—a slap at the United States and Europe, delivered while on a trip to China, no less. Lula has worked to revive the defunct UNASUR bloc, whose explicit purpose was to counter U.S. influence in South America. He has repeatedly urged countries to shun the U.S. dollar as a mechanism for trade when possible, voicing support for new alternatives including a common currency with Argentina or its other neighbors. Lula has been bitterly critical of U.S. sanctions against Venezuela–”worse than a war,” he has said—while downplaying the repression, torture and other human rights abuses committed by the dictatorship itself.    

For some observers, the inescapable conclusion is that Lula’s foreign policy is not neutral or “non-aligned,” but overtly friendly to Russia and China and hostile to the United States. This has been a particular letdown for many in the Democratic Party who briefly saw Lula as a hero of democracy and natural ally after he, too, defeated an authoritarian, election-denying menace on the far right. And for the record, it’s not just Americans who feel this way: the left-leaning French newspaper Liberation, in a front-page editorial prior to Lula’s visit to Paris in June, called him a “faux friend” of the West.  

To paraphrase the old saying, it’s impossible to know what truly lurks in the hearts of men. But as someone who has tried to understand Lula for the past 20 years, with admittedly mixed results, let me give my best evaluation of what’s really happening: Lula may not be anti-U.S. in the traditional sense, but he is definitely anti-U.S. hegemony, and he is more willing than before to do something about it.  

That is, Lula and his foreign policy team do not wish ill on Washington in the way that Nicolás Maduro or Vladimir Putin do, and in fact they see the United States as a critical partner on issues like climate change, energy and infrastructure investment. But they also believe the U.S.-led global order of the last 30 years has on balance not been good for Brazil or, indeed, the planet as a whole. They are convinced the world is headed toward a new, more equitable “multipolar” era in which, instead of one country at the head of the table, there will be, say, eight countries seated at a round table—and Brazil will be one of them, along with China, India and others from the ascendant Global South. Meanwhile, Lula has lost some of the inhibitions and brakes that held him back a bit during his 2003-10 presidency, and he is actively out there trying to usher the world along to this promising new phase—with an evident enthusiasm and militancy that bothers many in the West, and understandably so. 

Continue reading.

[basuralindo]

!!!! I'm in a ranting mood, but not a very articulate one, about Floyd/Jamil. Bear with me.

Like, obviously I love Jamil and Azul, but I can't believe how much everyone overlooks Floyd?

Jamil actually tolerates him, which is actually A Lot coming from Jamil. And he isn't just politely neutral, he's one of the very few people Jamil actually speaks to normally, and the very very few that he talks to normally without being overtly hostile.

Jamil is one of the only people who can manage Floyd's temperament without trying to suppress him. Like he's shown to work with Floyd's moods, and negotiate mutually beneficial solutions that Floyd actually agrees with, and all upfront. Jamil doesn't get scared and try to mince around him, Floyd doesn't get irritated and try to intimidate Jamil, and for the most part Jamil doesn't try to quietly manipulate him. Jamil also doesn't have to fight with him to behave, and Floyd doesn't back out because he's lost interest. For the way they both tend to operate around people, that all strikes me as mutual respect.

While he's usually not as aggressive about it as Azul, Floyd also shows an interest in Jamil. He specifically wanted to hang around Jamil in book 4. He was also impressed with Jamil's skills. He pays attention to Jamil's talents and interests and tries to engage with him on shared interests like dancing. He seeks out or positively reacts to Jamil in group settings. He actually seems to like interacting with Jamil on equal terms, rather than wanting to torment him for entertainment.

During the Halloween event, when preparing to enter the mirror, he was the only one to encourage Jamil to give it his all, and singled out Jamil specifically. (also Jamil teasingly telling him not to screw around, and Floyd reacting positively? does he do that with anyone outside of Jade and Azul??)

He nicknamed Jamil after an animal that preys on moray eels, and uses the -san suffix rather than -chan. Both of which implies taking him seriously.

The entire beans event??? This was set early on, before book 4, so they didn't have much rapport. But Floyd's entire thing was centered around Jamil. The only person he willingly came out of hiding to engage with was Jamil, specifically because he found him interesting, and he chose to help him out despite being on opposite sides, again because he was interesting. He said several times that he found the whole event boring, except for the opportunity to fight Jamil, which became his primary motivation for participating (aside from learning Vil's throw, which was his motivation for sticking with them instead of running off to hunt Jamil alone). He literally told Jamil to his face that he was "the best part" of the whole event. He refused to quit even after the event was over because he wanted to keep fighting Jamil, and for Floyd, that implies a positive opinion towards someone.

His beans vignette further elaborates that his entire motivation for sticking with basketball was to compete with Jamil. Even staying up for several days in a row to do nothing but practice in order to get on his level.

For Floyd, there's nothing he values more in a person than being interesting. There's nothing he respects more than competence. And he's blatantly stated that Jamil has both. He doesn't care for people who are intimidated by him and he doesn't tolerate people trying to boss him around, and he seems to genuinely enjoy Jamil, who does neither. I honestly haven't seen him show as much complex interest in any other character in the game (like beyond picking a fight or tryna get a rise out of them).

For Jamil, it's extremely rare for him to drop cold formalities and speak with anyone casually, but he does so with Floyd to a greater extent than most. Even if he doesn't seek Floyd out, considering he doesn't tend to seek anyone out, the fact that he'll engage when Floyd approaches him instead of trying to escape the conversation speaks volumes in my opinion. He also doesn't seem to overlook Floyd's intellect. He gets shocked by the extent of his abilities sometimes, but he never seems surprised that Floyd's intelligent, and Jamil doesn't usually think much of other people's intelligence. And so far Floyd's the only one who's gotten him to dance just for fun (one of the few independent passions he has), and he's managed it twice. Floyd brings out passion in him.

Just, they're both so othered in very different ways. Jamil keeps everyone at a distance, and is intentionally uninteresting enough that nobody seeks him out unless they want something. Floyd doesn't bother with anyone who doesn't entertain him, and either scares or frustrates most people so much that they avoid him as much as possible. But they seem to respect and understand each other, even if they don't drop their walls, because neither find the walls to be that big an obstacle.

There's just something really valuable to me about two such extremely overlooked/misunderstood people managing to see and understand each other so easily.

[arbitrarygreay]

Buffer for CSS view

Absolute least favorite trope in the fic: inserting new world-building so that the controversial actions that Alder does in canon are all rationalized into woobie-bait. Examples: "Alder was forced into the Biddy bond!" "The Martyrdom was actually a lesser evil!" "Alder felt regret about signing the Accords!" "Alder was forced into doing things by men in power!" Since fucking when has the US military been meaningfully held accountable for anything, or their power (and the military industrial complex) had a reduction in growth? Name me one irl modern general that doesn't believe wholeheartedly in militarism. The nation can do much wrong by the rank and file (including appalling treatment of veterans), but the brass? Hah. And neither do the brass of the MFS military waver in their belief in militarism, either. We know that they could play malicious compliance via things like Tally's dispensation if they wanted to. They don't want to. The "magical enforcement" didn't stop Dodgers from existing, nor did it stop Nicte from deserting. The slow-play of the invasion of the Cession could have just as easily been done in their deployments in other nations, or in their hunting of Dodgers (like Scylla's parents). (Even Anacostia doesn't have a problem with torturing Scylla for information. "Gotta break a few eggs." No one agitates for the closure of GuantanamoSt. Dominique, either. There's no doubt in my mind that MFS's detention centers carry the same controversies as our world's.) No. Alder not only has no regrets about the Accords, she believes in them. She truly believes that all witches under her jurisdiction should serve, and that it is an honor to do so. She believes in the concept of glory in battle, and wishes for her soldiers to, as well. Alder's instinct is to hide inconvenient information from the chain of command and the public, which further proves that if she wanted to commit malicious compliance and covertly get around the wishes of those in power, she could, but she chose not to because she doesn't have a problem with the Accords or the wars she's been in. Most relevantly, Alder maintained the conflict of the Spree as an alternative to nationalist conflict. Letting the Spree propagate was her solution to Liberia. That is how she thinks, not even the smallest inkling that maybe she could modify the Accords and aim for our world's progressive strategy of pushing anti-discrimination policies and full civilian population integration/equality/equity. The idea of de-militarization is borderline anathema to her. She doesn't see conscription as slavery at all, but an honorable duty. Someone who says "I never needed The Hague's approval for my actions. I simply extend the invitation to accept my rulings." has a particular relationship to power. If the director of the CIA said this, we would not pretend that they are laboring under the yoke of anyone. Nah, that's just plain ol' mundane deep state. (Meanwhile, in 3x4 the scene with Alder and the Marshal shows that she definitely did not take on or continue using the Biddy working under duress. She's grateful for it, he's not morally indicted for using it, and they called the exchange "sharing." In fact, that might even imply that the Marshal could have been willing to share the Working without the deal, but Alder negotiated the creation of the Cession as thanks.) These characters are so much more interesting when they are allowed to do women's wrongs, for this show to explore how a world of alternative supremacy means that those alternative figures of power will still commit the same ethical pitfalls with it. Let them commit war crimes, as a treat! The relationships are so much more interesting when they have to grapple with real universal flaws instead of hand-waving them with "[other demographic]'s prejudice made me do it."

[josefavomjaaga]

That one time, when Soult accused Joseph of treason… (Part 2)

… happened in 1812, when Joseph – as related in part 1 - after the defeat of Salamanca, without much further ado, demanded that Soult and his armée du Midi retreat entirely from Andalusia and give up almost half of the territory Joseph nominally was in possession of, in order to take up position in northern Spain, close to Madrid. As Soult simply could not understand the reasoning behind this, he suspected Joseph might be in negotiations with the insurgents (which he was) and follow a plan behind Napoleon’s back (which he did not): Give up some of the territory the French army had conquered, and be recognized as king by the Spanish insurgents, or the British, in return.

In his memoirs, Soult does acknowledge that he was mistaken in this (which is probably as close to an apology as you will ever get from Soult). As he puts it:

The king's correspondence with the Emperor, nowadays published, makes it clear, by a host of passages, which was then the king's fixed idea. He had persuaded himself, probably under the influence of the small number of Spaniards attached to his fortune, that Spain was entirely ready to give herself to him. He was separated from "his people" only by the presence of the French armies. He was convinced that, if he were left alone with the Spaniards, his government would soon be loved by them. He claimed that he alone could win them over to France as friends and allies.

And as Joseph, unfortunately, did not keep these sentiments to himself but on several occasions talked loudly and publicly about them, this understandably caused some consternation among the French generals and soldiers who every day had to put their life on the line against British and Spanish forces in order to keep this ungrateful prick His Majesty José the Almost-Spanish-One on the throne.

Soult, being one of them, felt so apprehensive that he actually shared his suspicion with six of his generals, after having made them swear that they would only share this secret if it became necessary.

At this point, we can yield the floor to one of Joseph’s closest friends, Miot de Mélito, who tells the same story in his memoirs from Joseph’s point of view:

The meeting in question had, in fact, taken place at Seville, at the moment of the departure of the army. A person who was present gave me the following particulars. The Marshal, after receiving the oaths of the assembled officers that they would not divulge what he was about to communicate to them, stated that having resolved on obeying the orders he had received to evacuate Andalusia, he thought it right to inform them of the alarm with which those orders had inspired him. He could not conceal that he regarded this proceeding as a kind of treason towards the Emperor, for, by the withdrawal of the Army of the South, perhaps even to the Ebro, which he suspected was intended, the whole of Spain would be placed in the power of the Cortes and the Regency. That no doubt the King had foreseen the consequences of the step, but that he had persisted in it, because it was, in fact, in the interests of a prince who was bent, at all costs, on conciliating the Spaniards, and who intended even to place himself in their hands, hoping that they would preserve his crown to him as a reward for delivering them from the French. "For my part," added the Marshal, "being convinced, as a general, that the whole forces of the English could not drive out the Army of the South, and equally convinced, as the faithful subject of the Emperor, that it was to his advantage to retain that wealthy province, I made every possible effort to withstand a decision so contrary to his interests. With this view I even proposed to the King to come into Andalusia, and unite his forces to mine. My efforts were made in vain, and my proposals were declined. It now only remains for me to obey, and I should have done so in silence, if the fears I have just laid before you were the outcome of my own observation only. But they are confirmed by the reports I receive from Cadiz, which speak of negotiations between the King and the Cortes. As these reports may be known to you, I have thought it my duty to inform the Duke of Feltre of the state of affairs, and also to communicate them to the chiefs of the army. I trust this statement will prove to you that in carrying out the reiterated and absolute orders of the commander-in-chief of all the French troops in Spain, I am, at least, neither the instrument of designs which he may have formed. as King, nor willing to serve those designs."

That’s basically Soult saying: Last time they accused me of being a King Nicolas, this time they may very well accuse me of serving one!

After Soult had shared his suspicions with his generals, he sat down and wrote two letters: one to Joseph, declaring that he would obey and lead the army out of Analusia, and one to his superior in Paris, the minister of war Clarke, informing him of what had happened, of Joseph’s incomprehensible insistence to withdraw from Andalusia, of his close contacts with the Junta in Cadiz, etc.

The letter to Clarke was not sent via Madrid but by boat. And because everything in the Napoleonic Empire has to happen like in a really bad comedy show, that vessel had to take refuge from British ships in the harbour close to Valencia, from where all dispatches were sent to Joseph. Who had them opened, and read them.

And now the shit hit the fan.

[interlagosed]

What do you think will happen next hibs? What should and can be done? I read somewhere some countries are starting to get more involved, why do we need war hibss there’ll only be more losses than gains 🙃

this is a huge question, but i have a few thoughts on what should/can be done. please note that this is incomplete and i'm of course crunched for time so it's not a robust analysis lol.

End the Apartheid: it's time we all started calling what's happening in Israel, against Israeli Arabs and Palestinians (and even, frequently, non-white Jewish folks) what it is. Several credible organizations have called it apartheid, apartheid as a LEGAL category. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, B'Tselem (an Israeli human rights organization), and even a former Mossad (Israeli intelligence) chief. Why is it important to call this situation apartheid? Because words matter; and I think it's a lot harder to play the "but what about—" game when the situation is named. Why else does it matter? Because we have seen the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, and we know the tactics that were used domestically and internationally (including boycotts, divestment, sanctions) to end apartheid. If we all start calling it what it is, hopefully that can result in commensurate action to end apartheid.

Recognize that this is colonialism: I know we like to think colonialism is over, but it's not, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine is fundamentally settler colonialism. This means that Palestinians have a right to self-determination, and they have the right to resist colonization—even through violent means, if necessary. This is especially true if (as many people argue, including many prominent international lawyers and experts) if we agree that Palestine has been occupied by Israel. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, occupiers have certain obligations towards occupied people, and occupied people have the right to resist their occupation (read this for more). These categorizations are important because they allow us to be clear-eyed about the violations that Israel has committed against Palestinians, and it allows us to be clear-eyed about the legality AND MORALITY of (most) Palestinian resistance.

The law isn't everything, but solidarity can be: This is a moral issue. The law helps us understand, but it won't help free Palestine. The fate of Palestinians is one of the moral questions of our time. We need to extend solidarity towards Palestinians. This includes questioning our leaders when they gleefully advocate for Israel's right to use genocidal, illegal tactics against Palestinians, and even people who paint the issue as "both-sides." It's not; Hamas has done horrible things (it was also created by Israel, fun fact, similar to how the US helped created the Taliban in Afghanistan) but that does not mean Palestinians don't have the right to resist, and it doesn't mean that Palestinians aren't the primary victims here. We need to be consistent in our support for Palestinians, and consistent in being vocally against military support for an apartheid state.

I don't inherently believe in war/violence BUT!!!!!!!!! when the language of the oppressor is violence, how the FUCK is non-violence suppose to help people be free? Like I know the impulse is to be like nooo we want peace but we had several opportunities for a peaceful solution, and it was frequently the Israelis who refused. The only way there will ever be any peace is if both sides are equal, and they simply will not be for as long as Israel is encouraged with weapons and finances. Decolonization doesn't just happen. Decolonization is won. It doesn't feel good to say, and it doesn't feel good to understand that, but not every right is won with non-violence. Also, the only way to really end the violence is to push Israel to the negotiation table again and to disempower their military/other non-military violence, because they're really the ones with the power to dictate how violent the violence is. Palestinians are only really responding. This also limits the intervention of other states, which limits the perpetuation of violence in turn.

Land back: Palestinians worldwide have the right to return to their ancestral homeland. Their ancestral homes should be returned TO them as well. There are ways to have coexistence in Palestine, but I truly think that's not possible under Israel as it currently exists. Any lasting solution NEEDS to give land back to Palestinians. I also think that we need to make sure it doesn't this doesn't turn into yet another mass displacement of Jewish people into a world that still hates them. Jewish people deserve to feel safe, just like Palestinians deserve to feel safe. I don't know what that's going to look like in the future, but I do know what we have right now will not accomplish that goal.

These are incomplete thoughts, and I don't have the space to flesh them out completely. I also know a lot of this is not satisfying. I'm not satisfied either, but I'm also not important here lol. idk i hope this helps somewhat

[tiodolma]

Hello. I have seen your Merlin crit posts and they seemed to be really interesting. However, I wanted to ask your opinion about something in the show (not anything political or such)

What is your opinion on the fact that in s5, the friendships Merlin had in the previous seasons with Gwen and the Knights are non - existent? Who do you think would be capable of helping Merlin during the season, apart from Gaius and Killgarah (he was mostly useless but still)?

What is your opinion on the episode "Lesson in Vengeance"?

@fanficwritinggremlin

At s5x07, merlin is running on fumes and is directionless.

See s5x05: The Disir MERLIN It won't always be like this. One day we will live in freedom again. MORDRED (looks up hopefully) You really believe that? MERLIN I do.

He has A Political Goal which is "one day we will live in freedom again" but still has no idea of the following:

(1) how to get there:

(2) what it actually looks like.

-->By s5 Merlin still has no concrete plans nor timeline and no step-by-step agenda to achieve his Political Goal™

And due to various previous circumstances, he had been cut off socially (or by rank/class), emotionally, psychologically and physically from everyone who used to genuinely care about him or want to see him at his best.

Now... how is someone else supposed to help the dude:

who have been conditioned in the past 8 to 10 years that he alone could fix thirty years of worth of genocide, the propaganda surrounding the genocide and its far-reaching side-effects?

who've had everyone he loved dead because they protected him or he have had to sacrifice them (without their knowledge) for the greater good?

who even now, never tries to negotiate properly with his opponents on equal and honest terms?

who has lied to the state repeatedly and thus destabilized it from the inside because of his withholding of important state secrets?

..........................

The only thing Merlin had left was a real show/display of his own power in public. A magic reveal.

why?

because Merlin does not have any real court power. He was never advanced socially in rank by his sovereign bosses. He has no true allies who can actually help him get near his Political Goal.

Merlin really really needs to have political power if he wanted his Political Goal to be achieved. Since his sovereign king and queen never gave that to him, at season 5, then he needed to show why he deserves some.

Therefore at s5x07 the only one who can actually and efficiently help him is himself.

.....................

Consider his narrative equal and foil, Morgana.

What they both have in s5x07

advanced use of magic

dragons

fortified kingdoms under their control

justification

What Morgana had that Merlin didn't have

name, reknown, fame, a political kind of "brand"

support of almost all armed non-magic and magic factions and entities that want to destroy camelot

legitimate claim to the throne

money, machinery and people after 1-2 years of regaining everything from scratch

What Merlin had that Morgana did not have

just some vital pieces of information.

support of a dwindling indigenous faction who will never take up arms

You see what I mean? Morgana had allies, strong allies, who helped her plan her strategies and support these plans at every aspect. This is because they knew her and they trusted what she could do. And she got to trust them too.

Morgana did her best to gain as many allies as she could through any means, because Morgana knew she could never overthrow Camelot on her own.

Merlin had none. Even in his relatively safe location inside Camelot, he never built a network of other entities who can actually support him. Gaius kept forbidding him to reach out to others. Kilgharrah advised against it many times. Merlin was made to believe that fixing everything thru only his own power and alone was the best way to do things.

That's why Morgana was perfect foil to him. She had huge political influence and power. Moreover, she was systematic and delegated a lot of revolutionary/rebellion tasks and activities to her allies. They were empowered and did well because she rewarded them too.

Merlin had a lot of advantages as her but Merlin's indoctrination and training did not allow for him branch out and step into a prime political position just like Morgana did. He took the lone wolf path too far and was surprised when over time, nobody in Camelot was truly left in total support for him.

......................

The bottomline is... Merlin reveals himself -> he gains much needed political power and court influence -> he is closer to his Political Goal.

............

addendum you might ask: what if arthur executes him??

-> that's merlin's problem for being so treasonous in the first place. if he's really destined to become the most powerful warlock kingmaker and advisor, then he can talk and live through any threat arthur would give him.

[thebookbin]

I need my fellow white gays to take a step back.

If I see another white American saying they unequivocally support Disney in their lawsuit against Ron DeSantis in Florida, I am going to scream. One of my most favorite authors disappointed me deeply this week by condemning those of us who are not cheering for total Disney dominance here on tumblr.

Just because your whiteness and your Americanness shields you from having to confront that Disney helped the genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang as late as 2020 does not mean the just of us can swallow that pill. This was a cold and calculated choice to maintain profits. When Disney was brought before a Human Rights Tribunal and questioned not only why they filmed in Xinjiang but thanked the government profusely (groveling on their knees to keep the CCP happy so they could air Mulan in China's billion dollar market), they responded with "the benefits outweigh the risks." Americans just don't care.

That is only one example out of thousands. If there is something evil going on in the world, Disney has their grubby hands in the pot (including ties to Epstein). Before all of this nonsense they were funding the campaigns of Republicans who signed and backed the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

If you are a Disney Adult, there is no hope for you. You will always choose your expensive mouse-shaped ice cream and minimum wage workers in fancy costumes and your own escapism, over the lives and dignity of others. It disgusts me.

Disney is not taking a moral stand. They are making a business decision.

Disney does not care about you, they do not care about trans kids, they do not care about marriage equality, representation, or your basic human rights. They do not care about creativity, or storytelling, or art. All they care about it money. It's not a moral failing, either. THAT'S WHAT CORPORTATIONS EXIST TO DO. MAKE MONEY. The fact that you are falling for their marketing scheme to take your money only goes to show how effective it is.

I am a lesbian. I am an activist. I care deeply about what is happening right now in this country, most especially to the trans community. We need to be fighting. We need to protect them, and protect each other.

However selling your soul to the devil to do it is the fastest way to get us all to hell.

Did anybody even notice the 2nd biggest bank failure in US history happened over the weekend? And self-described "Diversity Activists" helped it happen.

A note for those of you who won't click the link. The language of inclusion has long been co-opted by the corporate class and everybody's falling for it.

Right now, Disney operates a kingdom inside the US. And no, not the "fun" kind. Reedy Creek Improvement District functions like sovereign state or a tribal nation. They have the ability to tax, their own police force, and have already negotiated carte blanche to build a nuclear reactor any time and for any reason. You need to step back and ask yourself if you are really okay with a multi-billion dollar corporation having that much power.

To make it worse, they want more. The lawsuit they are currently engaged in is about contract rights and it is making conservatives salivate at the mouth.

If Disney wins this lawsuit unchallenged, labor rights in the US will be obliterated.

This is not an exaggeration. I am talking about going back to the days of child labor (which is already happening in Iowa), Disney, or any corporation will be able to sue the government for "interfering their private contracts" EVEN IF those "contracts" violate minimum wage, health and safety standards, or ANY REGULATION local, state or federal government enacts to protect workers.

When I say that you allowing your whiteness to shape your worldview and it will destroy us, this is both an inditement and a call-to-action.

Because I also happen to care deeply about labor rights, I know that a majority of the LGBT community in the US are working class, and over 25% of us live in poverty--

Because I know that we are at much higher risk of losing the source of household income than our straight counterparts--

Because I know that not only did we overwhelmingly had to work during the pandemic, risking our lives to make ends meet, we are more likely to work more hours, get paid less, and have to file for unemployment. Now take into consideration any sort of intersectional identity, including race, disability, or class and the numbers just get worse and worse-- I know that the queer community cannot afford to take these hits.

This is not Labor Rights vs Gay Rights. It is two, powerful malicious entities fighting to maintain power, and all of us are in the firing line. Labor Rights are Gay Rights are Black Rights are Human Rights.

So square up, it's time to fight.

And, remember: selling your soul to the mouse is selling your soul to the devil dressed like a cartoon character. Don't fall for it.

Recommended Watching: (independent media)

Sources: (in order of appearance)

Disney & China: BBC Unrepresented Nations & Peoples Organization Vox News

Disney's Abuses: Investigative Journalist Team: Judd Legum, Tesnim Zekeria, & Rebecca Crosby Investigative Journalist Liz Crokin The Guardian Pink News Movie Web The Corporate Research Project The American Prospect IGN

General Labor: Des Moines Register Investigative Journalist Lee Fang Reedy Creek Improvement District

LGBT Labor: Center for American Progress US Census Report

[laurelnose]

His Royal Highness Prince Iorveth of the Free State of the Pontar Valley? Okay, but what about prince-consort Vernon Roche of Nilfgaard? How will they negotiate?

They … wouldn’t?

Like. First of all. Roche is a disgraced, commonborn foreign national plausibly implicated in the murder of King Henselt and, depending on where you set the timeline, also of King Radovid. At the end of Witcher II, he has literally nothing to his name. Crowning him Prince Consort of Nilfgaard not only yields no wealth or alliances, it is political suicide.

If we ignore that it makes no sense for the emperor to marry Roche, which is, to be clear, a fucking lot to ignore, then my answer is that Iorveth has no interest in negotiating with quislings and hypocrites. Roche will condemn Northern elves for fighting under the Vrihedd and Black Sun banners but Roche himself is just rolling over for the emperor these days? Fuck off! (The fact that he can’t tell Roche to fuck off because the Free State can in no way afford to offend Nilfgaard quickly becomes a source of deep, boiling resentment.) He remains icily within the bounds of politeness for diplomatic reasons but Saskia takes care of negotiations and tries to let Iorveth excuse himself as much as possible, the same way she handles Dol Blathanna.

(You can’t even get hatesex out of this scenario. Iorveth isn’t gonna fuck the consort of Emhyr var Emreis or of Geralt’s daughter. The first because cuckolding Emhyr is a suicidally bad idea. The second because it’s weird, and Ciri might mind less than Emhyr would but the optics would be bad for her if they were caught, and Iorveth is indebted enough to Geralt to at least not want to make things awkward for Ciri.)

If this is like, very AU and Roche was, idk, raised as Emhyr’s pet instead of Foltest’s or something, this … still doesn’t work because Roche is then Iorveth’s ally right up until the Peace of Cintra and the execution of the Vrihedd officers. At this point, if Roche doesn’t try to intervene — which I cannot imagine him doing, he would have no power to alter the decision and he’s not the type to break from the pack when given distasteful orders — the relationship is over. Iorveth never forgives that. He does not forgive Francesca and he would not forgive Roche.

Affiliation with Nilfgaard being a dealbreaker for Iorveth could be gotten around by making Roche consort of a different country, but I gotta say I’m not all that interested in royal!Roche in any scenario. princeveth probably kinda makes it look like I just like royal versions of characters but I don’t care about the royalty part of royalty AUs, I care about the power differentials they introduce. I mean everyone is allowed to get whatever they want out of princeveth but for ME the thing is that Iorveth and Roche are perfect equals in canon, right down to having equivalent ranks — or at least they are during the Second Nilfgaardian War and after Foltest’s death; the power dynamic is skewed in Roche’s favor during the time period where Iorveth has lost Nilfgaard’s backing but Roche can still draw fully on Temeria’s resources and military power — and princeveth is about what if they were not equals anymore. Introducing Roche as Iorveth’s social equal, from a country with more military power than the Free State (this is true of almost any country you could make Roche consort of, not just Nilfgaard), is just ... reinstating the canonical power balance but now instead of getting out the knives and fucking nasty against a tree about it they have to perform Social Niceties at each other. A completely different vibe, and one pretty much out of my wheelhouse!

[msclaritea]

SAG-AFTRA’s Rejected Contract Demands Seem Beyond Reasonable

"As the SAG-AFTRA strike continues, the union has released its list of demands alongside the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers’ responses. A note that AMPTP denies that this is totally accurate, and says that the following document “fails to include the proposals offered verbally” and concessions made on June 12, 2023, hours before the threat of strike became real, but… if even a fraction of the responses to SAG-AFTRA’s demands are true, AMPTP really shouldn’t be congratulated for whatever it said in the 11th hour.

You can read the document in full below, but I want to pull out a couple notes that are, to put it lightly, egregious overreaches of power on the part of the AMPTP.

First is the outright denial of revenue sharing on streaming services, which is consistent across the WGA negotiations as well. Streaming services in general have been hotbeds for contention for a number of reasons: the lack of transparency when it comes to streaming numbers, the extremely low residual payments, and the abbreviated release schedule that makes projects difficult to market.

One of the most hair-raising issues is that SAG-AFTRA wants to increase fines on late payments. The union said that the AMPTP admits that it is often late, but the response is basically telling SAG-AFTRA members to deal with it. SAG-AFTRA also said that the AMPTP failed to address its AI concerns, “leaving principal performers and background actors vulnerable to having most of their work replaced by digital replicas.” This is a concern that many are repeating after SAG-AFTRA’s Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said that the AMPTP wanted to give background actors $100 for a single day’s work and have the rest of their performance digitally added in afterwards.

Additionally, SAG-AFTRA sought many measures that would promote equality and diversity among unit members during production and almost all were rejected. East and West Coast background actors operate under different contracts; SAG-AFTRA sought to unite them under one contract; that was rejected. SAG-AFTRA asked to end pay discrimination—where actors not in LA or NYC are paid less than LA or NYC actors—which was also rejected. Asked to increase accessibility of online auditions and self-tapes, only some measures were approved. Still on the AMPTP’s table are predatory third-party apps, and no page read limit.

With regards to diversity, the document says that AMPTP did not agree to hair and makeup standards that would ensure that all actors of color, specifically Black actors, would have access to hair and make-up artists that understood their hair textures and skin tones. According to SAG-AFTRA, AMPTP maintained that only principal actors deserve to be treated with this kind of dignity and said that it wouldn’t agree to enforcement. At the very least, SAG-AFTRA states that AMPTP has agreed to stop paint-ups and wigging. (Paint ups are when a stunt actor is “painted” to have their skin tone match the performer they’re stepping in for. Wigging is when a male stunt actor’s gender is masked via wigs and dress to make them appear to be a female actor. This was done despite the fact that there are diverse stunt actors out there who can take on these roles.)

Also, on the punitive side, SAG-AFTRA contents that the AMPTP rejected proposals for increasing penalties if meal breaks didn’t happen, and if rest periods were not given to performers. Which feels like the bare minimum here. Just like, at what point does the AMPTP realize that money and fair pay is important, but treating performers at every level like human beings is also incredibly important?

AMPTP said in a press release that “The deal that SAG-AFTRA walked away from on July 12 is worth more than $1 billion in wage increases, pension, and health contributions and residual increases and includes first-of-their-kind protections over its three-year term, including expressly with respect to AI.”

However, none of these have been made clear. This document from SAG-AFTRA, combined with the negotiations posted on the WGA’s site, show a pattern of refusing to rework the contracts that were created without adequate allowances for the popularity of streaming services, refusing to negotiate on pension and healthcare for the guild members, and a complete lack of interest in regulating AI.

For both SAG-AFTRA and WGA, this strike isn’t just about defining the nebulous parts of their contracts, but an attempt to future-proof an industry that seems intent on demeaning and destroying artists and does not support up-and-coming performers and writers. There needs to be a path forward, and if AMPTP is standing in the way, SAG-AFTRA and the WGA are going to march over them anyway."

Read the full SAG-AFTRA Negotiation Document hosted by GMG Editorial

[nonhumen]

@moonhund : “This is a matter of business rather than pleasure, Dazai-dono.” As is evident by the fact the fox has made a rare departure from the inn to visit Dazai’s office personally.

Although Jono has pondered this for some time, he still has not been able to find precisely the right words, and so there is an uncharacteristic moment of hesitation in broaching the subject. Fond as he is of Dazai, he does not easily forget the Port Mafia boss’ position or power–or the fact that the fox is now sniffing around business that shouldn’t concern him. “It concerns that hound of yours you picked up. As I’m sure you’re aware, he keeps finding his way to my doorstep,” after rough lessons leave Tetcho in even rougher shape, “to the point that I’ve become accustomed to having him around. He saved a number of my staff recently, and… well, to put it simply: I want him. So I am here to determine how willing you are to striking up a bargain.”

It’s perfectly foolish to state so freely what he’s after as the opening move to negotiations. Jono knows this. Yet it is the card he’s chosen to play.

this was always the most likely scenario. in fact, when dazai came to find tetcho in the first place, he had expected tetcho to turn him down and find his way to jono organically. dazai would have been satisfied with that outcome; neither of them finding their way to the hunting dogs is better for the agency in the long run. but the past year has been entertaining and new and dazai can't say he regrets having an attack dog such as tetcho among his ranks.

how jono would approach him always kept dazai guessing, though that has always been the fox's allure to the boss. partnership is a powerful bond and it echoes into fake worlds such as this one. dazai is prepared for jono to pull out all the stops to bring tetcho to his side where he belongs, most likely with honeyed words and a mind game that will keep dazai occupied for a good few hours.

so when jono, standing alone in his office, simply asks for him upfront, dazai simply laughs, genuine and light at the request. " i am truly amazed at how even now you find ways to surprise me. " the boss of the port mafia leans back in his seat, regarding jono as he would an entertaining film. or a book, perhaps. " yes, i am aware he comes to lick his wounds at your establishment. my training can be difficult but he's quite resilient and has come far in a very short amount of time. "

it's a dangerous thing to turn his back on a guest when chuuya is out of the room but he does just that. dazai gets out of his chair to walk to the floor to ceiling windows. he stares out at yokohama, though the one he sees is not his own. even now he sees the real one, the one outside the book. " i wonder how far you will go for him, " dazai muses to himself. " the bonds out there are reflected in here and six years of partnership is a very long time. "

he chuckles and turns to face jono. the grin he wears is that of a beast who caught its prey. " i'm willing to part with him but it will cost you. tetcho-kun is an incredible asset to the port mafia and so i must be given something equally as important. do you have any ideas of what that could be, jono-kun? "

[nclkafilms]

When your dream becomes your nightmare

(Review of ‘Im Westen nichts Neues’ watched on the 31st of January 2023)

‘Im Westen nichts Neues’ or ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ as it is known as in non-German areas has been sneaking up on the ongoing awards season. From being a player in the International Film category to then starting to pop up in the technical categories, and now, ultimately, it has ended up as being one of the biggest players of the season with 14 BAFTA nominations and 9 Oscar nominations. An impressive trajectory for the German film, which of course is based on the famous book that previously led to 2 Oscar wins from 4 nominations for Lewis Milestone’s 1930 version of the book. This time, as stated, it is a German production, which tells the gripping story of young Paul and his friends in the last year’s of WWI, and director Edward Berger has created one of the most heavy-hitting war films of recent years.

In the beginning we meet 17-year old Paul Bäumer along with his friends as they prepare to enroll themselves in the German army in 1917. Paul has not received his parents’ written consent, but a forged signature later and he’s ready to join the pride of the nation as they prepare for the final weeks of war before finally marching into Paris as national heroes and winners of the war. At least that is the story, that the boys have been fed and the dream they all have as they are hyped for the adventure that awaits them along with thousands of other young souls. Little do they know about the true nature of what awaits them on the western front, and as such these scenes of young pride and excitement are equally devastating and infuriating to observe. What follows is a story with two focus points: the story of Paul and his friends participating in the truly horrific battles of the frontline and a political story in a luxurious train wagon far away from bullets and grenades as officials from France and Germany negotiate the ceasefire and ultimate surrender of Germany finally agreed upon on the 11th of November 1918. 

With the film coming out just a few years after Sam Mendes brought our attention to WWI with his suspenseful ‘1917’ comparisons between the two of them are obvious to make. Especially as both stories try to tell the story of the actual (in both cases very young) men taking part in the devastating battles caught in a game that they have no control of. However, the way they decide to tell their stories are substantially different. While Mendes’ film succeeded as a suspense thriller thanks to its groundbreaking cinematography and a classic heroic tale, Berger’s re-telling of All Quiet has no interest in painting any heroic story. Of course, it’s always the winner, who gets to tell the stories and as such it is also hard to imagine a heroic take on a young German soldier would go down well today. But the facts that Paul is never portrayed as a hero and that Berger allows him to make despicable choices on the battlefield, makes the film’s anti-war story so much stronger, when we still end up hoping for Paul’s survival. He is neither an evil person nor a flawless hero; more than anything he is a confused, deluded young man caught in a dream that quickly shows itself as his worst nightmare. Caught between becoming the man his surroundings demand him to be in order to survive and defending his central human values, Paul becomes a symbol of the millions of young men from all countries who joined the war (and any other war for that matter) on false pretences only to have their lives altered forever. 

Made clear by the themes discussed above, Paul is a very complex character, and the work that Felix Kammerer does with this character is nothing short of spectacular. It seems impossible to believe that this marks his first feature film role. With a slender physical presence, he carries the film on his shoulders as he confidently navigates his way through physically demanding battle scenes, emotionally nuanced moments of reflection and haunting encounters throughout. One scene in particular involving Paul and a French soldier in a crater on the battlefield highlights the film’s biggest strength in my opinion: showing the brief moments of humanity in the bleakest of moments. The moment where Paul realise the nature of what’s going on, is Kemmerer’s finest acting in the film as he within seconds switches from a horrifyingly primitive state of mind to heartbreaking clear-sightedness. In addition to Kammerer, all the actors portraying Paul’s friends and company deliver fine work, but it is well-deserved that Albrecht Schuch as Stanislaus Katczinsky (or simply Kat) has received the biggest attention as he too manages to balance the nuances of their characters perfectly. It would have been so easy to fall into the trap of either making these characters completely unlikeable because of the sheer horror of their actions or awkwardly heroic completely ignoring said actions. It deserves recognition that the film’s main cast manages to balance this complexity as well as they do.

This, of course, also hints at great directing by Edward Berger who has made many clever choices with his film. He does, however, also make some questionable choices. For instance, I get the reason behind showing the ongoing “peace” negotiations along with the war horrors. It clearly serves a purpose by highlighting the absurd nature of the war where young, unsuspecting men play the parts of pawns in a deadly game of chess controlled by the generals, marshals and politicians operating in luxury far away from danger. However, these scenes never feel as fulfilling or interesting as the rest of the film. They feel like a slightly different film and I think it would have worked better if Berger had found a different way of portraying this contrast of the war. It could have been by showing us parts of the reasons why Paul and his friends were led to believe that they were joining the army to become heroes. What stories were they told, how were they told and by who? That could have served the same purpose while keeping our focus on Paul’s arc. 

While this perhaps hints at some issues with the film’s screenplay and Berger’s realisation of this, his realisation of his technical visions leaves nothing to be desired. He has created what feels like the bleakest and most harrowing depiction of war in recent years thanks to stunning cinematography, effective VFX and makeup and a fresh, haunting score. First of all, the cinematography is stunning: you feel the chaotic and claustrophobic horrors of the battles through great action filming, but we are also treated to some stunning night scenes, where I couldn’t help but feel that James Friend had been inspired by Roger Deakins’ work on ‘1917’. The VFX are supporting and often invisible, but they help make the battles scenes feel realistically scary as explosions occur and gun wounds appear naturally. These things of course also gives a lot of work to the make-up department, which have created numerous wounds and injuries through prosthetics, but it is perhaps the make-up that shows the battlefield’s marks on Paul that is the most impressive with Kammerer’s face often hidden behind layers of mud, ashes and blood. Finally, Volker Bertelmann’s score feels fresh and new for a war movie. I first listened to it before watching the film and it reminded me more of a sci-fi score, but it worked really well and it’s ominous and surprising use of sounds helped me get invested in the story. A really cool score!

All in all, the many praises that ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ has received are well-deserved as Edward Berger and his team has managed to create a devastating, haunting and (sadly) highly relevant depiction of war and the many horrors it inflicts on the people who are often closest to the dangers and consequences of it and furthest away from having any meaningful influence on its outcome. As such Berger’s retelling of the 1929 novel is every bit as relevant today as it was when Erich Maria Remarque wrote it based on his own experiences in WWI. We still struggle with war, and on a daily basis we are shown how the decisions of the most powerful inflicts irreparable consequences for the lives of their own people. And as such the ambiguity of the German title “Im Westen nichts Neues” is extremely fitting. Much like the soldiers in the film, Berger’s film is not without flaws, though. However, it surely will find its place among other big films that try to warn us about the human consequences of the constant desire for more power, more victories and more national glory. Because sadly, nothing’s new on that front. 

4/5

[beardedmrbean]

The political forces in the Bulgarian parliament condemned yet another instance of violence against Bulgarian citizens in North Macedonia and united around the position that the country currently has no place in the European Union.

The reason for the sharp comments today was the attack on Bulgarian football fans by citizens of North Macedonia and one of them was even stabbed with a knife. Cars of Bulgarian supporters were also attacked, and a total of 19 PFC "Levski" fans were arrested in Skopje due to various incidents before the match between the "Blues" and FC "Shkupi".

Eight of them were arrested for "violence during a sports meeting", two for physically assaulting police officers on duty and nine for aggressive behavior towards police officers.

The formations in the parliament defined what happened as unacceptable.

GERB deputy Georg Georgiev drew attention to the fact that the incident is happening at the moment when the parliament of North Macedonia is considering constitutional changes, which are the key to the country's path to the European Union. He criticized the reaction of the Macedonian authorities who, instead of helping the Bulgarian citizens, made efforts to arrest the Bulgarian fans and did not try to understand the reasons for the incident. According to him, the attack was provoked entirely by hatred.

"Hatred between people is a fact. (...) The peak point of intolerance has been reached because of the rhetoric of political representatives. I don't think that this country with the behavior that its citizens are demonstrating is ready to join the EU because it is not only a matter of politics, but also of values. What comes from Skopje does not correspond to our European values," said Georgiev. He stated that until the issue is fundamentally solved, the problems will continue.

According to GERB, Bulgaria reacted adequately, offering consular protection to the attacked Bulgarians. Georgiev expects the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to summon the ambassador of North Macedonia for a conversation or to send a note of protest.

Daniel Laurer of "We Continue the Change-Democratic Bulgaria" also criticized the Macedonian authorities, noting that there was enough information about the event so that measures should have been taken to prevent such incidents from happening. In his words, sport is one of the ways to build bridges with "our closest neighbors", therefore it should not be turned into an arena of political confrontation.

"Hopefully this summer they will finally include the Bulgarians in the constitution, where they belong, so that the Macedonian society will begin to understand that they are equal and there is no place for any discrimination, let alone violence," said Laurer.

"Vazrazhdane" believes that because of the incident, the Macedonian ambassador should be summoned, and Bulgaria should request a suspension of the negotiation process for the accession of North Macedonia to the EU.

According to the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament Kristian Vigenin from the Bulgarian Socialist Party, what happened is a natural result of the overall relations between the two countries at the moment, recalling an old thesis of the "Left" that North Macedonia is not yet ready to join the union.

"For months, hatred and intolerance towards Bulgarians has been instilled, and the Macedonian country must seriously rethink this behavior," said Vigenin, adding that the strongest political signal for this would be to adopt the changes in the constitution as quickly as possible. "I expect that this decision will start a process of improving relations between the two countries," he added.

"There Is Such a People" is also of the opinion that the political situation in North Macedonia predisposes to this type of provocation. "This country has no place in the European Union at the moment. At a sporting event that should unite, we see such ugly scenes directed at Bulgarian citizens once again", was the brief comment of Stanislav Balabanov from Slavi Trifonov's party.

The Macedonian Prime Minister defined last night's incidents in Skopje as hooligan clashes

Macedonian Prime Minister Dimitar Kovachevski defined last night's incidents in Skopje as hooligan clashes, in which a Bulgarian was stabbed, and 19 other people were arrested:

"First of all, what happened yesterday was the result of the actions of hooligans on both sides. A dozen, 15-20 hooligans who fought with each other and also injured a policeman. Thanks to the doctors, he was bandaged and released for home treatment".

Interior Minister Oliver Spasovski announced that the identity of the attackers had been clarified and they were being sought by the police.

The Bulgarian citizen, who was injured before the match between PFC "Levski" - Sofia and FC "Shkupi" - Skopje last night, is in a stable condition after he was operated on at "St. Naum Ohridski" hospital yesterday evening, Channel 5 reported.

"Levski" fans detained in Skopje were released

At noon, Macedonian authorities released 11 detained supporters of PFC "Levski". They shared that the police treatment was good - they received food and water and the opportunity to contact their relatives. Some of the "Levski" fans stayed at the stadium until 3:00 a.m. demanding the release of the detained Bulgarians. They also collected funds to pay the fines.

Only a team of the Bulgarian National Television (BNT) was present at the release of those detained by the regional police department in the Macedonian capital. Some of them are already traveling to Bulgaria under police escort.

[anvastya]

My boyfriend sometimes asks me if I will wear my hair straight. It makes me upset and angry. I feel humiliated. How dare he say in that casual tone 'Would you mind being someone else for me? Could you be that woman over there instead of who you are and who you have decided to be?'

I know he knows it hurts me even though he doesn't know why. And I also know that even though he doesn't know why, he also does. He wishes I was something different. He wishes my hair was long and straight and smooth and shiny, and probably blonde too. And he wishes that my skin was tanned and my body was like that woman over there, in the gym or on instagram in brightly coloured leggings and little white socks.

He acts as though each of these things independently would be a small improvement, like it's as self explanatory as hygiene - the way he takes care of his skin and teeth. I am incandescent with hidden rage.

My best male friend tells me, apropos of nothing, that men prefer long hair to short hair. I nearly snap at him. Of course I know that, statistically. But I never thought it should matter to me what men, on average, prefer because I did not wish to appeal to the average man. I was trying to appeal to someone in particular, as yet unknown to me, who had an appreciation for that which is unique. I wanted William Morris and Dante Gabriel Rosetti looking at me like Jane Burden; wild dark hair and full lips; staring stonily out from under her heavy brow; moved to invent a whole new idea of beauty to explain the feeling of seeing her.

My boyfriend feels entitled to ask for the change in me because he himself changes his hair to become something new like it's nothing. He grew it long and now he goes to an expensive Japanese hairdresser to get it cut and permed into artfully tousled curls. I'm touched by his earnestness but disdain his vanity. (But really this is because, in my own vanity, I feel his admiration for his own looks should rightly be directed at my beauty, and I feel cheated at its misdirection).

Everything about who I am is carefully negotiated with my principles. About beauty and timelessness, truth to materials, daily practices, otherworldliness, individuality, belonging, and the ways time is spent. He does not understand my ideas about authenticity, I think because his sense of himself is so radically unstable. He seems to construct himself opportunistically depending on his circumstances. But I have dragged the burden of myself too far and across too many uneven and inhospitable terrains to abandon her now.

My anger is not precisely anger at him, as I believe he can't help it. It is disappointment in him and in the world. I had hoped for someone who would share and augment my vision of myself. I had hoped that I would be more than a woman who can offer the things a woman offers to the average man. But to him I am not more than that. I am no more than the sum of my parts, and I am starting to see myself as foolish for expecting anything different.

At a raclette party last Friday I spoke with a colleague who had known my best male friend at their residential hall at university. I pre-emptively declared 'I know not everyone finds him likeable'. She was non-committal in the way lawyers invariably are and merely stated the fact 'He was 30 and dating a lot of 18 year olds'. I knew this, of course, but hadn't thought about it in those terms. I know him, but I also don't. I have criticised him previously in my mind for selecting women on the basis of what he describes as some liveliness or spontaneity or emotionality that is lacking in him, which sounds perfectly reasonable but in practice translates into never being with a woman who he regards as his intellectual equal.

It seems to me that this ensures he never gets given a run for his money, and never has to endure having his mind changed about something important. It makes me dislike him a little bit. The way women seem to be interchangeable to him. The way he doesn't make himself vulnerable. And the mysterious connection between those two things. I am reminded as ever of why I never slept with him, because as I knew as a teenager, it makes me interchangeable too. Sleeping with a man makes you the sum of your parts, because at the end of the day there are only average men.

This is the return of the familiar sensation every time I look up a man I admire for his art on wikipedia, to read how many times he married, and how many divorced, how many affairs, how many women he declared his undying love to. I never know what to do with this information or what it means, but it makes me distrust the art I admired. It strikes me that even the most brilliant and creative men are unwise in some fundamental way, they have no understanding of the weight of love and what it costs. They run around like foolish children and disappoint me.

I straightened my hair to check that I still don't like it. Sometimes I imagine a different self, softer and quieter, and prettier in the ways the average man appreciates. This version of me has my boyfriend's surname, something we have agreed will never happen in real life. I still hate my hair straight. It is smooth and lifeless and flat and seems to make my features protrude too much so I look tired and lumpy.

I want my white skin and my black cloud of curls staring darkly out of a 1930s photograph, with a long cigarette holder in my hand. I am thinking again of the sullen photographs of Jane Morris whose Victorian shirtwaists seem to hang off her stiffly, like this is a costume and the real her is enrobed and enthroned in a mythical garden somewhere.

I can't give my real self up. My real self is the only insurance policy I have against the risks of living. I think there is probably no such thing as making the right choices and having a happy life. What I mean by that is I think there is no true union, there is only the different ways you can be together and alone with different people at different times. I have to have myself to come back to or, inevitably, one day I will have nothing. Beauty lasts only for a moment, so I can't afford to invest too much of myself in that stock, I must focus instead on becoming wise.

[manasastuff-blog]

INDIAN AIRFORCE AGNIVEER SYLLABUS

Introduction

So, you're dreaming of soaring high with the Indian Airforce? Great choice! The Indian Airforce Agniveer Program is your ticket to an adventurous and prestigious career. But let's be real, making it through requires dedication, hard work, and the right guidance. This is where understanding the syllabus and getting top-notch training comes into play. Let's dive into what you need to know about the Indian Airforce Agniveer Syllabus and why Manasa Defence Academy could be your best ally in this journey. Understanding the Indian Airforce Agniveer Syllabus First things first, what does the syllabus look like? The Indian Airforce Agniveer syllabus is comprehensive, designed to test your knowledge, physical fitness, and adaptability. The exam structure includes a written test, physical fitness test (PFT), adaptability test, and a medical examination. Each part is crucial and needs focused preparation. Section-Wise Breakdown of the Syllabus Written Examination English Grammar Vocabulary Comprehension Writing skills Mathematics Arithmetic Algebra Geometry Trigonometry Physics Mechanics Thermodynamics Electromagnetism Modern Physics General Awareness Current Affairs History Geography General Science

Physical Fitness Test (PFT) Physical fitness is non-negotiable. The PFT includes running, push-ups, sit-ups, and other exercises to test your physical stamina and endurance. Adaptability Test This test assesses your mental agility and problem-solving skills. It's designed to see how quickly and effectively you can adapt to new situations. Medical Examination You need to meet certain health standards to qualify. This includes vision, hearing, dental health, and overall physical well-being. Detailed Syllabus Analysis English Brush up on your grammar and vocabulary. Practice comprehension passages and enhance your writing skills. This section tests your ability to understand and communicate effectively. Mathematics From arithmetic to trigonometry, make sure you're comfortable with all the topics. Practice solving problems quickly and accurately. Physics Understand the core concepts of mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and modern physics. This will help you tackle the physics questions confidently. General Awareness Stay updated with current affairs. Read about historical events, geographical facts, and general science to excel in this section. Tips for Excelling in the Written Examination Study Strategies: Break down the syllabus into manageable chunks and tackle them one by one. Time Management: Practice time-bound tests to get used to the exam pattern. Mock Tests: Regular mock tests can highlight your strengths and areas that need improvement.

Physical Fitness Test Preparation Start a daily exercise routine. Focus on building stamina, strength, and flexibility. Remember, a balanced diet and adequate rest are equally important. Adapbility Test Insighttas

Sharpen your mental skills with puzzles, games, and problem-solving exercises. Keep a composed demeanor in high-pressure situations and utilize quick thinking. Medical Examination Preparation Regular health check-ups are crucial. Maintain a healthy lifestyle, avoid smoking and excessive drinking, and follow a nutritious diet to meet medical standards. Role of Manasa Defence Academy in Airforce Training

Manasa Defence Academy is famous for its outstanding training courses. They offer a structured curriculum, experienced faculty, and state-of-the-art facilities to help you prepare effectively. Why Choose Manasa Defence Academy? Skilled Instructors: Gain insights from top experts. Comprehensive Study Material: Get access to well-researched and updated materials. State-of-the-Art Facilities: Train in an environment that mimics real-life scenarios. Success Stories from Manasa Defence Academy Listen to the individuals who successfully navigated the intense selection procedure. Their success stories can inspire and guide you on your path. Conclusion Preparing for the Indian Airforce Agniveer Program is a significant commitment, but with the right approach and guidance, it’s achievable. Understanding the syllabus thoroughly and choosing a reputable training academy like Manasa Defence Academy can make all the difference. Start your preparation today and aim for the skies!

Call:7799799221

websites:www.manasadefenceacademy

[pashterlengkap]

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s latest move called “idiotic” by angry GOP colleagues

House Republicans are blasting anti-LGBTQ+ Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) over her recent surprise motion to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). They’re calling Greene’s move “idiotic,” “abhorrent,” and “a big mistake.” Last Friday, Green threatened a motion to oust Johnson because he allowed the House to vote on a $1.2 trillion government spending bill that included funding for “trans ideology,” as she put it. The proposed bill initially had over 50 anti-LGBTQ+ provisions, but all but one — a ban on flying Pride flags at foreign U.S. embassies — were removed from the final version signed into law this last weekend. Related: Joe Biden humiliated Donald Trump in just five scathing words Ouch. “I filed the motion to vacate today, but it’s more of a warning and a pink slip,” Greene told reporters after filing the motion on Friday. She said she will use Congress’ current two-week recess to determine when to ask for her motion to be formally recognized. After it’s recognized, the House will have two days to consider whether to take action on it. Insights for the LGBTQ+ community Subscribe to our briefing for insights into how politics impacts the LGBTQ+ community and more. Daily * Weekly * Good News * However, her Republican colleagues seem to hate what’s she’s doing. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), called her move a “mistake.” “I consider Marjorie Taylor Greene to be my friend. She’s still my friend. But she just made a big mistake,” he said Friday, according to The Hill. “To think that one of our Republican colleagues would call for his ouster right now — it’s really, it’s abhorrent to me and I oppose it.” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said,“It’s not only idiotic, but it actually does not do anything to advance the conservative movement. And in fact, it undermines the country, and our majority.” Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN) said, “This isn’t good for the party. When I go home, people are tuning out what’s going on in the House because of the lack of progress, the chaos that’s happening. And I’d like us to get together and work together. We’re moving in the wrong direction of getting together.” Even anti-LGBTQ+ Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who spearheaded the late 2023 ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), told Politico, “I’m just not ready to support a motion to vacate.” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), who joined Gaetz in voting to remove McCarthy last year, told reporters that he’s “currently” against removing Johnson. While speaking to reporters on Friday morning, Greene said that the bill “funds [diversity, equity, and inclusion policies]. It funds trans ideology on our youth as young as 12 years old. We’re already in crisis.”  She also falsely claimed that the bill funds full-term abortion,” meaning abortions up to the point that the fetus can live outside of the birthing parent, which isn’t legal anywhere in the United States. Earlier last week, she held a Hearing on Investigating the Black Market of Baby Organ Harvesting, and invited debunked conspiracy theorists who echoed her false claims. Nonetheless, Greene’s complaints reflect those of conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus. Caucus members had tried to use budget negotiations to end government funding of any entity that “promotes transgenderism” or provides gender-affirming care; any federal agencies pursuing policies to expand diversity, equality, and inclusivity (DEI); any legal consequences for federal contractors who discriminate against LGBTQ+ people but claim their religion made them do it; and any implementation of the Department of Education’s rules requiring schools to accommodate trans students. In late 2023, Republican House members adopted a rule that allows them to easily oust their speaker. The rule was used to oust former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) in late 2023 after he worked with Democrats to pass a budget bill, something Johnson is now accused of doing.  It’s… http://dlvr.it/T4cMJ7