Shadows on the waterline by Timothy Davies

There are moments in American foreign policy when an event, small, localized, and almost provincial in its initial framing, illuminates a larger moral universe. The Venezuela boat strikes, spoken of with a kind of offhand certainty by commentators like Pete Hegseth, had that uncanny quality: the sense that the incident was less an aberration than a glimpse into a darker, ongoing pattern. It felt, unmistakably, like a crime hiding in plain sight. And the longer one sits with that feeling, the more unsettling the larger question becomes, how many other quiet crimes, half-buried or never reported, were committed under the Trump administration’s foreign policy banner?

The story of the boat strikes, covert interference presented with all the subtlety of a fist in fog, fits neatly into a governing worldview that thrived on the idea that what is done in the shadows is justified so long as it serves a larger spectacle. The Trump years cultivated a foreign policy aesthetic shaped by improvisation, vengeance, and the barely disguised thrill of rule-breaking. Even those who approved of the administration’s posture abroad rarely claimed it was careful. Or lawful. Or consistent. Only that it was bold and unbound. And boldness, as we learned, can be an excellent hiding place.

Consider the psychology at play: an administration that reveled in open defiance was simultaneously the one most adept at burying the quiet misdeeds. A public scandal, Ukraine, for example, blazed bright enough to conceal the operations never spoken of, never confirmed, never even fully whispered. If the flamboyant transgression becomes the news cycle, the technical violations glide by unnoticed, like boats in low light.

The Venezuela operation embodies that contradiction. For years, Washington hawks fantasized about great geopolitical confrontations, but what actually unfolded were smaller, stranger, and far more deniable mechanisms of interference, mercenary plots, covert pressure campaigns, oddball paramilitary excursions conducted with the moral discipline of a fraternity prank gone geopolitical. When such incidents broke into public awareness, they did so not because the system worked, but because the recklessness was too large to contain. It wasn’t the scrutiny that failed. It was the secrecy.

This is the quiet terror of reflecting on that era, not the scandals we know but the possibility of the ones we don’t.

Foreign policy under the Trump administration functioned as a kind of parallel theatre, one stage in the light, where the president issued bombastic threats on Twitter and praised strongmen with the enthusiasm of a man congratulating himself in the mirror; and another stage entirely, deeper backstage, where hastily planned operations proceeded without transparency, oversight, or even coherent strategy. The more chaotic the public show became, the easier it was to slip other actions through the cracks, disguised as routine, as whispers, as minor footnotes of the national security apparatus.

People speak nostalgically of the “adults in the room,” the ones who were supposed to curb excesses and keep the country from drifting into disaster. But such talk is itself an acknowledgment that excesses were constant and disaster always possible. If the Venezuela boat strikes felt like a crime long before the media caught up to them, it is because the moral disarray of those years trained us to expect wrongdoing as a background hum.

What was done to Venezuela was not done in a vacuum. It was part of a broader ethos that treated foreign nations, especially those already wounded economically or politically as chess pieces to be flicked across the board. The administration’s foreign policy was less “America First” than America-unrestrained, operating by impulses rather than principles. In that environment, the question of how many additional covert actions crossed legal or ethical lines becomes less hypothetical and more inevitable.

And so we return to the uneasy question, how many more crimes? Not metaphorical crimes, not ideological disagreements, but concrete violations, international laws bent or broken, human consequences ignored in the name of spectacle, operations conducted not with the meticulous precision of a statesman, but with the erratic fervor of someone seeking quick victory without accountability.

Even now, years removed, the full picture remains obscured. The archives have not been fully opened. The oversight mechanisms remain weakened. Many of the individuals who orchestrated these operations have retreated into think-tank anonymity or media commentary, where the past can be reframed as policy rather than misconduct. But the pattern persists like a watermark: the administration’s loudest actions were often its least dangerous; the quiet ones, its most alarming.

There is a temptation to view the entire Trump era as an anomaly, a fever that broke, a disruption now fading into the political periphery. But foreign policy leaves residue. It lingers in damaged alliances, destabilized regions, and the chilling example that a president can conduct clandestine activities without consequence. The next administration inclined toward secrecy or aggression will inherit both the blueprint and the precedent.

The Venezuela boat strikes are thus more than a footnote. They are a warning flare. They invite us to reconsider the gap between what we witnessed and what was truly done. They remind us that a nation’s moral standing can be eroded not only by the scandals that dominate headlines, but by the operations quietly carried out in forgotten coves, unmonitored channels, and diplomatic darkrooms.

America will not know the full cost for years. But we already know enough to stop pretending that legality and morality were only occasionally breached. The real story, the one barely told and only half-glimpsed, is how the shadow operations became the norm, and how easily a democracy can lose track of the crimes committed in its name when the spectacle is loud enough to drown out the whispers of the waterline.

A taxing return to tradition by Jemma Norman

When Rachel Reeves stood at the despatch box on Wednesday to deliver her second Budget, she announced what many in Westminster grudgingly call “realism.” The country, she warned, faced a gaping hole in public finances, a shortfall of roughly £30 billion, a fiscal chasm that demanded blunt instruments: tax hikes, spending cuts in some areas, but also renewed support for welfare and services. It is a Budget shaped by necessity. Yet again, under the banner of Labour’s social conscience, ordinary people are being asked to pay.

At a glance, there are green shoots. The abolition of the two-child benefit cap, long condemned as punitive, signals a return to Labour’s roots: a safety net for children who, through no fault of their own, were victims of austerity by another name. For low-income families with multiple children, that is undoubtedly welcome. Likewise, modest efforts to curb energy costs, freeze rail fares, and shore up public services acknowledge that millions struggle with cost-of-living pressures. In that sense, the rhetoric matches the humane aspiration: fairness, equity, the cradle-to-grave grammar of the modern welfare state.

But the devil, as ever, lies in the details. The main mechanism for raising revenue does not come from targeting the super-rich alone, but from sweeping tax-threshold freezes, pension-relief cuts, new levies on property, savings, and even electric cars. As wages creep up, more people will find themselves dragged into higher tax bands. A generation of savers, planning with pensions, ISAs, or careful investments will now face shrinking returns. The burden falls heavily on the “squeezed middle,” not on the rentier elite or offshore capital.

The result: a paradox. A Budget that cloaks itself in Labour compassion yet pursues a form of redistribution that is deeply regressive. It punishes thrift. It penalises aspiration. And it risks entrenching among working families a sense of betrayal rather than solidarity. For all its moral posturing, this might just be high-tax conservatism dressed up in red.

We may nod at the scrapping of the benefits cap, but what about the subtle erosion of hope? Pension contributions, the bedrock of long-term security for millions, are being dismantled piece by piece. Homeownership, long heralded as a path to stability, is threatened by new levies and surging property duties. The Budget asks more of the many so that the state can do more for a few; but any sensible observer must ask: has it really delivered justice, or simply managed to widen the definitions of “taxable”?

Then there is the matter of political pretence. Only last year, this same government pledged not to raise taxes on working people. Now, almost every lever has been pulled: thresholds frozen, reliefs curtailed, new charges for pension savers, landlords, electric-car owners. The language may have shifted — “contribution,” “duty,” “fair share,” but the effect is unmistakable. The promise smells of betrayal.

Does this reflect what the people wanted? It’s hard to believe so, not the people who start every morning staring down spiralling bills, who struggle with mortgages or cling to modest pensions. The polling suggests something else: a mixture of resignation, cynicism, and anger. Many hoped for an end to austerity, for fair pay, for a break from the perpetual squeeze. Instead they got a recycling of old burdens, under a different flag.

What we are witnessing is not a decisive turning point, not a reinvention of the social contract but a tired rerun. For a party that once stood for the downtrodden, this Budget feels like capitulation. A capitulation not to markets or bond-holders, but to arithmetic. The numbers don’t lie. Yet they also don’t care: about dignity, hope, generational fairness.

One could argue: at least it is honest. Better to raise taxes than to borrow recklessly or cut basic services. Perhaps. But honesty does not absolve cruelty. And budgeting is not merely arithmetic. It should be about value what we choose to hold dear when we balance the books. In that ledger, pensions, savings, and the modest dreams of working families are as legitimate as the welfare of children.

So yes — the black hole had to be filled. But this Budget does not fill it with vision. It fills it with old burdens, with stealth taxes, with deferred pain. And this in the name of tradition may mark the moment when Labour traded its soul for the books.

In the freezing of thresholds, the cutting of pension reliefs, the stealth levies lies not only optics, but a quiet unravelling of trust. Maybe the people wanted fairness not this.

Cuts, contortions and the cost of being human by Shanna Shepard

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Every year on December 3rd, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities arrives with the soft thud of a well-meaning holiday, acknowledged, applauded, and then swiftly shelved for the next twelve months. In 2025, however, the day feels heavier, carrying the weight of a global pattern that many prefer not to name: the quiet normalization of cutting care for those who need it most.

Let’s be honest. We have entered an era where disability rights are praised in speeches and undermined in budgets. The tension between rhetoric and reality has never been so stark, and people with disabilities are expected perversely to be grateful that the contradiction is merely awkward rather than lethal. But gratitude is difficult to summon when the institutions that claim to protect you do so with one hand while reaching for a red pen with the other.

This year, governments across continents have discovered a new enthusiasm for “efficiency,” the kind that finds its purest expression in healthcare cuts. The euphemisms are familiar: streamlining, restructuring, modernizing. But for disabled people, these are not abstract policy terms; they manifest as lost services, longer waits, shuttered clinics, withdrawn supports. In some places, “efficiency” has meant replacing home-care visits with phone check-ins, as if loneliness and isolation were simply technical issues that could be toggled on a screen.

Of course, discrimination has never needed austerity to survive, but the two make exquisite companions. Cutting care for disabled people is easily justified because disability is still widely understood, though rarely admitted as a personal burden rather than a societal failure. The disabled person is expected to endure, adjust, self-improve, or at least remain discreetly out of view. And when their needs become politically inconvenient, the narrative shifts: We simply don’t have the resources right now. As if dignity were a luxury item.

The cruelest part is that disabled people are often painted as “resilient,” a word that has been polished into a compliment but functions more like an absolution. If they are resilient, then the rest of us can relax. Resilience is comforting precisely because it allows us to imagine that cuts won’t hurt them as much as they actually do. It implies that support is optional, a courtesy rather than a right. It transforms suffering into a kind of noble achievement.

But try telling that to the people who rely on mobility aids that are now months late due to procurement freezes. Or to the families who have lost speech therapy access because the program that funded it was quietly phased out. Or to the chronically ill patients whose lifesaving medications have been moved out of coverage lists, replaced by cheaper alternatives that work fine—if one happens not to have the disability in question.

Discrimination takes subtler forms, too: the doctor who assumes a disabled patient’s symptoms are simply “part of their condition,” the employer who swears that remote work is impossible despite years of evidence to the contrary; the school that insists it supports inclusion while refusing to provide aides, devices, or training. These small violences accumulate, forming a sediment of exclusion that becomes difficult to dislodge.

What makes 2025 particularly striking is not that these injustices exist, they always have but that they are becoming increasingly, almost theatrically, normalized. The public conversation has learned to shrug. It is, after all, easier to ignore something once enough people begin ignoring it together. Disability discrimination has drifted into the background noise of civic life, drowned out by more fashionable outrages.

Yet history suggests that societies are revealed not in their crises but in their care: whom they choose to protect, and at what cost. The current trajectory reveals a troubling truth, much of the world is deeply uncomfortable with disability, not because it is rare, but because it is universal. Everyone is a future member of the same club, and that inevitability carries a discomfort we would rather outsource to policy documents.

Using International Day of Persons with Disabilities as an annual showcase of compassion feels increasingly performative when the rest of the year erodes the systems that make compassion tangible. This is not a matter of resource scarcity; it is a matter of political will, imagination, and empathy, qualities that are apparently easier to express in speeches than spreadsheets.

The irony is that investing in disability support is not, and has never been, charity. It is infrastructure. It is workforce policy. It is family policy. It is education policy. It is a collective insurance plan not just for the people who need accommodations today, but for everyone who will eventually need them tomorrow. Cuts to disability care are cuts to societal resilience, though that word is rarely applied where it belongs.

So how do we honour this day without falling into the trap of ceremonial concern? By refusing to treat disability as an optional line item. By recognizing discrimination not as an unfortunate side effect of modern life but as a structural choice. By insisting that the right to exist with dignity does not ebb and flow with budget cycles. And by remembering, perhaps most urgently, that disabled people do not need resilience as much as they need justice.

In 2025, celebrating this day requires more than symbolic gestures. It requires admitting that the fabric of disability rights is fraying and that we have grown far too comfortable watching the threads loosen. It requires discomfort, the kind that forces introspection and, ideally, change.

And it requires most of all, a collective refusal to let austerity masquerade as inevitability.

If the International Day of Persons with Disabilities is to mean anything this year, it must be a reminder that the measure of a society is not how it honours disability on a calendar but how it supports disabled people on every other day of the year.

Screws & Chips #116 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

In a galaxy far, far away, intelligence demonstrated by screws and chips,
boldly gone where no robot has gone before!

For more Screws & Chips, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

How Europe’s center-left flirted with the dark side of immigration politics by Marja Heikkinen

For years, socialists, social democrats, and the broader European center-left have struggled with a paralyzing identity crisis. Their traditional voters, industrial workers, lower-middle-class families, the quietly anxious middle strata who once trusted left-leaning parties to defend economic security, have drifted toward nationalist and right-populist movements. In response, many on the left have asked a provocative question: Is Denmark’s hard-line stance on immigration the accidental blueprint for center-left survival? And, in darker corners of the debate: Is turning “evil” against immigration now the only way to stay electorally alive?

It is a question soaked in discomfort, ideological betrayal, and uneasy political arithmetic. And yet it is not going away.

Denmark’s Social Democrats once embodied textbook progressive ideals: welfare universalism, internationalist empathy, moral confidence in the strength of an open society. Then came the seismic political shift. Under Mette Frederiksen, the party embraced some of Europe’s most restrictive immigration policies, policies that rivalled, and in some cases exceeded, those of the right. The move shocked Europe’s center-left, but it also produced an inconvenient truth: the Social Democrats won. They stabilized their base. They proved that a party could wrap a hardened immigration stance inside a still-generous welfare state and remain, at least nominally, progressive.

Other struggling European center-left parties began to look northward with a mix of envy and dread.

But what Denmark pulled off is not a simple trick of political triangulation. It is a philosophical contortion: a socialist party defending a welfare state by walling it off from perceived external pressures. The logic runs like this: Our social model is precious. It only works if we maintain tight social cohesion. That cohesion is threatened by immigration. Therefore, in the name of protecting the welfare state, we must keep people out. It is a reversal of the traditional progressive instinct, which imagined that prosperity could expand to accommodate newcomers.

The question, now, is whether other European center-left parties should follow.

The temptation is obvious. Voters who feel economically or culturally vulnerable often respond to politicians who promise control over borders, over identity, over the pace of societal change. The right has capitalized on this for two decades. Why shouldn’t the left borrow the message, soften the edges, and wrap it in a cardigan of well-meaning social protection?

Yet beneath the surface of this strategy lies a moral corrosion that cannot be politely brushed aside. If the left embraces restrictive immigration as electoral salvation, what remains of its animating ethos? A left that turns immigration into a tool, an acceptable casualty in a larger war for political relevance—risks losing its soul even as it wins votes.

But Europe’s center-left crisis is not just moral; it is structural. Economic transformations, automation, and globalization have hollowed out the old working-class coalition. Social democrats were slow to adapt. They offered technocratic reassurances while right-wing populists offered passion. They defended the European project while voters felt unheard. By the time center-left parties recognized their error, trust had evaporated.

It is within this vacuum that the “Danish model” has become both a warning and a lifeline.

If the left is to consider immigration policy as a survival tactic, it must first examine whether Denmark’s success is truly replicable. Denmark is small, cohesive, linguistically and culturally unified, and deeply consensus-oriented. Its welfare system is robust, its institutions respected. The Danish political psyche places a premium on conformity and equality, conditions that make restrictive immigration policies politically digestible in a way they may not be elsewhere.

Transplanting this model to larger, more diverse countries such as Germany, France, or even Spain would not be a clean operation. In fact, it might produce the opposite effect: inflaming societal divisions, normalizing xenophobia, and lending legitimacy to the far-right’s core narrative rather than neutralizing it.

And yet the center-left cannot pretend the immigration issue will evaporate if ignored.

So what would a morally defensible, electorally viable alternative look like?

It begins with honesty, an admission that the “open-door idealism” of the early 2010s collided with capacity limits, integration failures, and public fears that were not wholly irrational. The left cannot simply tell voters they’re wrong and expect gratitude. It must acknowledge that borders exist, that states manage them, and that immigration policy must be grounded in both humanity and realism.

The center-left can if it chooses, craft a narrative that does not scapegoat immigrants but still addresses anxieties. It can focus on competence rather than cruelty: smarter integration policy, faster asylum procedures, firm but fair border control, and a renewed emphasis on labour-market inclusion. It can frame immigration as manageable, not catastrophic; as an investment, not a threat.

What it cannot do is out-right the right. Not ethically, and not sustainably. Normalizing cruelty corrodes political culture. And once the left walks through that door, the right will always be waiting with something harsher.

Denmark’s model may have delivered short-term survival, but it also carved a permanent scar into the ideological map of European social democracy. The question every center-left party must ask itself is not only whether it wants to win but what kind of victory it seeks. A hollow victory built on borrowed fear may preserve seats, but it will not rebuild trust.

The real blueprint for survival lies not in turning “evil” against immigration, but in reclaiming political courage: the courage to speak plainly about challenges without surrendering principles, to address voters’ concerns without validating prejudice, and to design policies that balance solidarity with pragmatism.

If the center-left cannot find a way to do this, then Denmark’s path may indeed become its default future, not because it is right, but because it is easy. And yet easy paths rarely lead to renewal. They lead, slowly and quietly, to surrender.

Chains that change shape by Virginia Robertson

Why the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery Still Belongs to the 21st Century

Every year, the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery appears on the calendar like a stern reminder that humanity has a very short memory. We commemorate victories—laws passed, chains broken, tyrannies overthrown and then, with disquieting ease, assume the work is finished. But the 21st century excels at reinvention, and slavery is no exception. The chains have changed shape. They are lighter, quieter, digital, contractual, and in many cases, self-concealing. We are living in an age where exploitation dresses up in the language of opportunity and where “freedom” has been reduced to a marketing slogan.

We prefer to think slavery lives only in textbooks and the darker corners of documentaries. It is more comfortable that way. But anyone who has spent time listening, really listening to migrant workers, asylum seekers, or the uncounted army of domestic labourers knows otherwise. Modern slavery is not an aberration; it is an industry. Human trafficking is its most lucrative wing. And while the global economy prides itself on efficiency, it has been equally efficient at absorbing these exploitative systems, smoothing their sharp edges until the atrocities blend seamlessly into supply chains and labour markets.

The International Day for the Abolition of Slavery forces us to confront an inconvenient truth: liberation did not end in the 19th century. It mutated in the 20th and metastasized in the 21st. Today’s traffickers do not need whips and auctions; they have paperwork, debt, forged promises, and the anonymity of the internet. They exploit borders, wars, fragile states, and desperate families. Their victims rarely appear on news cycles, unless discovered in mass graves, shipping containers, or brothels masquerading as wellness studios.

We must resist the urge to interpret modern slavery as something happening “elsewhere.” The geography of exploitation has never respected borders. In fact, the wealthier the country, the more invisible the forced labour tends to be. It hides in the guest room of a well-to-do family employing an undocumented woman under the illusion of kindness. It hides in farms worked by labourers whose passports are conveniently “held for safekeeping.” It hides in construction projects where the workers' names are unknown and their injuries unreported. And, most perniciously, it hides in our digital marketplaces, where human trafficking has found its most streamlined recruiting tool.

This is not simply a moral issue; it is a structural one. We live in a world that rewards exploitation when it is disguised well enough. The 21st century has mastered the art of outsourcing responsibility. As long as the consumer does not see the suffering behind the product, the system functions smoothly. If slavery once relied on physical force, today it thrives on social invisibility, economic vulnerability, and our collective appetite for convenience without consequence.

Yet the conversation around human trafficking is often trapped in clichés. We talk about “raising awareness,” as if awareness alone could dismantle systems that prey on inequity. Awareness without accountability is performative empathy. What we need instead is discomfort, a willingness to look without flinching at how our own societies, our own economies, and yes, even our own daily choices intersect with exploitation. We need to abandon the comforting narrative that trafficking is the result of individual bad actors. It is the outcome of global systems that treat human beings as expendable units of labour.

The International Day for the Abolition of Slavery should force us to reckon not only with moral outrage but with policy and power. If nations truly wanted to confront trafficking, they would strengthen labour protections, enforce transparency in supply chains, provide safe migration pathways, and ensure that victims are treated as victims, not criminals. They would dismantle the loopholes that allow companies to outsource responsibility for labour abuses. They would fund shelters, legal aid, and long-term support for survivors rather than stage photo-op raids that rescue without rebuilding.

But perhaps the most underexplored aspect of modern slavery is its psychological dimension. The old slave systems relied on the overt denial of humanity. Today’s systems rely on something subtler: erasure. Victims disappear not only from legal protections but from public imagination. They are seen only as silhouettes, anonymous workers, nameless migrants, “those people.” The trafficker’s first crime is physical control; the system’s crime is collective indifference.

And so this day, this somber date on the global calendar, demands more from us than ritual acknowledgment. It demands that we admit how much of the modern world is built on the remnants of an old one. The economic hunger that once fueled slave ships has simply recalibrated itself. The logic remains: maximize profit, minimize cost, and rely on the vulnerability of the desperate.

Anyone who believes abolition is a finished project has not been paying attention. Slavery today does not shock because it has been normalized. Human trafficking does not outrage because it has been sanitized. We do not see chains, so we assume no one is bound.

The longest-standing myth about freedom is that it is self-sustaining. It is not. It requires maintenance, vigilance, and, at times, confrontation with the systems we benefit from. If the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery still matters and it does, it is because it reminds us that progress is not linear and justice is not inevitable.

We are still living in the age of abolition. We just haven’t admitted it.

The pilgrim of impossible distances by Edoardo Moretti

Pope Leo’s journey to the Middle East, however the Vatican frames it, however his advisers massage the message, feels less like a diplomatic visit and more like a test of human imagination. How far can one man, wrapped in the white cloth of ancient authority, really go into a region carved by distrust, suspicion, and wounds still open enough to sting? And how far is that region, its people, its leaders, its frayed moral nerves, willing to let him travel, metaphorically or otherwise?

Let’s be clear: the Middle East today is not a single “place” but a constellation of contradictions orbiting around a common gravitational pull of grief. It is modern and medieval, cosmopolitan and sectarian, pragmatic and catastrophically stubborn. It is a region where history is a living organism, breathing, muttering, correcting itself, and often biting.

Into this walks Pope Leo, a figure who, depending on whom you ask, is either a symbol of unity or of something far more complicated. The Church carries centuries of pilgrimage and contradiction in its pockets. No pope arrives anywhere empty-handed; he arrives with the weight of all previous popes stitched into the hem of his cassock. And yet, despite the heavy luggage of theology, Leo steps onto Middle Eastern soil with an almost disarming simplicity: he wants to talk. He wants to listen. He wants to bridge something.

But the region he hopes to bridge is in no mood to behave like a postcard of olive branches and sunlit domes.

Even in the best circumstances, the Middle East mistrusts symbolism. It prefers bread over promises, sovereignty over sermons. The people there are not yearning for a moral lecture from Rome. They are yearning for electricity, stability, security, and above all the cessation of the endless grinding of conflict that has eroded their sense of tomorrow. They need fewer metaphors, not more.

Still, there is something astonishing about the stubbornness of hope. The very fact that Pope Leo believes he can help, not solve, not sanctify but help, is either heroic or naïve, depending on the day and the headline. But hope, in this region, has always been carried by outsiders with improbable dreams: the diplomats who sign treaties nobody believes in, the artists who insist on painting murals in bombed-out streets, the schoolteachers who continue teaching the alphabet while the world rearranges itself in smoke outside their windows.

So the question isn't whether the Middle East is “ready” for Pope Leo. The region does not deal in readiness. It deals in necessity, and necessity is often synonymous with exhaustion. It is tired enough to listen. It may not change, but that’s not his job. His job is to be a mirror, one held up to leaders who prefer not to see themselves, and to citizens who fear, deeply, that the world has forgotten them.

What Pope Leo brings to the region is something strangely rare, moral stubbornness without military backing. In a world where power is almost always measured in weapons or pipelines, the pontiff arrives with neither. His currency is attention, conscience, and the slight possibility that a spiritual gesture can defy the gravitational pull of realpolitik. This is not insignificant. In the Middle East, gestures are not frivolous. They are the first fragile scaffolds of possibility.

But let’s not romanticize him either. He is not a saint parachuting into chaos, nor a philosopher-king armed with delicate insights. He is a religious leader navigating a geopolitical landscape where religion is both a pillar of identity and a powder keg. If he speaks too broadly, he risks sounding irrelevant. If he speaks too sharply, he risks igniting a flame he cannot control. And yet, what choice does he have but to speak?

Perhaps Pope Leo’s greatest challenge is not the danger of being misunderstood but the danger of being understood too well. In the Middle East, where every word is weighed, measured, and cross-examined, he will have to say things that are honest enough to matter yet diplomatic enough not to shatter the room. This is a region where silence can be mistaken for complicity and where clarity can be mistaken for taking sides.

But the truth is that Pope Leo’s trip is not about solving anything. It is about shifting the emotional weather by half a degree. In a region of storm systems that have lasted lifetimes, a half-degree shift is not nothing. Sometimes it’s the difference between another thunderclap and a momentary stillness.

The world, for its part, seems baffled by the gesture. It prefers solutions that can be measured, monetized, weaponized. But Pope Leo’s journey belongs to a different calculus, the mathematics of moral presence, the algebra of showing up in places where presence has been too long absent.

How far can his trip take him? As far as the limits of symbolism can stretch without snapping. How far is the Middle East prepared for him? As far as its exhaustion, its yearning, and its stubborn capacity for listening will allow.

In the end, the question may not be how far he can go, but how long his footsteps will echo after he has left, whether they fade like so many diplomatic itineraries or whether, in some unseen corner of a weary city, someone remembers that for one brief moment, a man in white stood among them and said, simply: I see you.

In the Middle East, that small act may be the longest journey of all.

Levelling the pitch by Kasie Hewitt

For all the confetti-drenched celebrations, the sold-out stadiums, and the well-curated Instagram posts that now accompany women’s football, one truth remains stubbornly immovable: the money hasn’t caught up. Fame has. Cultural relevance has. Viewership numbers astonishingly have. But economic reality? That still lags embarrassingly behind, like an outdated scoreboard blinking the wrong winner.

It’s a peculiar contradiction. We live in a moment when a women’s football match can draw bigger television audiences than men’s games in the same league. Girls walk into schoolyards proudly wearing the jerseys of their favourite female players. Federation executives beam while announcing record-breaking attendance figures, as if such achievements naturally translate into paychecks. And yet, tucked away from the cameras and literally behind the gleaming stadiums, many women footballers are packing their own sandwiches for training or juggling two part-time jobs to afford rent.

Let us state the obvious: no one enters women’s football to get rich. Passion is the currency, resilience the capital. But passion does not pay medical bills. Resilience cannot make up for the years shaved off a player’s career because she lacked the financial security to seek proper rehabilitation. These athletes train with the same ferocious commitment as men, often in worse conditions, sometimes on fields that would make a Sunday league team complain. But when it comes to compensation, they are paid like hobbyists who should feel grateful for the “opportunity.”

The most telling detail is not that women footballers earn less. It’s how we’ve normalized it. Society, with an unsettling blend of politeness and complacency, accepts the discrepancy as though it were a natural law of physics. “Market forces,” we’re told, as if the invisible hand of economics has an inexplicable fondness for masculinised sports and an allergy to women’s athletic excellence. But market forces are not a divine act; they are human decisions, human investments, human distributions of attention and resources. They can change if we choose to change them.

Consider the women who play in the lower or even mid-tier divisions: they may receive stipends rather than salaries. Some must negotiate with employers to adjust work schedules around training sessions. Others quietly retire at twenty-seven, not because their talent evaporated, but because their bank accounts did. The professionalization of women’s football remains partial, uneven, and fragile. A player signing a contract does not mean financial stability; it often means calculated survival.

Of course, there are exceptions that get paraded around, a star player who lands a lucrative sponsorship deal or a national federation proud to announce upgraded bonuses. But these examples function like decorative window displays, masking the cramped, uneven inventory inside. We celebrate the handful of women who break through the financial ceiling without acknowledging the thousands who hit their heads against it daily.

The economic gap is also reflective of a subtler, more insidious narrative: that women’s sports are worthy only when they can be packaged as inspirational, wholesome, or symbolically empowering. The moment we begin talking about money, real, substantial, inconvenient money, people get notably uncomfortable. Women athletes are allowed to inspire the next generation, but demanding fair compensation somehow makes them ungrateful. It’s a bizarre double standard: men’s anger is ambition; women’s ambition is audacity.

And here lies the irony no one wants to admit: women’s football has never been more commercially viable than it is today. Major tournaments draw global audiences. Jerseys sell out. Streaming numbers spike. Kids, boys and girls, idolize these athletes. The appetite is there. What’s missing is the structural courage to treat women athletes not as special projects to be applauded, but as professionals who deserve what professionals earn.

We should also acknowledge that progress is happening, though haltingly. Some leagues are raising minimum salaries. Some clubs are investing in better facilities. A few federations have adopted equal pay structures. These are steps worth celebrating, but cautiously, for they remain uneven and often symbolic. Progress should not be measured against past injustices but against the standard of fairness, a standard still unmet.

There is also a cultural shift underway. Fans are increasingly vocal about the inequity, calling out federations and demanding accountability. Social media has amplified the voices of players who, in previous generations, might have been quietly dismissed. This pressure matters. Change rarely begins in boardrooms; it begins in public conversations like these, in the collective refusal to accept “that’s just how it is.”

Ultimately, the economic undervaluation of women’s football is not merely a sports issue. It is a microcosm of how society assigns worth: who gets rewarded for excellence, who is expected to sacrifice, who is seen as an investment versus an expense. Women footballers are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the same respect that men receive automatically, the respect of being taken seriously, contractually and financially.

In time, perhaps we’ll look back on this era with a tinge of embarrassment, wondering how we applauded so loudly and paid so little. The day will come when a girl dreaming of becoming a professional footballer will not also be dreaming of a backup job. But that day won’t arrive on its own.

It will arrive when we decide that talent, sweat, and commitment are not gendered commodities and that the game, in all its beauty and brutality, is richer when everyone on the pitch is valued accordingly.

Marx cousins #018 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Groucho Marx attempts to seduce Karl Marx’s beard,
only to be met with a scathing analysis of capitalism
disguised as a poorly-aimed spittoon.

For more Marx Cousins, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Dec 2, 1804; The coronation of an empire

The 2nd of December, 1804, was a day of profound contradiction and calculated spectacle. In the soaring, cold nave of Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, Napoleon Bonaparte, the son of the Revolution that had guillotined a king, crowned himself Emperor of the French. It was not merely a ceremony; it was a masterful act of political theater, designed to legitimize a new dynasty, consolidate absolute power, and signal the birth of a modern empire built on revolutionary principles and personal ambition.

The Road to the Coronation: From Republic to Empire

To understand the coronation, one must first understand the context. France was exhausted. A decade of revolutionary terror, political instability, and war had left the nation yearning for order, stability, and glory. Napoleon, as First Consul since the 1799 coup d'état, had delivered all three. He had stabilized the economy with the Bank of France, reconciled the state with the Catholic Church through the 1801 Concordat, and codified French law with the Napoleonic Code. Peace treaties with France's enemies had cemented his reputation as a national savior.

By 1804, the question was no longer if he would become a monarch, but how. The revelation of a Royalist plot to assassinate him (involving the Duc d'Enghien, whom Napoleon had executed) provided the final pretext. It was argued that the Republic needed a hereditary ruler to ensure its survival beyond Napoleon's life. A carefully managed referendum was held, and the result, overwhelmingly in favor of establishing an empire, was presented as the will of the people. The Senate officially proclaimed Napoleon Emperor of the French on 18 May 1804.

The Stage is Set: A Calculated Ceremony

Napoleon was determined that his coronation would be unlike any other. It would not be a simple religious rite, but a grand, hybrid spectacle blending classical Roman, Carolingian, and Christian symbolism to create a new, uniquely Napoleonic legitimacy.

Pope Pius VII was summoned from Rome to preside. This was a crucial decision. By having the Pope attend, Napoleon was forcing the spiritual leader of Europe to sanctify his new regime, demonstrating that the Church now bowed to the state, not the other way around. However, he was careful to avoid the appearance of receiving his crown from the Pope, as the Holy Roman Emperors had.

The ceremony itself was meticulously planned by the painters Jacques-Louis David and Jean-Baptiste Isabey. Notre-Dame was transformed with lavish decorations, temporary galleries, and rich tapestries, obscuring the Gothic architecture to resemble a Roman imperial hall. The cost was astronomical, but the message was clear: France was now the center of a new, magnificent empire.

The Act of Defiance: "I Crown Myself"

The climax of the ceremony remains one of the most iconic moments in history. After being anointed with the holy chrism by Pope Pius VII, Napoleon approached the altar where the imperial crowns lay. As the Pope prepared to crown him, Napoleon unexpectedly took the golden laurel wreath of an Roman emperor and placed it upon his own head.

He then turned to his wife, Joséphine, who knelt before him, and placed a smaller crown upon her head, making her Empress.

This single, audacious act was rich with meaning:

• It severed the divine right of kings: He was not a king by the grace of God, bestowed through the Church. His authority was his own, earned by his own merit and the will of the French people.
• It invoked the Roman Republic: The laurel wreath was a symbol of victory and civic honor, linking him to the great generals and emperors of Rome rather than the "failed" Bourbon monarchy.
• It established a new legitimacy: Power flowed from Napoleon himself, the "self-made man" and embodiment of the nation.

While he was subsequently crowned with the more traditional "Crown of Charlemagne," the message had been delivered. The official painting by Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon, immortalizes this moment, though it shows Napoleon crowning Joséphine, a subtle alteration to emphasize his magnanimity rather than his defiance of the Pope.

Symbolism and Legacy: The Birth of the Napoleonic Era

The coronation of 2 December 1804 was a resounding success in its immediate goals. It:

1. Consolidated Napoleon's Power: He was no longer a military dictator or a consul, but a legitimate, hereditary monarch, the equal of any in Europe.
2. Reconciled the Revolution and the Old Order: The ceremony blended revolutionary themes (the "will of the people") with ancient traditions (monarchy, religion), offering something for every faction in France.
3. Projected Power Across Europe: The event was a clear declaration to the monarchies of Britain, Austria, and Russia that the French Revolution had evolved into a permanent, expansionist empire.

However, the legacy is complex. For some, it marked the tragic end of the republican dream, the moment the Revolution was betrayed by its most brilliant general. For others, it was the natural and necessary evolution that brought stability and glory to France.

The empire it created would last for only a decade, culminating in the defeat at Waterloo in 1815. Yet, the institutions, laws, and administrative models born from Napoleon's rule would shape not only France but the entire continent for centuries to come. The coronation at Notre-Dame was the dazzling, deliberate dawn of that era, a day a soldier of the Republic became an Emperor, and in crowning himself, declared that his power, and his new world, were entirely his own creation.

Red ribbons and real reckonings by Shanna Shepard

There’s a day each year when the world briefly lifts its gaze from the next breaking headline to an older, quieter emergency, World HIV/AIDS Day. It arrives every December, polite and persistent, like a reminder note tucked under the world’s windshield wiper. And every year, we repeat the usual motions: the ribbons, the speeches, the statistics, the calls for “continuing awareness.” But beneath the choreography, something deeper deserves our attention, our relationship to long emergencies, the ones that don’t make noise unless we force them to.

HIV/AIDS is one of those crises that taught the world how selective its empathy can be. It exposed our moral priorities, our prejudices, and our bureaucratic sluggishness. And even now, decades after the darkest years, the virus still tests us, not only biologically but ethically. This is the part we forget, the part that World HIV/AIDS Day wants us to remember but struggles to say outright: the world didn’t just survive the epidemic; it survived the mirror it held up.

There’s a particular discomfort in talking about HIV today. Not because it’s taboo, it’s far from that but because it forces us to confront how quickly complacency sets in once a crisis becomes familiar. For many, HIV has faded into the background of public consciousness, tucked alongside other chronic problems we assume modern medicine has outsmarted. But the state of HIV/AIDS in the world today is not a solved equation; it’s an ongoing negotiation between science, society, and attention spans.

Treatments have improved so dramatically that they almost undermine their own urgency. When a disease becomes medically manageable, its moral weight in the public mind often dissolves. It becomes less a threat and more an inconvenience, something people file under “handled,” even when it isn’t. But viruses don’t care about our assumptions, and injustices don’t resolve themselves just because we stop discussing them at dinner.

World HIV/AIDS Day is meant to puncture that complacency, if only for 24 hours. It invites us to remember the millions of lives lost, the communities shaped by grief, the activism born in fury, and the scientific breakthroughs carved out of desperation. But remembering isn’t enough. The question isn’t whether we still care, but whether we care in a way that matters.

In a world conditioned to catastrophe fatigue, HIV/AIDS offers a paradox: a crisis that is both quieter than before yet still alarmingly present. People living with HIV today navigate a terrain that is medically hopeful but socially uneven. Stigma hasn’t vanished; it has simply changed its wardrobe. It appears now in subtler, less public ways, in the whispered assumptions, the bureaucratic hurdles, the disparities in access, the shame that lingers like background noise. If progress is real, it is also conditional. If the future looks brighter, it is unevenly lit.

What’s also uncomfortable to admit is that HIV/AIDS still disproportionately affects communities that society routinely marginalizes, sex workers, intravenous drug users, LGBTQ+ communities, and populations in regions where healthcare is treated as a luxury. The virus survives where inequity thrives. This too is part of the reckoning. HIV is not just a medical phenomenon but a social barometer: it reveals who is protected and who is left waiting outside the gate of compassion.

And then there’s the quieter truth, one we speak about sparingly that the global struggle against HIV/AIDS is also a struggle against time. Not biological time but historical time. Memory fades. Outrage cools. Movements lose momentum. Every year we move slightly further from the era in which HIV was headline news and slightly closer to forgetting what it cost to get where we are.

In that light, World HIV/AIDS Day isn’t a ceremonial nod; it’s a guardrail against forgetting.

It’s also an invitation for something journalism seeks but often mishandles: nuance. HIV/AIDS is both a triumph of science and a testament to ongoing failure. It’s a story of extraordinary medical advancement and stubborn social inequities. It’s a narrative where hope and injustice sit uncomfortably at the same table.

To talk about HIV today is to accept contradiction. Yes, the treatments are effective—but access is uneven. Yes, public awareness exists but superficiality flourishes. Yes, stigma has diminished but not dissolved. We live in the in-between, and World HIV/AIDS Day asks us not to rush past it.

If there’s an opinion worth asserting today, it’s this: the future of HIV/AIDS will depend less on laboratories and more on attention. Science can save lives only when society lets it. The virus persists where information is scarce, healthcare is uneven, and silence is culturally enforced. The greatest breakthroughs are useless if they don’t reach the people who need them.

This day, this single day, won’t change the world. But it can challenge the complacency that threatens progress more than the virus itself. It can remind us that long emergencies require long memory. It can nudge us to treat surviving crises not as closed chapters but as responsibilities inherited.

World HIV/AIDS Day shouldn’t be a moment of somber ritual but a reminder that society does its best work when it refuses to look away. And in a world trained to look away quickly, that refusal might be the most radical act we have left.