Give them the gavel! By Brea Willis

The indigenous people of the world have spent centuries protecting the forests, rivers and ecosystems that international bureaucrats now promise to save. Yet, when the powerful gather to discuss biodiversity, they are still expected to sit politely, tell their stories and leave the decisions to somebody else. Enough of this environmental colonialism.

The presence and leadership demands of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities at the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP17, in Yerevan should expose an uncomfortable truth: the people who have protected biodiversity for generations are still fighting to be treated as legitimate decision-makers in the institutions supposedly dedicated to protecting it.

This is not merely an issue of representation. It is an issue of power. For centuries, indigenous communities have managed forests, wetlands, grasslands, mountains and coastal ecosystems through systems built around collective responsibility, seasonal knowledge and an understanding that nature is not an endless supermarket. Their relationship with the land is not necessarily romantic, primitive or uncomplicated. It is practical, historical and often rooted in survival. They understand that destroying the ecosystem sustaining a community is not economic development. It is collective suicide with a business plan.

Meanwhile, international environmental governance has perfected the art of announcing targets without confronting the structures responsible for destroying them.

Governments promise to protect thirty per cent of the planet while allowing destructive extraction, industrial expansion and land grabbing to continue. Corporations discover biodiversity as a fashionable investment opportunity. Consultants manufacture impressive sustainability vocabulary. And indigenous communities are expected to demonstrate patience while somebody else negotiates the future of their ancestral territories.

The hypocrisy is staggering. You cannot protect biodiversity by excluding the people who have protected it. You cannot discuss conservation while denying communities secure land rights. And you certainly cannot call an environmental agreement historic if those whose livelihoods depend on its success have no meaningful authority over its implementation.

The solution is not another Indigenous Peoples advisory committee, another consultation mechanism or another beautifully worded declaration. The solution is legally enforceable recognition of indigenous territorial rights, meaningful participation in governance, and the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

Indigenous communities must have the authority to determine what happens on their lands, challenge destructive projects and participate directly in the distribution of conservation funding. Their knowledge must be recognised alongside scientific expertise, not treated as colourful cultural decoration during conference proceedings.

Of course, indigenous stewardship is not automatically perfect. Communities are diverse, political disagreements exist, and traditional institutions can also require accountability. But that is an argument for genuine partnership, not continued exclusion.

The international community must also abandon its comfortable habit of treating indigenous people as environmental mascots. They are not there to provide moral legitimacy for decisions already taken behind closed doors. They are political actors with rights, interests, knowledge and the authority to say no.

COP17 must confront this fundamental question: who owns the future of biodiversity? Because the answer cannot continue to be those with the biggest delegations, the most expensive lawyers and the strongest corporate connections.

The people who have kept ecosystems alive should not have to beg for permission to protect them. Perhaps it is time for the international environmental establishment to try something revolutionary. Instead of inviting Indigenous Peoples to another panel, hand them the gavel. And, for once, let the people who know how to protect the planet decide what happens next.

Hands off the masters! By Jo Anne Kamansky

The dead have had centuries to tell their version of history. Perhaps it is time we allowed the living to answer back. Suddenly, the guardians of civilisation emerge from their velvet-lined caves, clutching their cultural inheritance as if somebody had threatened to nationalise their grandmothers. Art must remain untouched, they declare. History must be respected. The masters must be protected.

Protected from what, exactly? Questions? Uncomfortable truths? The possibility that the magnificent world they painted was never quite as innocent as the museum labels would have us believe?

The controversy surrounding contemporary interventions into classical art, including Yinka Shonibare's dialogue with historical European imagery, exposes an old cultural anxiety dressed up as aesthetic principle. The problem is not that contemporary artists are destroying history. The problem is that they are refusing to let history remain comfortably silent.

And that is precisely what makes their work necessary. For centuries, European art history has been presented as a procession of genius: magnificent painters, aristocratic patrons, beautiful estates, elegant portraits and the supposedly universal values of Western civilisation. Yet behind those silk dresses, polished silverware and pastoral landscapes stood empires, colonial commerce, slavery and vast inequalities of wealth. The painting might depict a gentleman enjoying his estate, but the origins of that estate's prosperity rarely receive equal billing.

The canvas survives. The inconvenient context often disappears. Thomas Gainsborough painted the people and landscapes of eighteenth-century Britain with extraordinary skill. His portraits and pastoral scenes remain important achievements of European art. Recognising that greatness requires no historical amnesia. But neither does admiring Gainsborough require us to pretend that the society surrounding his work existed outside the machinery of empire.

This is where contemporary artists enter the argument, armed not with paintbrushes alone but with questions that traditional institutions have spent decades learning how to avoid.

Shonibare's artistic language, which engages with colonialism, class, cultural identity and the entangled histories of Europe and Africa, challenges the artificial borders through which museums have traditionally organised civilisation. His interventions make the past collide with the present. They remind audiences that identity is constructed, power has an aesthetic, and the history of European refinement cannot always be separated from the global systems that helped sustain it.

Naturally, somebody will complain that this is politics invading art. As if art had ever been innocent of politics. Who commissioned the portraits? Who could afford to sit for them? Whose bodies became objects of fascination, whose labour created the wealth represented on canvas, and whose lives were considered unworthy of artistic attention? These are not fashionable questions invented by contemporary activists. They are questions about how culture acquires prestige, who controls its institutions and whose experiences are permitted to become universal.

The real political intervention was never simply to question the masterpiece. It was to pretend that the masterpiece required no questions.

Museums, meanwhile, must decide whether they are temples dedicated to the preservation of established authority or public institutions capable of confronting complicated truths. Preservation matters. Historical accuracy matters. The original artwork must not become a disposable prop in somebody else's ideological performance. But preservation is not the same as intellectual paralysis, and respect does not mean compulsory silence.

There is a difference between erasing history and expanding its meaning. Erasure conceals evidence, suppresses voices and closes discussion. Critical recontextualisation introduces evidence, recovers neglected perspectives and opens discussion. Confusing the two is either a remarkable intellectual failure or a convenient strategy for avoiding uncomfortable conversations.

Not every contemporary intervention is brilliant. Some are superficial, some are clumsy, and some mistake provocation for insight. Contemporary artists deserve criticism just as much as their predecessors. The answer, however, is to judge the work, not to declare the past a forbidden territory into which the present must never venture.

Art history is not a family heirloom belonging exclusively to the people who inherited the keys to the gallery. It belongs to the public, including those whose ancestors appear in the historical record only as servants, commodities, anonymous labourers or distant figures at the edge of somebody else's magnificent composition.

When contemporary artists confront classical imagery with the realities of global identity, they do not necessarily diminish the old masters. They make the encounter more demanding. A painting can remain beautiful while becoming historically uncomfortable. Indeed, its beauty may become even more revealing when we understand the world that produced it.

The greatest masterpieces do not need to be embalmed to survive. They can withstand scrutiny, disagreement and the unruly presence of new generations. Perhaps the real threat to classical art is not the contemporary artist who dares to challenge it. Perhaps it is the museum visitor who leaves believing that nothing more needs to be said. Let the paintings remain. Let the history remain. But let the arguments begin. The masters have earned their place in history. They have not earned immunity from it.

The rogue state’s ATM by John Kato

While ordinary North Koreans live under an economic prison, the regime's digital criminals apparently enjoy a rather different lifestyle: stealing billions, laundering cryptocurrency and financing a dictatorship that has perfected the art of international extortion. Welcome to the brave new world of digital capitalism, where the bank robber no longer needs a gun, a getaway car or even a passport. Just a keyboard, a few compromised systems and the protection of a sovereign state.

The reported $6.3 billion Binance crypto theft, attributed in the proposed scenario to North Korean state-backed cyber actors, represents something considerably more dangerous than another spectacular financial crime. It exposes the transformation of cryptocurrency into an instrument of geopolitical warfare. The hackers are not simply criminals looking for a quick fortune. They are potentially extensions of a government, operating in the comfortable darkness between international law, technological ignorance and financial irresponsibility.

And that is where the real scandal begins. For years, cryptocurrency enthusiasts sold us a beautiful technological fairy tale. Decentralisation would liberate money from governments, banks and bureaucratic dinosaurs. Blockchain would create transparency. Digital currencies would democratise finance. No middlemen, no borders, no financial gatekeepers. Wonderful! Except that somewhere between the utopian sales pitch and the reality of global finance, somebody forgot to explain that criminals, dictatorships and intelligence services also enjoy technological freedom.

Decentralisation does not mean immunity from organised crime. An anonymous digital wallet does not become morally superior because it has no physical address. And blockchain transparency is hardly reassuring when the people responsible for stealing the money are three steps ahead of the institutions supposedly protecting it.

North Korea has understood something that Western governments and financial regulators have been embarrassingly slow to recognise: cybercrime can become an export industry. When sanctions restrict access to international banking, sophisticated digital theft offers an alternative revenue stream. When conventional financial institutions become difficult to penetrate, decentralised platforms provide new opportunities. The internet becomes a borderless battlefield, and cryptocurrency becomes the ammunition, the battlefield economy and the escape vehicle.

But let us not pretend that Pyongyang is the only villain in this theatre. The cryptocurrency industry has spent years celebrating its freedom from regulation while demanding public confidence, institutional investment and mainstream legitimacy. It wants to be treated like conventional finance when attracting customers, but frequently behaves like an offshore casino when accountability comes knocking.

You cannot demand the privileges of the financial system while rejecting its responsibilities. You cannot advertise security, promise financial independence and then shrug your shoulders when ordinary investors discover that their digital savings have disappeared into an international criminal network.

The victims are not abstract numbers on a blockchain explorer. They are people who trusted platforms, invested savings and believed that technological sophistication meant technological security. Their money can become collateral damage in a geopolitical conflict they never agreed to join.

Governments, meanwhile, continue to approach cybercrime with the enthusiasm of firefighters discussing a burning building while negotiating who should pay for the water. International cooperation remains painfully inadequate, regulations lag behind technological developments, and the financial industry keeps inventing new vocabulary to describe old-fashioned greed.

The uncomfortable truth is that cryptocurrency has become a strategic vulnerability. A state-sponsored hacker does not need to defeat an army, occupy territory or blockade a port. A successful digital operation can generate enormous resources, undermine confidence in financial institutions and help a sanctioned regime finance its survival.

This is not financial freedom. It is financial insecurity with excellent marketing. The answer is not necessarily to abolish cryptocurrency or surrender technological innovation to government bureaucracies. It is to stop confusing innovation with irresponsibility. Exchanges must face meaningful security obligations, cross-border financial intelligence must become more effective, and governments must treat state-sponsored financial cybercrime as a serious national and international security threat.

And perhaps the crypto evangelists should finally abandon their adolescent fantasy that technology automatically makes humanity more honest. A blockchain cannot manufacture democracy. A digital wallet cannot create accountability. And decentralisation cannot protect a society from a dictatorship that has discovered how to turn the world's financial infrastructure into its personal cash machine.

The Wild West had its outlaws, its sheriffs and its occasional hanging. The digital Wild West has something considerably more frightening: outlaws with state sponsorship, global infrastructure and nuclear-armed employers. And somewhere in Pyongyang, somebody is probably checking the balance. The revolution was supposed to liberate our money. Instead, it may have built the world's most convenient ATM for rogue states.

Ian Glim #019 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

A bewildered soul navigating global complexities armed
only with earnestness and a sharp, sarcastic wit.

For more Ian Glim, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The new kids want the keys by Sabine Fischer

The old political establishment has a problem. It is not simply that Generation Z is angry, impatient or unwilling to vote for the familiar collection of political dinosaurs. It is that an entire generation is beginning to question why the dinosaurs should be allowed to keep the building in the first place.

For decades, European politics has operated on a remarkably convenient assumption: young people may protest, complain, organise demonstrations, occupy university buildings and fill city squares, but eventually they will grow up, become reasonable and accept the political arrangements inherited from their parents. The establishment has always been rather comfortable with youthful rebellion, provided it ends before anyone touches the furniture.

Unfortunately for the establishment, Generation Z appears to have misplaced the instruction manual for political obedience. The emerging student movements in Eastern Europe, particularly Serbia, represent something more complicated than another explosion of youthful frustration. Their significance lies in the transition from demanding that politicians behave better to questioning the political structures that allow the same networks of influence, patronage and impunity to reproduce themselves.

This is not simply a generational disagreement. It is a confrontation over who has the right to occupy the institutions of democracy.

Serbia offers the most striking illustration. What began after the November 2024 collapse of the railway station canopy in Novi Sad, which killed sixteen people, developed into nearly two years of student-led demonstrations demanding accountability, transparency and functioning institutions. On 25 October 2026, the Student List translated that mobilisation into an electoral victory, defeating the political camp of Aleksandar Vučić and securing a projected 140 of the National Assembly's 250 seats. It was a remarkable transition from university blockades to parliamentary power.

But the interesting question is not simply how the students won. It is why so many citizens were prepared to place their confidence in a movement that deliberately avoided the traditional architecture of political leadership.

The answer may lie in the exhaustion of conventional politics. Across parts of Eastern Europe, established political organisations have struggled to convince younger citizens that changing the faces occupying ministerial offices necessarily changes the machinery behind them. Political connections, institutional loyalty, opaque public contracts and the familiar revolving door between power and privilege have become central subjects of public distrust.

Generation Z has grown up watching politicians promise transparency while governing through arrangements that ordinary citizens cannot easily scrutinise. They have inherited economic insecurity, housing difficulties, declining confidence in institutions and a political vocabulary in which accountability is frequently discussed but rarely experienced.

And then comes the extraordinary insult: being told to wait patiently. The Serbian Student List demonstrated that a movement could move beyond the familiar ritual of protest and construct an electoral alternative. Its candidates were selected through student assemblies, with a deliberately decentralised structure and an emphasis on people without previous senior political involvement. Yet its electoral success also raises uncomfortable questions about leadership, policy coherence and the practical business of governing.

Because overthrowing a political monopoly and building a functioning democracy are two entirely different occupations. Anger can unite students, professors, doctors, workers and pensioners. Governing requires decisions about taxation, employment, foreign policy, public services and competing social interests. A decentralised movement must eventually demonstrate that collective accountability can survive the temptations of individual power.

This is where the generational experiment becomes particularly interesting. If the newcomers reproduce the habits they denounced, their revolution will become another chapter in the same miserable political autobiography.

The danger is not that young people demand too much democracy. It is that political institutions may mistake their victory for a temporary change of personnel rather than a demand for permanent accountability.

Generation Z is not automatically wiser, cleaner or more democratic than its predecessors. No generation possesses an exclusive patent on integrity. But its willingness to challenge inherited political arrangements deserves serious examination.

The old establishment should perhaps pay attention to one uncomfortable possibility: the next generation is no longer asking for an invitation to the political dinner table. It is asking who built the table, who owns it, who pays for the food and why the same people have been eating first for thirty years. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a rather more complicated question than another election campaign slogan.

Captain Picard left us a map for a better future by Thanos Kalamidas

Somewhere in the universe, Jean-Luc Picard is probably still sitting in his captain's chair, looking at humanity with that familiar expression of restrained disappointment. He has every reason to be disappointed. We have managed to turn almost every lesson of his civilisation into something resembling a political crime. Diplomacy has become weakness, compassion has become an electoral liability, intelligence has become suspicious and ignorance has somehow acquired a government portfolio.

Patrick Stewart is gone. Captain Picard, however, leaves behind an uncomfortable question: what the hell happened to the future we were promised? For an entire generation, Star Trek: The Next Generation offered something increasingly embarrassing in today's political climate: optimism. Not the cheap optimism of politicians promising tax cuts while emptying public institutions, but a serious belief that humanity could actually grow up. That poverty, racism, nationalism, religious fanaticism and the endless appetite for conquest were not permanent characteristics of our species.

The Federation was not perfect. Its conflicts, internal contradictions and occasional bureaucratic stupidity made it believable. But it was built upon an extraordinary proposition: humanity had finally understood that cooperation was more productive than domination.

And then there was Picard. He was not the stereotypical television action hero, shouting orders, waving weapons and solving every disagreement with a conveniently available explosion. He was a diplomat, a philosopher, a historian and occasionally a rather irritating intellectual. He preferred conversation to confrontation, reason to revenge and evidence to political convenience. He understood that strength was not measured by how many people you could frighten, but by how much responsibility you were prepared to accept.

Imagine trying to sell that candidate to today's political establishment. In 2026, the international landscape looks increasingly like a particularly unpleasant episode of humanity's adolescence. Authoritarian leaders sell national humiliation as patriotism. Political movements manufacture enemies because governing competently is apparently too demanding. Wars become entertainment, refugees become bargaining chips, international law becomes optional and human rights are enthusiastically defended only when the victims happen to be politically convenient.

The powerful have rediscovered the ancient pleasure of impunity. The weak have rediscovered how disposable they are. And the supposedly advanced societies of the twenty-first century watch, argue and scroll.

This is where Picard's legacy becomes more than nostalgia. The Next Generation imagined a humanity that had moved beyond the primitive obsession with borders, ethnic superiority and ideological tribalism. It imagined institutions that could disagree without collapsing, scientists who were respected rather than ridiculed, and leaders who understood that their authority came with obligations.

We have gone in precisely the opposite direction. We have technological miracles in our pockets and medieval political instincts in our parliaments. We can explore the molecular structure of distant planets but cannot agree that a starving child deserves food regardless of nationality. We can develop artificial intelligence but appear incapable of exercising ordinary human intelligence when confronted with a political demagogue.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that Picard's world was never supposed to be an escape from reality. It was a challenge to it.

The Prime Directive, with all its philosophical complications, reminded us that power carries responsibility. The Federation's diplomatic traditions suggested that understanding an opponent was not surrender. Its commitment to diversity was not a fashionable corporate slogan but the recognition that civilisation becomes stronger when different experiences and cultures contribute to it.

These were not childish fantasies. They were aspirations. And aspirations require something today's political class increasingly despises: moral courage. Patrick Stewart gave Picard an extraordinary humanity. Behind the commanding voice and Shakespearean dignity was a man who could be vulnerable, uncertain, compassionate and occasionally wrong. That mattered. He made intellectual curiosity look heroic at a time when television was perfectly capable of confusing violence with masculinity and aggression with leadership.

Now the actor has left us, and the captain's chair is empty. But perhaps the real question is not whether we will miss Patrick Stewart. Of course we will. It is whether we ever understood what he was trying to tell us.

We did not need warp engines to build a better civilisation. We needed political leaders capable of looking beyond the next election, citizens prepared to defend democratic institutions, and societies that understood the difference between strength and cruelty.

Instead, we elected people who believe history is a property they can rewrite, truth is negotiable and compassion is an expensive inconvenience. So, goodbye, Sir Patrick. Thank you for giving us a captain who believed humanity deserved a future better than its past.

Unfortunately, we have spent considerable time proving him wrong. And somewhere, in the imaginary corridors of the Enterprise, Picard is probably preparing another diplomatic intervention. Make it so, Captain. We could use an adult in the room.

Manish Zodiac Predictions for November 2026 #Horoscope by Manish Kumar Arora

Aries ( 21 March – 19 April )  - An excellent month  to move forward with your plans and ideas. Trust in this divine timing and move ahead. Do not hesitate or doubt yourself, as this is a favorable time. You will find the necessary support and resources to back you up. Stay positive during this transition. Clear your heart of anything that is not serving its purpose and to make room for new blessings. Your inner strength reigns and you will have the power to move mountains. Your darker energy excels, allowing your inner power to create magic - using your imagination, intuition, and hypnotic vision. Singles are likely to find love and those in an existing relationship will be able to overcome any challenges in their current relationships. Favorable Dates : Nov 2, 4, 11, 13, 20, 22 Favorable Colors : Red & Green

Taurus ( 20 April – 20 May ) - You can  create strong foundations for the next four weeks. The month will enhance your willpower, and you can rethink and recalculate your steps to make them perfect. Make your list as to what you want to accomplish, and get started immediately. You have much on your minds, as ideas are traveling at great speed. Drop any self-defeating thoughts and lift your vibrations if you doubt your own abilities or find yourself in an unloving situation. You are also being guided to pursue education, further studies, and take up courses that will help expand your knowledge and polish your existing skills. Favorable energy is concentrating on domestic duties in the home, nurturing, caring, loving, and stirring the passions that fuel you for life. Favorable Dates : Nov 1, 6, 10, 15, 19, 24 Favorable Colors : Yellow& Blue

Gemini (21 May – 20 June) – You would be enthusiastic about your work and you are ready to create a masterpiece. There is favorable energy for showing off your leadership skills and your ability to work as a team, children, management, playfulness, creativity, personal talents, and being confident about what you bring individually to the table. Whatever you approach, you are pouring your heart into it. Pay attention to your inner calling and act on the new ideas and inspirations that come to you. These are divinely directed. This could be a project, a new business venture, or even an emotional beginning. You are being watched, guided, and protected during these changes. Favorable Dates :Nov  4, 7, 13, 16, 25, 22 Favorable Colors : White & Yellow

Cancer( 21 June – 22 July ) - Your imagination, intuition, creativity. self-discovery, self-healing - your inner abilities will come to the fore. Celebrate these gifts by spending some quality time with yourselves, aware that you can create your destiny by beginning with yourselves. Bring light into your evening, as you have much to honor with so much happening. Give something each day without expecting anything in return; this may include your time, a donation of any kind, or simply appreciating the people in your life. Similarly, ensure you are receptive to receiving help. News related to pregnancy is also on the cards, so get ready or be careful. Do some additional research on a topic close to your heart and focus on learning. Favorable Dates : Nov  3, 6, 12, 15, 21, 24Favorable Colors : White & Blue

Leo  ( 23 July – 22 August ) - If you have been delaying the start of a new venture that involves your creative input, then this is the time to showcase your talent. It doesn’t matter if your skills are market ready. Continue to pour your energy and passion into this task. You can learn and develop fresh views, better ways of communicating, and breaking barriers with what you assume are limitations which mostly exist only in your minds. Give away any feelings of insecurity or limitation to the universe. Let go of judgments and look past the errors and misunderstandings of others. Forgive someone you have been facing difficulties with of late. Focus on love and the goodness in yourself and others. Favorable Dates :Nov  1, 5, 10, 14, 19, 23 Favorable Colors : Yellow& Blue

Virgo( 23 August – 22 September ) - You may be feeling frustrated at not getting something right. This could be a hobby or a newly developed skill. Your keyword is practice. Keep trying and don’t give up, as you are very close to mastering this art. This is a great time to polish your skills. You are also advised to spend more time outdoors, especially if you have been spending too much time indoors, depriving yourself of fresh air and close contact with nature. Your etheric body needs healing and you would benefit from spending time close to the ocean. If this is not possible, then consider a salt-water bath. Salt is excellent at neutralizing and transmuting negativity and will help rid you of negative energies from your aura. Favorable Dates: Nov  1, 7, 10, 16, 19, 25 Favorable Colors : Yellow & White

Libra ( 23 September – 22 October ) - You would be focusing on releasing areas that are in connection with your emotional intellect, mood, attitudes, and perspective. You would be reconnecting to what your heart needs, rejecting that which hasn't worked, and re-educating yourselves. You may be going through emotional healing this month.  Open your heart to love and let go of any past hurt and disappointment. You are in the mood to mingle and network with your social circle, as this energy increases your urge to be more communicative with others. You may also be caught up between making choices, which leaves you confused. Be honest with yourself and the people involved in your life about what you want. Favorable Dates: Nov  2, 3, 11, 12, 20, 21 Favorable Colors : Yellow & White

Scorpio ( 23 October – 21 November ) – You will take the time to nurture your inner selves. You would be encouraged to get in touch and take care of your sensitive side. Just enjoy the energy about what the period truly means, which is about sharing love, kindness, and creating. This is a time of forgiving, as you are undergoing healing and it is necessary to release any blocked emotions. This month also marks the perfect time for you to act on your inspirations. Your ideas are like seeds which need to be tendered carefully right now. Avoid delays and procrastination. Sometimes, it is all about taking that first step towards your goals rather than waiting until you figure out all the details. Favorable Dates :Nov  4, 5, 13, 14, 22, 23Favorable Colors : Red&Blue

Sagittarius ( 22 November -21 December ) – This month marks the beginning of pursuing something new, which brings you rewards and recognition. Your body craves oxygenated air. Consider spending some time gardening, taking a walk in the park, hiking, trekking, or simply being close to nature in any way possible. Your financial situation is improving. Your finances may have been blocked due to numerous factors in the past and as you follow your inner guidance and release any negative conditioning about money, you will notice that many opportunities and doors open for you. This is also a great month to work on your relationships. It is also important to let go of any feelings of unworthiness when it comes to receiving love. Open your heart and welcome new beginnings. Favorable Dates :Nov  2, 6, 11, 15, 20, 24 Favorable Colors : Red & Purple

Capricorn ( 22 December – 19 January ) – This is the time to think creatively. Focus on a project that you have been procrastinating on for a while. If you have been worried lately about the outcome to a difficult situation, then take comfort that everything is working out beautifully. It may also be the right time to release something or someone from your life. Make a list of everything that is not serving its purpose in your life, then let it go with your intentions. There may be decisions to make and if you’re feeling confused, ask yourself which path brings you closer to peace and makes you feel good about yourself. Be open and admit to yourself and others what you truly desire. Favorable Dates : Nov  2, 6, 11, 15, 20, 24 Favorable Colors : Red & Purple

Aquarius ( 20 January – 18 February ) - Your creativity will help open doors for you and express your creative side without worrying too much about how it will be received.  A new business venture is in the cards and you should trust and follow your instincts with this new opportunity. If self-employed, then this is a great time to act on your inspirations. You are also strongly advised to shed your fears and worries, as they only attract what you don’t want, blocking your chances at a speedy manifestation. The situation you are concerned about is under control and there is nothing to worry about.  A new romance is likely to blossom for most of the single Aquarians. Your existing relationships improve as you reignite the passion. Favorable Dates : Nov  2, 6, 11, 15, 20, 24 Favorable Colors : Red & Purple

Pisces (19 February – 20 March) - Good news related to your finances is highlighted this month. Any past debt will be lifted as your financial situation improves and you will find ways to bring more abundance and prosperity into your life. You may find a new job or an additional one to draw multiple incomes. You’ve got the power and the abilities to make a change and bring your desires to fruition. You may have doubted your capabilities in the past and it is now time to pay attention to your divine inner light and have the confidence to move forward and make changes. Let your intuition be the guide. Do not dismiss your inner guidance, as it is pushing you in the right direction. Favorable Dates : Nov  2, 6, 11, 15, 20, 24 Favorable Colors : Red & Purple

Insert Brain Here: Fang Shui #Cartoon by Paul Woods

 

Originally from Port Macquarie, Australia, Paul Woods is a Cartoonist and Illustrator based in South London who also plays drums, works as a Cameraman and likes bad horror films. His series of cartoons is entitled "Insert Brain Here"

For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Ant-sized Culinary #018 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

In the bustling undergrowth of Picante Hill, Anton the culinary ant dons his oversized toque and delivers deliciously chaotic cooking wisdom, one tiny misadventure at a time.

For more Ant-sized Culinary HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Spies in suits, sovereignty in chains by Emma Schneider

The modern spy does not need to cross a border in disguise. Sometimes, the border opens for him, the law protects him and the host country discovers the truth only after the damage is done.

A state can spend billions protecting its borders, fortifying its digital infrastructure, training its intelligence services and warning its citizens about foreign interference, only to discover that the most dangerous intruder may have arrived with official credentials, a diplomatic passport or a perfectly respectable business card. Welcome to the age of globalised espionage, where sovereignty is celebrated in speeches and quietly compromised in practice.

The problem is not espionage itself. States have spied on one another for centuries, and governments will continue doing so regardless of diplomatic declarations or international indignation. The problem is that the battlefield has changed while the legal architecture designed to manage it remains trapped in another century.

Diplomatic immunity was never intended to be a universal permission slip for criminal activity. Its purpose is to allow diplomats to perform their functions without intimidation, political persecution or arbitrary interference by the host state. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations established essential protections for international diplomacy, not a magical force field against accountability. Yet the distinction between protecting diplomatic functions and exploiting diplomatic privilege becomes increasingly uncomfortable when intelligence operations penetrate businesses, universities, research institutions, public administrations and the digital systems upon which ordinary citizens depend.

And who pays when the distinction collapses? Not the intelligence officer who returns home. Not the government that ordered the operation. The bill lands on the society whose trust, security and institutions have been compromised.

Modern espionage is no longer confined to someone photographing military installations from a suspiciously parked car. It can involve cyberattacks, commercial front companies, covert financing, recruitment of vulnerable individuals, theft of industrial secrets, sabotage of infrastructure and coordinated campaigns designed to undermine democratic confidence. The operative may be a diplomat, a business intermediary, a recruited insider or an anonymous figure behind a screen thousands of kilometres away. Sometimes the same operation combines all four.

This is the grey zone: activity deliberately designed to remain below the threshold that would trigger a clear military response while still inflicting strategic damage. Governments can deny responsibility, investigators struggle to establish attribution, and international institutions move at the speed of paperwork while digital evidence evaporates at the speed of a keyboard.

Meanwhile, the familiar ritual begins. A government announces an investigation. Another expresses outrage. Diplomats are summoned, expelled or exchanged. Press conferences multiply. Everyone insists that sovereignty must be respected. Then the machinery resumes, often with little more than a change of personnel.

Expelling a spy is not the same as dismantling the system that sent the spy. But proposing a new legal framework must not become an excuse for governments to grant themselves unlimited powers. That would be the other great absurdity: defending democracy by quietly dismantling its safeguards. If every suspicious foreign contact becomes a security threat, every researcher a potential agent and every journalist a convenient target for accusations of disloyalty, the supposed defence of sovereignty becomes a weapon against the very society it claims to protect.

The answer is not to abolish diplomatic immunity or abandon the Vienna Convention. Nor should governments be allowed to redefine espionage whenever political convenience demands it. Immunity protects international relations from arbitrary coercion; it does not erase the need for accountability. Any reform must preserve that distinction while addressing the realities of state-sponsored cybercrime, covert networks and hybrid operations.

International agreements should establish clearer procedures for investigating suspected intelligence-related crimes, preserving digital evidence, sharing information across jurisdictions and addressing abuses of diplomatic privileges. States should strengthen independent oversight, judicial review and safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions. Where immunity applies, credible allegations should trigger established diplomatic and legal procedures rather than either automatic impunity or arbitrary punishment.

There must also be consequences for states that repeatedly exploit the openness of societies they simultaneously seek to weaken. Carefully calibrated diplomatic measures, coordinated investigations and enforceable international standards would be more meaningful than theatrical declarations of outrage.

Of course, the governments most capable of influencing such reforms may also be those most reluctant to accept restrictions on their own intelligence services. That is the central hypocrisy of international security: states demand protection against foreign interference while reserving maximum freedom to interfere abroad.

The uncomfortable truth is that sovereignty in the twenty-first century cannot mean simply controlling territory. It must also mean protecting the institutions, information systems and public trust that allow a society to govern itself. A country whose infrastructure can be sabotaged, whose elections can be covertly manipulated and whose scientific knowledge can be systematically stolen may possess internationally recognised borders while losing control over essential parts of its future.

The spies will not disappear. Neither will the diplomats, the rivalries or the secret wars conducted behind respectable public language. But international law must stop pretending that yesterday's arrangements can automatically govern tomorrow's threats.

A diplomatic passport should facilitate diplomacy, not become an insurance policy against accountability. National security should protect citizens, not become a blank cheque for state power. And sovereignty should mean more than a flag, a border post and an indignant speech delivered after the damage is done.

Otherwise, we will continue performing the same tired ceremony: governments defending the principle of sovereignty in public while their intelligence services test its limits in private.

The spies will keep working. The lawyers will keep arguing. And ordinary citizens will keep discovering that the most sophisticated attack on their security may have arrived wearing a suit, carrying official papers and enjoying protections their own governments cannot easily challenge. That is not a failure of intelligence alone. It is a failure of political imagination. And the longer we refuse to confront it, the more expensive our respect for outdated assumptions will become.

The real horror of Halloween: rotten teeth, sugar rushes, and other frightful facts by Mary Long

Halloween, the one night where rotting teeth, a gut full of regret, and ghost-shaped candies reign supreme! Forget monsters and haunted houses; the scariest part is the dental bill on November 1st. It’s a holiday where we put “stranger danger” on hold for free candy and transform our homes into horror shows just to make kids scream (in joy, we hope). But amidst all this spookiness lies a hidden terror, the sweet, sticky, and cavity-causing aftermath.

The average kid consumes about 7,000 calories on Halloween night, which is roughly the amount needed to fuel a minor stampede. If candy could write Yelp reviews, dentists would have five stars for "keeping business booming since the Stone Age."

Joke 1: "Halloween is that time of year when 'Candy Corn' tries to rebrand itself as ‘edible.’ Still not buying it, Candy Corn."
Joke 2: "Why did the vampire go to the dentist? To improve his bite-ability."

And don’t get me started on that one house that hands out apples. I’ve seen kids negotiate a candy-for-apple exchange program like it’s a Wall Street deal. The look on their faces says it all—“Mom, I want sugar, not potential scurvy prevention!”

Here’s the real scare... teeth. Rotten, sugar-coated, and bracing for cavities. Dentists nationwide prepare their drills for the post-Halloween apocalypse like it’s their Super Bowl. They see the 31st as the “pre-season,” and the 1st as “game time.” And we—those foolish enough to eat 12 fun-sized Snickers—are the losing team.

Joke 3: "My dentist told me I needed a crown. I was like, 'Finally, someone who understands that I’m royalty!'"
Joke 4: "Candy is nature’s way of reminding you that nothing fun is ever good for you."

Kids head out in search of the sugary gold mine and adults scramble to avoid becoming the “loser house” giving away toothpaste. It’s a delicate balance between being the cool house and avoiding a mob of angry, sugar-deprived trick-or-treaters.

Halloween is the only day you can dress as anything without judgment. Your coworker dressed as a hotdog? Completely fine. A toddler in a poorly-made Spiderman suit? Absolutely adorable. But be warned, if your costume involves face paint, glitter, or a wig—prepare for the next month of your life to be an eternal clean-up operation.

Joke 5: "I once went to a party dressed as a ghost. Turns out, I was just a socially awkward person covered in a bed sheet."
Joke 6: "Kids today will never know the true struggle of a 1980s plastic mask—one that doubled as a personal sauna and a way to lose a few pounds of water weight."

We all have that one friend who overcommits to their costume—showing up to the party in full Batman gear, abs included, just to tell you they’re on a diet.

Kids strategize their trick-or-treat route like military generals planning an invasion. They map out every house that’s giving away full-size candy bars and avoid that one neighbor who gives raisins like they’re cursed artifacts. Kids can’t do algebra, but somehow their candy-counting abilities rival an IRS auditor.

Joke 7: "I remember going as a pirate and telling my neighbor ‘Trick or treat!’ He gave me a look and said, ‘Arr, I pay my taxes, that’s enough of a trick, kid.’"
Joke 8: "Kids have two categories for Halloween treats: 'good candy' and 'will trade for good candy.'"

Parents follow with flashlights, desperately hoping their kids will remember to say thank you. Spoiler alert: they won’t.

When the sugar rush ends and reality sets in, Halloween’s aftermath is like waking up from a bad dream. There’s fake blood everywhere, the living room looks like a crime scene, and you’re left wondering why there’s a tiny Elsa in your bathtub.

Joke 9: "Cleaning up after Halloween is like tidying up after a haunted frat party—if glitter and fake cobwebs had a love child, it would be the aftermath of Halloween."
Joke 10: "My kid’s candy stash is like Schrödinger's candy bowl—full and empty at the same time."

And let’s not forget the stomachaches. “Why did I eat 12 Milky Ways?” you ask yourself, regretting the decision almost as much as your third marriage. It’s a time of introspection and Alka-Seltzer.

Halloween is a holiday of contradictions: we tell kids not to talk to strangers, then send them door-to-door demanding candy. We insist on brushing teeth, but celebrate by consuming our weight in sugar. It’s a night where the lines between fear and fun blur, and where adults dress up and try to scare kids… by acting like we’re not slowly going broke from student loans.

Joke 11: "The real Halloween horror? Your bank account after buying all those full-sized candy bars to be the cool house."
Joke 12: "As an adult, Halloween is the one night you can eat candy and justify it by saying it’s for the ‘spirit of the season.’"

So, as you gear up for another Halloween filled with candy, questionable costumes, and late-night sugar highs, remember this: cavities heal, memories fade, but the photos of your Dad dressed as an inflatable T-Rex? Those live on forever.