unicorn

If you wish to support an organization which helps members of the LGBTQ+ community escape hostile countries, this is an effective organization: https://www.rainbowrailroad.org/ They are rated 4* on Charity Navigator: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/474896980

Last night I just watch Hot Frosty, in which a snowman comes to life to charm a young widow. The man who stars as the erotic snowman, Dustin Milligan, is incredibly hot. He almost had me spontaneously exploding. Despite the wintery setting, the "snowman" loves the cold, so he's shirtless for half of the movie. The movie also has 88% on rotten tomatoes, but with a body like that, who cares? Interestingly, the actor who plays the hot frosty comes from one of the coldest cities on the planet, Yellowknife (NWT). In January, the mean daily MAXIMUM is -25.5C. Talk about frosty! I can't imagine what I wouldn't give to have my way with this hot 39 year-old!

Well, one cannot condone antisemitism, hate, or violence. That being said, many Israeli fans clearly tried to provoke the Palestinians and other Arabs, and they succeeded: https://apnews.com/article/maccabi-tel-aviv-amsterdam-violence-protests-palestinian-bcea212281f682098c4c77ef552af5f1 "...Tensions had been brewing in Amsterdam for days ahead of the match. A Palestinian flag was torn down from a building in Amsterdam on Wednesday, Dutch broadcaster NOS reported, and authorities banned a pro-Palestinian demonstration near the stadium. Ahead of the game, large crowds of supporters of the Israeli team could be seen on video chanting anti-Arab slogans as they headed to the stadium, escorted by police. “Let the IDF win, and fuck the Arabs,” the fans chanted, using the acronym of the Israeli military, as they shook their fists. It also showed police pushing several pro-Palestinian protesters away from a Maccabi fan gathering in a square earlier in the day...". Do the provocations justify violence? No. However, the consequences of anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian slurs and actions could easily be predicted. Most of the 2 million people in Gaza are not Hamas fighters, but rather innocent bystanders. The Israeli fans not only showed a complete lack of empathy and tact, but actually made fun of the innocent civilians. As Hamas figured out, provocations often lead to consequences.

for....?

One cannot condone anti-Semitism in any form, and recent blurbs on the press are quick to show the horrors of anti-Semitism in recent events related to soccer matches in Amsterdam. Hidden in the depths of these stories (not reported on the TV or radio, but located deep in the depth of some printed news stories), one also sees the flip side. https://apnews.com/article/maccabi-tel-aviv-amsterdam-violence-protests-palestinian-bcea212281f682098c4c77ef552af5f1 "...Ahead of the game, large crowds of supporters of the Israeli team could be seen on video chanting anti-Arab slogans as they headed to the stadium, escorted by police. “Let the IDF win, and (expletive) the Arabs,” the fans chanted, using the acronym of the Israeli military, as they shook their fists. It also showed police pushing several pro-Palestinian protesters away from a Maccabi fan gathering in a square earlier in the day...". While this does not excuse any violence, of course, it seems the height of hypocrisy to be wailing at the results of a response to one's own racist baiting. How could anyone be surprised at the results of these taunts which were not just racist themselves, but tone-deaf to the suffering of innocent Palestinians. Once again, racist taunts don't justify violence. However, the outcome shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. If I went to a bar frequented by any demographic group, and proceeded to chant slogans making fun of that bar's demographic, I could predict the result (even if battery is still illegal).

Aside from the fact that she was nominated too late, and that Biden should have handed the torch sooner, I don't think she was forceful enough in countering the ridiculous notion that the economy would end up in better shape under Trump, nor in highlighting the economic successes under Biden. Poll after poll showed that the #1 concern for voters was the economy, and poll after poll showed that the majority of the public believed Trump's lies that (a) the economy was in bad shape, and (b) things would be better under his leadership. The truth of the matter, of course, is that, after inheriting a terrible economy as well as the inevitable rise in inflation due to China's disastrous "zero-Covid" policies, with its attendant supply-chain issues, the economy rebounded tremendously into one of the best on the planet, with full employment, low inflation, lowering interest rates, and a booming stock market. Trump has been mostly quiet about what he'll do, relying mostly on BS platitudes. Of the two things he said he'd do, substantially raising tarifs, and mass deportations, if he's successful in doing them, both will obviously have a devastating effect on inflation and business profits. It's absolutely axiomatic that raising the costs of imports will lead to price increases and hurt businesses' bottom lines. And, of course, getting rid of cheap foreign labor in the food industry and elsewhere will also inevitably lead to price increases as well (especially for food). Yet Trump succeeded in convincing people that inflation was increasing under Biden, which is the opposite of the truth. Instead of simply pushing the message that Trump is unfit for office (which he is), the Democrats needed to address the voters' #1 concern, the economy, and point out that things would be better under the Democrats (which it would have been). For decades, the US economy has always done better under Democratic leadership than under GOP leadership. The Democrats failed to get that message out. I also wonder whether it was wise to blast voters' phones with frequent daily texts. It certainly pissed me off. Since I don't live in a swing state, this harassment even made me consider not voting for any candidate.

That's an irrational reaction, unless your sister-in-law is truly talking about minors when she says "boys" (hopefully not the case). When she vacations in Bali, does she believe that hotel workers, waiters, taxi drivers, etc., are volunteering their time for the pleasure of serving her? Or does she understand that she's providing the locals with employment, doing something they wouldn't otherwise be doing, so that these people can support themselves and their families (if they have any)? Except for the extremely rare hermit living off of the land, we all "use" each other, each doing our own jobs, so that we can enjoy our lives to the extent that we can. The next time you hear someone say something like that, inform the person that you do not hire minors, but rather mentally competent (i.e. not drugged) adults who are making informed choices about how they want to earn their living. We all hire others for work, in one form or another. Financial compensation for work performed does not constitute undue coercion.

Well, I've never come out of the blue to tell people I like younger men, but these things come up in normal conversation, and I always answer honestly. Of course, since I'm now married to a man in his early 30s, it's pretty obvious, but friends, family, and co-workers normally ask about what's going on in our lives, and I've never made up fake stories. I would never blurt out "I'm taking a vacation to XXX to pick up younger men," but everyone at work (and family and friends) would know I'd be going on vacation, and I wouldn't hide where I was going. I might show photos of men I was dating, but never of some dude I hired.

The massive difference, of course, is that those in power in the US don't murder journalists who disagree with them. At least so far. We'll have to see what happens if Trump wins the election.

You'll get no argument from me regarding the rationality of monarchies in today's world. I would agree with the sentiment that monarchies our outdated in the 21st century. That being said, the intention of the royal couple was clearly to provide moral support and commiserate with their people. There was certainly no intention to make fun of those suffering. If they wanted to show disapproval of the response, it would be more appropriate to address such disapproval at those in authority for coordinating said response. This reminds me of the Spanish hospitality shown to innocent tourists in Barcelona who were just trying to enjoy a meal. Instead of working on real solutions, such as changing laws on short-term-rentals, cruise ship docking fees and regulations, affordable housing, and so on, many locals took their frustrations on people who obviously had no decision-making capacity on the situation. How would they like to be treated that way when they traveled? (Or should one presume these yokels are too closed-minded to travel?) Regulations can work. My husband and I were scheduled to take a cruise ship from Barcelona in early May, but this was switched to Tarragona due to new regulations. Taking out one's frustrations on innocent people is not the right thing to do.

That's an absurdly short list. The list of journalists alone is many times greater than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia And it dwarfs the long list of other Putin critics he's murdered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_notable_Russians_in_2022–2024