ReportWire

Tag: splitscreenimageleftfullbleed

  • Trump’s State of the Union: Hockey Champions and Grisly Tales of Bloodshed

    Around 20 minutes into his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump started shouting. His voice grew distorted as the microphone struggled to contain the decibels.

    “Our country is winning again! In fact, we’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it! People are asking me, ‘Please, please, please, Mr. President, we are winning too much! We can’t take it anymore! We’re not used to winning in our country! Until you came along, we were just always losing, but now we’re winning too much!’ And I say, ‘No, no, no, you’re going to win again! You are going to win big, you’re gonna win bigger than ever!’ And to prove that point, to prove that point, here with us tonight is a group of winners who just made the entire nation proud! The men’s gold medal Olympic hockey team—come on in!”

    The chamber erupted in applause as the semi-toothed heroes who beat Canada in Milan basked in the adulation of the United States Congress. The star-spangled spectacle was a highlight of the night, but it served as camouflage for the toughest selling point of Trump’s address: his argument that the United States has entered a new era of boundless prosperity.

    “Our nation is back. Bigger, better, richer, and stronger than ever before,” Trump started his speech. “This is the golden age of America.” It was a message Trump hammered over and over again on Tuesday night, as if by sheer force of repetition, tautology, histrionics, and perhaps one more repetition, he could convince the American people that we are actually right in the thick of the boom times.

    The sentiment is not tethered to reality. Polls show Americans are deeply unsatisfied with the economy, and many blame Trump’s policies for raising prices and stifling growth. And, as Joe Biden learned the hard way, convincing Americans they are wrong about the economy is not a winning strategy. You can’t fight the cash register. “Rarely does the president sound more out of touch than when he insists inflation is defeated, the economy is uniformly roaring, and everything is hunky-dory from coast to coast,” said Jim Geraghty, a conservative writer for National Review.

    In recent months, as Trump’s advisers urged him to focus on affordability, the president publicly dismissed concerns about the economy as “a hoax” and spent much of the winter baying about invading Greenland or boasting about his demolition of the East Wing to make way for a gilded ballroom. When an NPR reporter ventured out into Trump country to ask about his priorities, he found plenty of critics. “I’m not real fond of what’s going on with him getting us involved in too many countries,” one woman who works in a Pennsylvania diner said. “He needs to start worrying about America first, which he campaigned on.”

    Aidan McLaughlin

    Source link

  • Miss Universe executive who disrespected Miss Mexico has issued a tearful apology amid controversy

    Hold up. What is going on with the Miss Universe pageant? There was some sort of walkout? Because a man was being disrespectful to one of the contestants? Creating a genuine girl power moment that was captured on video? Consider us sat and paying attention.

    Let’s get into the Miss Universe pageant walkout, explained.

    What happened?

    In the now viral video, which you can still see on the Miss Universe Thailand Facebook page, Thai pageant director Nawat Itsaragrisil lectures the contestants on the importance of promoting the host nation, Thailand. He specifically calls out Miss Mexico, Fátima Bosch, by name, and accuses her of refusing to participate in a group photo shoot, which was to be posted on social media.

    “You don’t like to post everything because your director from Mexico ordered you to not pay any attention, to post about the host country? If you follow the orders from your national director, you are a [sic] dumb,” Nawat said, per The Independent. When Fátima tried to respond, Nawat quickly shut her down, saying, “I didn’t hear you asking to talk.”

    Bosch protested that she has “a voice” and said that Nawat was not “respecting me as a woman.” In response, Nawat called for security to remove Bosch. At this point, the other contestants can be heard gasping in surprise. Many of them, including 2024 Miss Universe winner Victoria Kjær Theilvig of Denmark, walked out with Bosch in protest.

    Who is Nawat Itsaragrisil?

    Nawat is a popular Thai media personality as well as the national director of Miss Universe Thailand and an executive of the Miss Universe Organisation. He is also the owner of the Miss Grand International pageant.

    As is usually the case with these sorts of things, this is not the first time Nawat has come under fire for his comments and treatment of women. For one thing, he has a history of body-shaming contestants.

    In 2016, it was reported that Nawat body-shamed, then Miss Iceland, Arna Ýr Jónsdóttir. “Stop eating breakfast, eat just salad for lunch, and drink water every evening until the contest,” he told her. Just this past May, he reportedly body-shamed Miss Grand International winner Rachel Gupta, causing more widespread backlash.

    Who is Fátima Bosch?

    Fátima won the Miss Universe Mexico title back in September, representing the Tabasco region, where she was born, per Excelsior.

    Since her altercation with Nawat, she has not held back on social media or in interviews. “We’re in the 21st century, and I’m not a doll to be made up, styled, and have my clothes changed. I came here to be a voice for all the women and all the girls who fight for causes and to tell my country that I’m completely committed to that,” she said in a video statement. And she wrote on Instagram, “Mexicans don’t give up, because giving up has never been part of our history.”

    Following the incident, she also spoke to the press, telling one interviewer, “Your director is not respectful. He called me dumb because he had problems with the organisation.” She continued, “I think that’s not fair because I am here. I do everything okay. I don’t mess with anyone. I just try to be kind.”

    Regarding the walkout, she continued, “I think that the world needs to see this, because we are empowered women, and this is a platform for our voice, and no one can shut our voice, and no one will do that to me.… I hope that everyone at home, every woman, doesn’t matter if you have a big dream or you have a crumb, if that’s take away your dignity you need to go. Thank you.”

    Who has responded?

    Reigning Miss Universe Victoria Kjær Theilvig told reporters, “This is about women’s rights. We respect everyone, but this is not how things should be handled. Insulting another contestant is a huge lack of respect, and I would never do that. That’s why I’m putting on my coat and leaving,” according to the Independent.

    Kathleen Walsh

    Source link

  • Who My Child Was and Would Be

    But it had not, as I discovered in November of 2019. Chatting on FaceTime one day, Nat mentioned that he was visiting a nearby L.G.B.T.Q.-aid organization to explore the feminine side of his personality. At first, I assumed it was identity tourism, a kind of dabbling in alternate selves. Then he made clear that he wanted to be changed utterly—to become a woman.

    This came as a shock. To me, he was a man, a lovably androgynous person with a Y chromosome and a visible Adam’s apple. Why did he want to become a woman? Nat tried to explain, and at first his wish seemed entangled with his periodic depressions—which were deeper and darker than I had realized. When lost in their depths, he told me, he felt absolutely hollow. “I don’t feel like I have any reason to live,” he said.

    This was a painful exchange. Melancholy, we often believe, is an occupational hazard for creative people, and Nat, a poet, visual artist, translator, and d.j., certainly fits into that demographic. But “melancholy” is also a pretty word for depression.

    Of course, depression, for many people on the brink of transitioning, can be a red herring. Friends and family will often counsel against making such a weighty decision in the midst of emotional turbulence, not grasping that a profound sense of misalignment is what is feeding the turbulence in the first place. I went down that road myself, urging Nat to tackle the depression first.

    “I understand that you are responding to a deep impulse,” I wrote him in a long e-mail. “An impulse that deep and consistent should not be ignored. But what is it telling you? I don’t see how a regimen of hormones, or smoother skin, or a redistribution of body fat, is going to ease the sort of disquiet that you were telling me about.”

    I was fighting it. That’s obvious. In my e-mail, I cast the impulse to alter his body as naïve literalism—as if the body were just an industrial container for the interesting person inside.

    Yet Nat had already begun to say goodbye to his old body. He had been struggling during those weeks with pneumonia. This meant long days at home, full of fatigue and shallow breathing. He binged “The Sopranos,” drank bone broth, took numerous baths. In the bath, he told me, he would study his body in the water, and recognized that he would be leaving it behind. He felt a kind of grief, he told me. But this didn’t change his mind—it was just the cost of changing, of sloughing off the old self.

    I sensed myself tiptoeing through in our next few exchanges. I didn’t want to drive Nat away. I also didn’t want him to turn into a woman. It was that simple, which is to say, not simple at all.

    For weeks, I felt an impending loss: the precious fact of having a son was about to be taken away. I wasn’t hung up on dynastic issues. Yet I think there’s something raw, some product of the primitive brain, that makes a father identify with a son. You see yourself in this other, beloved being. I was afraid of losing that.

    The fear entered my dreams. One night, I was a woman, alone in an apartment, a stalker waiting outside the door. Myself-as-woman was both Nat and me: she vulnerable in transition, me powerless to stop it. I told Nat none of this. I could grieve for the son I was losing while preparing myself to have a daughter.

    I meanwhile chose the crisis-management technique favored by most bookish people: books. I read Jan Morris’s “Conundrum” (1974), marvelling at the hypermasculine roles Morris had inhabited before transition—soldier, climber of Everest, political journalist, father. She had transitioned so long ago that the vaginoplasty was performed in a mysterious clinic in Casablanca. Yet her description of awakening in a dark room after the procedure, the indecipherability of the space a metaphor for her slippery self, could have been written yesterday.

    I also read Rachel E. Gross’s “Vagina Obscura” (2022), with its portraits of the gynecologic surgeon Marci Bowers creating, with almost sculptural skill, vaginas attentive to pleasure. It left me wondering how long before the bespoke became indistinguishable from the “natural,” and whether Nat, despite his hesitations, would someday alter himself that way, too.

    James Marcus

    Source link

  • The Florida Divorcée’s Guide to Murder

    Hance couldn’t use his real name or Social Security number to find a legitimate job and began to manufacture methamphetamine in a backyard shed. A friend had taught him the process, and now Hance believed it was God’s will, giving him the knowledge and means he needed to support McCool and the children. He installed a large beaker and enlisted Timothy to help line the walls with plastic sheets. With Timothy as his assistant, Hance made two pounds at a time and gave it to a dealer friend, earning $2,000 for every ounce sold.

    People started gathering regularly at the house. “We were almost never alone,” Timothy says now. “Passing a mirror covered in meth was ordinary.” Unlike Hance, McCool didn’t snort meth, but she sprinkled some in a glass of cola and sipped it, making it last all day long. She called it her “perky Pepsi.” She knew their visitors came for Hance’s drugs. He believed they were “lost” and that God had led them to their door.

    One night Hance related an incident that occurred when McCool happened to be out. Two friends stopped by the house on their way to dinner, and Hance offered to lend one his gold crucifix to complement her dress. As soon as she lowered it around her neck, her skin raised up and twisted into dark knots that sizzled under the heat of the metal.

    Hance raised a hand and said, “In the name of Jesus Christ, I cast you out of her!”

    She thrashed and spat and screamed, “I fucked Jesus up the ass!”

    Hance and the other friend struggled to restrain her. When she finally settled, she blinked her eyes and asked, “What happened?”

    When these “healings” became more frequent, Hance grew suspicious of McCool; why was she missing every time the devil appeared? Was she somehow behind these demonic possessions?

    “Do you think it’s possible,” McCool asked him, “that they’re just putting on a show for you? So that you’ll believe in your own power and give them more drugs?”

    All Spreads: Hance and the couple’s friends demonstrated techniques for its illustrations.Courtesy of Gayle McCool.

    Unmasking “Rex Feral” Author of the Infamous Hit Man Manual

    Courtesy of Gayle McCool.

    Unmasking “Rex Feral” Author of the Infamous Hit Man Manual

    Courtesy of Gayle McCool.

    Unmasking “Rex Feral” Author of the Infamous Hit Man Manual

    Courtesy of Gayle McCool.

    Sometimes, there seemed to be a reset in his mind, a brief return to rational thinking. “What’s happening to me?” he’d ask McCool in those moments, and she’d tell him, “You need to stop doing the drugs so you can get back to your basic self.” Only later did she realize that Hance was likely suffering from schizophrenia, a condition that ran in his family. Even when he became suspicious and irrational and erratic, she never feared him—she feared for him. He had often said that she should prioritize their relationship; the kids would one day grow up and leave her, but he would always be there, till death do they part. She needed to stay and see the experience through, she decided, no matter how it might end.

    VII. “You’d Better Make Sure I’m Dead”

    Timothy had grown terrified of Hance. He’d heard more stories from Hance’s past, including various murders for hire. Tara, at age 18, moved out and got her own apartment, but Timothy felt a duty to protect his mother. “It was a rotten thing to do,” McCool says now. “I didn’t realize at the time that he felt responsible, but looking back, I can see it was an awfully big responsibility on his shoulders.”

    He tried to be a normal teenager, going to school every day and keeping his homelife secret from his classmates. One day, two local deputies visited his class to talk about law enforcement. “I sat at my desk biting my tongue, daydreaming about telling the officers that I was living with a wanted man who had been involved in murders and drugs,” he recalls. “I reasoned that they wouldn’t take it seriously, so I said nothing.”

    Abbott Kahler

    Source link

  • Hasan Piker: Charlie Kirk and His Political Ideology Deserve an “Honest Assessment”

    Now, I’m not saying this to launder the man’s reputation. I think it’s very clear what his political evolution has been since 2017. I was shocked when I looked back at that, and I was like, Wow, this guy comes across like one worthy of the eulogizing that Ezra Klein offered him, if he had kept that tone.

    You don’t think that Ezra Klein piece was warranted?

    I think that, understandably, we get disturbed and worried when death enters the equation. I think in that process, we end up eulogizing people in a way that whitewashes or launders their reputation. Honesty is much more important in that process. There are a lot of people who are venerating Charlie Kirk as though he was some MLK-style figure, and I think it’s important to make an honest assessment of his political contributions in that process.

    I think a lot of people just see that and go, Well, a man died. He was a father. And this is true. This is a tragedy. This is a tragedy. Political violence is completely unacceptable. The video that I saw was traumatizing. I wanted to debate him. I had debated him and I wanted to do it again. That’s my way of dealing with right-wing reactionaries. My point on this is clear, is what I’m saying, as far as political violence goes.

    Having said that, there is a lot of back-and-forth going on about people talking about the incendiary, explosive, dehumanizing language that Charlie Kirk regularly adopted. I saw this last night on a New York Times obituary, that people were yelling, like, “How dare you bring up the fact that he advocated for hydroxychloroquine?” or whatever. But that’s his position! These are his positions that he was proud of when he was alive. These are positions that he defended vociferously. So why are you getting upset that people are reflecting on his past positions that he advanced until his last breath? I think it’s a disservice to the public, especially many who were not familiar with Charlie Kirk’s ideology or his worldview. It’s a disservice even to his own legacy, to just launder his reputation in a way where he is just simply brought up like some activist, a youth activist.

    There’s certain aspects of disagreement that go far beyond just a reasonable discussion. I think when you’re talking about how the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, when you’re talking about how the Bible says gay people should be stoned, when you’re talking about how you don’t trust a Black pilot over a white pilot—I mean, everything can be up for debate. But my point is, you don’t have to hand it to the guy. And I think a lot of liberals are doing that right now because, I guess, they don’t find this stuff to be as offensive as I do, or maybe not even an offense, but as destabilizing and as destructive as I do. Clearly, if they did, they would reflect on it.

    Well, maybe it’s a desensitization too, in that he’s been saying this for however long, and it becomes normalized.

    For sure. I think that’s bad. I don’t want that to be the case. That’s part of the reason why I’m saying people need to wake up to the way they talk about certain things.

    Anything else on your mind about it all?

    I just want to make sure that it doesn’t come across as though I’m saying, “Oh, you shouldn’t eulogize this person.” I’m not saying that at all. Obviously, as I’ve communicated, political violence, especially this kind of political violence—I have a very close and personal association with [it], so of course I am against it. I would be putting myself in the crosshairs, just considering that I was supposed to be sitting on a stage, similar to that one, next to him in two weeks.

    It’s just that I think people venerating a person with what I consider to be morally repugnant political ideology is going to have unforeseen secondary consequences, as far as normalization of this ideology. We’re seeing that in every aspect of society already, and it’s very frustrating.

    Natalie Korach

    Source link

  • This luxury sneaker combo is a failsafe outfit formula for autumn 2025

    Luxury sneakers are no longer a sporty whim for the elite, but a wise investment as we transition to the chillier months. For autumn 2025, the most unexpected – yet surprisingly logical – duo is confirmed: smart AF sneakers paired with an elegant trench coat. Gone are the days when sneakers were relegated to the gym. With this failsafe outfit combo, you’ll be confident wearing them to the office, on dates, and even to the occasional party.

    We’ve curated eight luxury sneaker and trench coat looks for you to shop, each striking a balance between the practical and the ceremonial, the casual and the classic. The trench coat, reminiscent of a British military uniform, is complemented by polished sneakers, seamlessly tapping into Autumn’s polished vibe.

    1. Leather with greyish green

    The meeting between a leather sneaker and a green belted trench coat conveys an intellectual air, perfect for strolling along tree-lined avenues on rainy afternoons. The contrast between the solidity of the shoes and the fluidity of the coat creates a discreet balance that exudes chromatic sobriety.

    Prada Leather Collapse Sneakers

    Studio Tomboy Oversized trench coat

    2. Sand with creamy beige

    Sand-toned sneakers paired with a light beige trench coat represent minimalism in its purest form. There’s no noise here: just a serene dialogue between soft textures that allow the wearer to glide through the city. A look that floats between neutral and ethereal.

    ASOS DESIGN short trench coat in stone

    3. Off-white with a classic camel trench coat

    Off-white sneakers paired with a classic camel trench coat is the perfect update on a quintessentially British tradition. This formula conveys order and refinement, but maintains a youthful wink thanks to the footwear.

    Off-White Out Of Office leather sneakers

    4. Neutral suede with a flowing beige trench coat

    This outfit formula strikes a relaxed yet sophisticated edge. The footwear brings tactile softness, while the coat flows with architectural movement.

    Prada Re-Nylon and Suede Collapse Sneakers

    5. Beige sneakers with a light-coloured trench coat

    This minimalist combination projects calculated discretion and a neat air that never goes unnoticed. Ideal for those who seek to differentiate themselves with sober, understated style.

    Puma Palermo trainers in beige

    Azura Hooded Insert Trench Coat in Stone

    6. Blue sneakers with a butter yellow trench coat

    The contrast between blue sneakers and a butter-yellow-toned trench coat creates a vibrant palette. This outfit formula is ideal for those wishing to bring an unexpected nuance to seasonal minimalism.

    Puma Arizona trainers in blue

    Belted Drapey Trench Coat

    7. Caramel sneakers with a black trench coat

    The contrast between caramel-colored sneakers and a deep black trench coat is a calculated visual coup. Here, the sweetness of the leather tone is measured against the severity of the dark coat. A formula that needs no words: just walk and let the contrast do the talking.

    Caramel Vulcanized Vintage Trainers

    ASOS DESIGN longline trench coat in black

    8. Nude sole with tied ivory trench coat.

    The play between nude sneakers and a belted ivory trench coat serves up minimalist lightness. The result is ethereal and urban at the same time: a silhouette that seems to fade in the rain, but remains indelible in the aesthetic memory of the season.

    Isla: Beige Leather & Suede Trainers

    The Frolic exclusive double-breasted belted maxi formal coat in cream

    Luxury sneakers and trench coats work for autumn 2025 like a discreet symphony where every note is measured to the millimetre. The key lies in the restrained palette, the fluid cuts, and the effortless air that transform the everyday into a statement. Minimalism is not boring; it’s a secret code that only those who know how to read between the lines can understand. In the end, it’s not about walking fast or slow, but about walking with a clear intention: to conquer the city with silent steps and a coat that says it all without uttering a word.

    This article was originally published on Glamour Mexico.

    Alex Sales

    Source link

  • Donald Trump’s 2025 Vision

    Donald Trump’s 2025 Vision

    Even Donald Trump doesn’t want anything to do with Project 2025—at least not publicly.

    “I know nothing about Project 2025,” he wrote on Truth Social. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”

    Imagine how toxic the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 must be to get disavowed by Trump, the guy who has otherwise mused about being a “dictator” and planning mass deportations if elected. And that’s despite the fact that “Trump shares many policy goals with Project 2025,” as The Washington Post put it, from dismantling the Department of Education to scaling back climate regulations to gutting the civil service. The Guardian, too, found that Trump’s platform, “dubbed Agenda 47, overlaps with Project 2025 on most major policy issues.”

    But the former president is running scared—like he has on abortion, an issue over which the GOP’s extremism has proven so poisonous to voters that Trump is now conveniently trying to look moderate—from a project that includes contributions from Russ Vought, who not only served as his onetime director of the Office of Management and Budget, but is also the platform committee policy director for next week’s Republican National Convention. Former senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller has also been linked to Project 2025, though he, too, has denied involvement with it.

    Trump’s comments about Project 2025 came on the heels of Heritage president Kevin Roberts’s appearance on Steve Bannon’s far-right podcast, War Room. (Incidentally, Bannon wasn’t hosting that day because he’s currently serving a four-month sentence in a federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut; former Republican congressman Dave Brat was filling in.) “We are in the process of the second American Revolution,” he said, “which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” The Heritage Foundation even followed up on X to claim Democrats have “a well established record of instigating the opposite.”

    Roberts isn’t some fringe right-winger fantasizing about revolution, but the head of a powerful think tank that’s taken the lead in drafting the 922-page Project 2025 agenda, which is like a modern version of the Ronald Reagan–era “Mandate for Leadership,” albeit “more extreme, and even more dangerous,” according to The Nation. The Project 2025 proposal, noted Politico, includes giving the president full power “over quasi-independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies that have been the bane of Trump’s political existence in the last few years.” It calls for breaking up the FBI, defunding the Justice Department, and eliminating the Department of Education, arguing that “federal education policy should be limited.”

    Molly Jong-Fast

    Source link