American Women Suck

🔌 Go ahead, walk into an EV dealership and ask how much they charge: So here’s the scoop: People are picking up brand-new electric cars for less than $100/month. One guy leased a $65,000 Kia EV9 for $189. It’s all because tax credits are about to expire on Sept. 30, and dealers are basically handing out keys like coupons. If your car’s dying, run, don’t walk to your local EV dealer. The post Go ahead, walk into an EV dealership and ask how much they charge appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

The countries plan to open market access to boost mutual trade and investment Russia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have reached a major economic agreement designed to stimulate bilateral trade and investment by lowering export-related costs and easing market access, Kommersant has reported. The agreement will simplify conditions for service providers and reduce expenses linked to transport and other cross-border activities, the outlet said on Sunday, citing the Russian Economic Development Ministry. Officials identified finance, transport, wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing, and mining as promising areas for cooperation. The treaty opens 64 Emirati sectors to Russian businesses, ranging from research and development to ship and aircraft repair, rail transport, computer services, and legal services. In some areas, such as engineering and passenger maritime transport, Russian stakes will be capped at 70%. Companies will also be able to establish banks, healthcare institutions, and news agencies in UAE special economic zones. In exchange, Emirati firms will gain access to 12 Russian service sectors, including healthcare, education and hospitality. Additionally they will be permitted to open retail outlets in Russia. The agreement also removes restrictions on transfers and payments related to services and trade. Officials stated that this provision is expected to significantly increase exports and mutual investment flows. The pact includes cooperation in logistics, which both sides said could boost the International North-South Transport Corridor, linking Russia with the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia. The corridor is viewed as a key route for diversifying transport flows and expanding regional trade. Mutual trade in services between Russia and the UAE amounted to $14 billion in 2024, according to ministry data. Moscow expects exports of services to the UAE to double by 2030, with imports rising at a similar pace. The ministry also forecasts that accumulated Russian investment in the UAE will grow fourfold to $25 billion and Emirati investment in Russia will double from the 2024 levels to $17 billion. View the full article

A client recently said to me, “If I let myself feel this sadness, I’m afraid I’ll never stop crying.” Another described his anger as a monster locked inside him, one he was terrified might destroy everything if he let it out. Again and again, I hear the same quiet confession in different words: I’m afraid of myself. It isn’t just the fear of what life might throw at us. Often the greater fear is what lies within us – the emotions we’re trying to keep a lid on, the parts of ourselves we’ve judged, the power we’ve learned to mistrust. We keep these parts hidden, not only from the world but from ourselves, because to let them out feels dangerous. What if sadness drowns me? What if anger ruins me? What if stepping fully into who I am changes me into someone I don’t want to be? This is what I call the fear of yourself. It shows up in many guises. Sometimes it’s the person who swallows their words in meetings because they’ll say the ‘wrong’ thing or that their passion might come across as aggression. Sometimes it’s the parent who never allows themselves to admit having emotions to their children, thinking it will make them appear weak. Sometimes it’s the professional who holds back from a bigger role, not because they lack the skill, but because stepping into it would mean showing more of themselves than feels safe. At the heart of it is the same struggle: we learn to treat parts of ourselves as if they are enemies that need to be contained or ignored, hoping they’ll go away. Anger, grief, power, vulnerability – all become suspect. We fear that if we let them out, we’ll be consumed, exposed, or judged. So, we keep ourselves in check. We create a version of ourselves we think we can control, a version that we believe is more palatable to those around us, while the rest stays locked away. But the energy it takes to keep these parts hidden is immense. It’s like trying to hold a beach ball under water – you can do it for a while, but it takes constant effort, and sooner or later it pops back up. People tell me they’re exhausted, burnt out, running on empty. Often what’s draining them isn’t life itself but the ongoing effort of self-containment. And here’s the paradox: the very things we fear are often the things we most need. Anger, when acknowledged, becomes a boundary that protects rather than destroys. Sadness, when felt, can soften us and connect us more deeply with ourselves and others. Power, when trusted, allows us to contribute with strength and creativity. Vulnerability, when expressed, is what makes intimacy possible. When we reject these parts, we not only limit ourselves, we cut off vital sources of energy and wisdom. We remain partially alive, performing an edited version of ourselves that looks acceptable but feels hollow. So what do we do with the fear of ourselves? The answer isn’t to force anything out into the open, nor to fight with it. The work begins with curiosity. To ask: What is it I’m so afraid will happen if I feel this? What story am I telling myself about what this emotion means about me? Sadness doesn’t mean you are broken. Anger doesn’t mean you are dangerous. Power doesn’t mean you are arrogant. Vulnerability doesn’t mean you are weak. These are human experiences – signs and signals, energies, aspects of self that become distorted only when suppressed or denied. It takes courage to meet yourself honestly. Sometimes that means allowing yourself to cry, and discovering that you do stop when it’s allowed to flow. Sometimes it means giving anger a voice in a safe and constructive way and realising it doesn’t destroy you. Sometimes it means stepping into a role at work, and learning that your power doesn’t corrupt you but allows you to lead more authentically. When we begin to turn toward the parts we fear, they lose their power to terrify us. Like the Wizard of Oz, when we look behind the curtain we create an opportunity to learn and understand. We can look a little deeper, grow and evolve. And the deeper truth is this: the self you fear is also the self that longs to be free. It is the part of you that wants to live without masks, to bring your whole self into your relationships, your work, your life. It is the part that carries your creativity, your joy, and your capacity to love. Perhaps the real danger isn’t that your emotions or your power will consume you. The real danger is what happens if you keep them locked away – if you spend a lifetime afraid of yourself, never discovering who you truly are. So maybe the question is not, What if I let it out? but What might become possible if I do? — Previously Published on Energy Flow Coaching iStock featured image The post The Fear of Yourself: Why Men Hold Back Their Anger, Sadness, and Power appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Moscow is open to welcoming Western businesses back, with certain conditions, the foreign minister has said Russia has no plans to exact vengeance on Western countries that cut ties and pressured Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations on Monday, Lavrov stressed that Russia did not intend to “take revenge or vent anger” on companies that decided to support Western governments in their push to support Kiev and impose economic sanctions on Moscow, adding that hostility is generally “a poor adviser.” “When our former Western partners come to their senses… we will not push them away. But we… will take into account that, having fled at the order of their political leaders, they have shown themselves to be unreliable,” the minister said. According to Lavrov, any future market access would also depend on whether the companies would pose risks to sectors vital to Russia’s economy and security. The minister stressed that Russia is open to cooperation and has no intention to isolate itself. “We live on one small planet. It was Western-style to build Berlin Walls… We do not want to build any walls,” he said, referring to the symbol of the Cold War that split the German capital from 1961 to 1989. ”We want to work honestly, and if our partners are ready to do the same on the basis of equality and mutual respect, we are open to dialogue with everyone,” he said, pointing to the Alaska Summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, as an example of constructive engagement. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, on Saturday, that Western businesses would be welcomed back if they had not supported the Ukrainian army and had met obligations to the state and their Russian staff, including paying due salaries. Putin this month also rejected isolationism, stressing that Russia would like to avoid closing itself off in a “national shell” as it would harm competitiveness. “We have never turned away or pushed anyone out. Those who want back in are welcome,” he added. View the full article

Hello Doc, I have been reading things here for a long time and while I don’t agree with you on everything, I have often thought about getting your opinion on things, as you clearly understand people way better than me. Now, just today, something came up and it will be a while before my next therapy appointment, so I could do with some advice. It isn’t exactly a dating question, but I know you’ve answered questions about general issues with socializing before. First up, I’m a 31-year-old German, bisexual, autistic (as you probably guessed) guy with moderate depressive disorder and severe social anxiety. I still live with my parents working on a university degree, that seems to take me forever, have very few friends (I had none for most of my youth) and am generally very bad at dealing with people. Like, I know several other autistic people and even compared to them I am bad at it. Even though I can talk just fine and don’t think I am even that bad at understanding people’s actions at a distance, when I am actually around someone else it’s like “What do I do with this? Why are they acting like that and reacting that way to me? Why do I always do this shit, I know is wrong?” To finally start approaching the point: I made the (very scary to me) decision to, for the first time, join a Pride Parade in a nearby city this year, which was today. I am furious about the massive social push-back against queer people, especially trans people, that has been happening recently. I know it’s worse over in the US, but it’s very much happening here in Germany too. So I felt, I should do at least this little to show my support. Also, I thought, I needed to get out of my comfort zone and had that slim hope of making some connections to people. I can already see the “Pride isn’t about making friends or lovers”-reaction coming, as it seems nowhere that people meet is about meeting people according to the internet, but I digress. I actually had a really good time at the parade itself. I had seen very few other queer people in real life before and seeing so many so different people come together to stand up for one another felt really wonderful. I did not exactly feel a part of the group, but at least along with the group, if that makes any sense. The party after the parade was another story. The parade had arrived at the site earlier than expected and so the organizers needed a while to set things up. I hadn’t made up my mind about whether I was even going to stay for the party ahead of time, as I usually hate parties, but with the delay, I decided to at least take a look around. After some looking around and eating some ice cream, I realized, there wasn’t really much for me there and I left to go home. The party was on one side of a river I had to cross and when I got to the other side, I sat on a bench to rest for a little. I realized, that I was feeling incredibly lonely. I had seen all these friends and couples around me for hours, but never talked to any of them, didn’t even know how to talk to them. I felt going home was giving up, that I had to take the chance, instead of running away from people, like I always did. So I went back to the party and stupidly did the same thing I always do at parties, that never works: walk around aimlessly looking for someone who may be interested in conversation, because I don’t enjoy dancing or drinking. But if there are signals that people are willing to open up their groups, they are invisible to me and, well, almost no one was sitting around on their own. And I couldn’t just place myself somewhere in the vain hope someone might come up to me, because it was too crowded. But then I noticed, I wasn’t the only one circling the premises. I noticed two other people doing the same thing: One was very thick and wearing nerdy clothes, the other was quite cute with pretty, long locks and a wearing a long black skirt that suited them really well. (Both looked like guys to me, even with the skirt, but I’m not gonna assume at a pride party.) Showing myself much more shallow, than I thought, I tried to get closer to the cute person. I thought of what to say, something like: “Hey. Are you waiting or looking for someone? Because you look like you’re just aimlessly walking around and I was worried, that I was the only one doing that. Wanna be aimless together for a bit?” (Leaving the “are you lonely just like me, oh pretty probably-not-a-woman” implied at most.) It probably shows how little social calibration I have, that I genuinely have no idea, how that would have come off. Chances are, that they were in fact just looking or waiting for friends, because they checked their phone whenever they stopped. Either way, with me not getting a good opportunity or hesitating too long, but not wanting to lose sight of them, I found myself following them around. Oops. I should have just left then and there, or done anything else. But I just got fixated on this idea. I did keep myself away from the cute person for a while and they left my sight. But after a while, I saw them down near the river (where the quieter part of the party was), still aimlessly walking around. I waited near the stairs that went down there, but they didn’t come up, so I went down. I actually got pretty close, as they were getting up from the dry grass, they had been lying in for a moment. Our eyes met for a moment and their look seemed to say: “Why the hell are you looking at me?” Apparently, that still wasn’t enough for me, so when they sat themselves down, right next to the river but away from most people, I sat a bit away from that but just in visual range. They had a quick phone-call (possibly about the creepy stalker following them around). I thought, if they wanted to, they could approach me, if only to confront me, so I could apologize. That didn’t happen, they got up and I looked away, so I couldn’t see where they were going. Then I left for home. When I got home, I had to find out, that I had been even dumber, than I thought. The weather forecast I’d read had said, that it would be cloudy, so I stupidly didn’t put on sunscreen. It was not cloudy. The entire time I was making an ass of myself, I had been having a bright red face from sunburn. I know, that chances are, the person I was fixating on didn’t even notice most of that. I still fear, that I have now become someone’s scare story, about how some weird-looking creep had followed them around at pride. So, my question, after that way-too-long story, is: How do I do better next time? I mean beyond not staring at and following around strangers. Because I had enjoyed the parade and would like to return next year if I can. Should I just avoid the party? Try to bring someone along (will be hard, my few friends and family aren’t bigots, but are awkward about queer stuff)? Should I try to go to one of those queer meetup-things, that seem super awkward and forced to me, because awkward and forced communication is better than none? I hesitate to ask about more effective methods of approaching people, because whenever I see someone give them, my thought is: “Well how am I supposed to do that? Want me to climb a mountain next?” I’m writing this so soon after it happened, because, my self-hatred is already turning this from “That went badly. How can I do better?” to “I am a complete garbage person, that no one should ever associate with.” (I am not asking for help with the self-loathing. The only answer you seem to have to that is: “Make yourself think differently.” Which doesn’t work. Yes I tried. Many times.) Sincerely, Future Pride Scare Story Hey, FPSS, I don’t mean to diminish what you’re feeling or your understandable worries but are you sure that the problem here isn’t just anxiety fucking with you? To be perfectly honest, I’m not actually seeing anything in your letter that suggests that you actually did anything wrong – certainly nothing that would come off as creepy or untoward. Most of what you describe sounds pretty anodyne and seems to be more about you over-thinking things and kicking yourself in the junk. I want to start off by saying that you did a brave and admirable thing. You were trying to get out of your comfort zone and actually go meet people and have fun. That can be pretty damn huge, and it’s great that you did! I’d also point out that the line about “hey, are you kinda wandering and feeling about rolling solo? Me too! Wanna hang out so we don’t feel as weird about it?” is actually a good approach. It’s a little self-aware vulnerability, a bid for a shared commonality and an offer of both understanding and relief. I think, if you’d managed to actually spit it out, that it would’ve gotten a positive response, even if they were just looking for their friends or waiting for someone. It just seems a shame to me that you’re turning this moment of progress and growth into self-recrimination for no reason. Part of it seems to be that you either have primed yourself to expect this or you’ve been doing some form of psychic self-harm by looking up videos and TikToks that would confirm that you’re a bad person. I’m honestly scratching my head, for example, at where “Pride isn’t about making friends or lovers” came from. Now admittedly: I’m a straight, cis dude, so my perspective isn’t going to be the same as someone in the queer community but I would’ve sworn that part of the point of Pride is, well, community. Bringing people together, celebrating yourselves, connecting and bonding and rejoicing. Saying “Pride’s not about finding making friends” seems to be contrary to the whole point about it; you’re at a celebration, not a monastic meditation retreat. This sounds to me like the equivalent of saying that you’re not supposed to try to make friends at a rock concert or at college. (Now to be fair: there seems to be a series of endless debates about what is or isn’t “allowed” or “appropriate” at Pride – usually about kink, corporations or bi/pan people with opposite sex partners – so I could have missed some long-simmering Discourse… but I’d be shocked if so). I mention this because I don’t know if this is something you came to the event with, or if it’s an after-the-fact rationalization about how ‘awful’ you were. But either way, it sounds like this is more about confirming your priors, rather than a sign that you broke some unwritten rule and are thus a terrible person. And, again, I’m just not seeing it. If anything, what I’m seeing is standard depression and social anxiety and a lot of your just talking yourself down and beating yourself up because… being shy and worried about talking to someone just wasn’t “bad enough”, I guess. The whole “Oh God, I fucked up so badly, everyone saw and everyone thinks I’m a predator!” sounds like a pretty common refrain from anxiety brain weasels. Then you compound it with comments like how you’re shallow for (let me check my notes here) finding someone attractive when they were conventionally attractive. Oh you villain, you monster, how could you? OK more seriously: it doesn’t sound like you even got close enough for the person to clock that you were even there, never mind thinking you were stalking them. As near as I can tell, while you were maybe in their sight line occasionally, you were always at a distance, never actually got that close and never talked to them. Sure, you were trying to stay in the general area in hopes that you’d find an opportunity (and the courage) to talk to them but… it’s a party. People mix and mingle and circulate and walk around. You’re going to see folks over and over again because crowds churn and move and people walk around, talk to folks, get drinks, dance, go grab a smoke break or find a quiet spot to take a phone call or just get some fresh air. It’s pretty much expected, and frankly, most people are either not going to notice, or not think anything of it. You didn’t follow them to places that would be unusual for people to go, nor did you get close enough for folks to feel like maybe this was more than coincidence. The one time you were in near physical proximity was when they were already getting up and leaving. And the next time you were within eyeshot, they were on their phone and you were leaving. None of this reads as “following with ill intent”, “stalking” or even “guy thinks I’m cute and is trying to work up the courage to talk”. It’s far more likely to read as basic social churn at a party. The closest you ever come to having any sort of meaningful contact that would suggest they were even aware you were there is that… they made eye-contact once. Unless you were giving them the hairy eyeball and staring unblinkingly like you were measuring their skin for how many belts you could make out of them, the odds that they even clocked that you were following them is really, really low. I would also point out that literally everything else about this non-interaction – up to and including reading “ungh, who is this guy?” is interpretation on your part, and considering your social anxiety, I would not trust your interpretation as being reasonable or accurate. It’s the very definition of confirmation bias – you already assume that your presence is unwanted and intrusive, so it’s no wonder that you found “proof”. you were expecting to have this result and oh look, you did. Except, as I said: I don’t think you did. Unless they actually gave a hostile look – furrowed brow, frown, eyes narrowing, fists clenching or shoulders tensing – or gave some other sign of disgust or dislike, the odds are that they just think they made eye-contact with a stranger and that was the end of that. The same goes with having been sun-burned. That’s embarrassing, sure, and potentially painful… but hardly unheard of. Getting too much sun at parades or outdoor parties is pretty much at the top of “most common shared experiences” lists at events like this. That, overpriced concessions, and “Sweet suffering fuck the port-o-potties were horror shows”. Here’s the thing: social anxiety feels like there’s a spotlight on you at all times and convinces you that you’re the center of everyone’s attention and I promise you: you are not. Everyone’s busy with their own lives and their own drama and don’t have the time or mental bandwidth to clock you as more than another face in the crowd – sunburnt or otherwise. And in the event that anyone noticed you specifically, they almost certainly didn’t think “wait, why is this person following me”; if anything, they forgot you existed as soon as you left their eye-line. The reason why it feels like everyone’s paying attention to you is because you are feeling self-conscious about it. It feels to you like nobody could possibly miss that you’re always nearby, staring… but trust me: it absolutely is. People will miss a dude in a gorilla suit; you’re not nearly as visible as that. I think we can safely say that the worst thing you did at this party was forget to bring sun screen, and the rest is just your anxiety fucking with you. You were pushing your limits, your social anxiousness kicked into high gear and your jerkbrain ran with it, that’s all. Part of it is the inherent awkwardness at being at an event where you don’t know anyone, part of it is a lack of experience and part of it is just fear. That’s ok, because those are all fixable! You mention that you’re in therapy. I think it may be worth talking to your therapist about options for managing your anxiety, both in the moment and in general. There’re a number of breathing exercises you can do in the moment to help calm yourself down, like the 5-5-5 technique where you inhale for a count of 5, hold it for a count of 5 and exhale to the count of 5. There’s also the 4-7-8 version, which follows the same pattern. Breathe in slowly, hold it, breathe out slowly. You may also want to talk about potential medical options, from beta blockers to full SSRIs. These can help you get a handle on the physical symptoms of anxiety, which makes it easier to manage the mental and psychological side of it. The other thing I think you should do is to go queer meetups, especially ones focused on meeting people and making new friends. Not only does this give you a chance to get used to just chatting with people – and meeting new potential friends – but it also means that next year at Pride, you’ll see some familiar faces, which can help alleviate some of the pressure of “how am I going to talk to anyone?” The last thing I will leave you with is this: I’ve written a lot about how to navigate parties and talk to strangers, and recommend you check them out. But if you want my #1 tip for how to handle being at a party where you don’t know anyone? Talk to one of the hosts or, failing that, introduce yourself to someone who seems nice and tell them that this is your first time at Pride and you don’t know anyone here. Not only can damn near everyone relate, but they’re far more likely to introduce you around and help you meet people if you lead with that. Trust me: it works a hell of a lot better than holding up the metaphorical wall and hoping that some extrovert is going to come along and adopt you. But seriously: you’re fine. You didn’t creep anyone out, you didn’t act egregiously. This is just anxiety fucking with you. You’re ok. I promise. All will be well. *** Dear Dr. NerdLove, I fell in love with a Very Unsuitable Person – as in potentially career ending levels of unsuitable – and for a while he loved me back. It was a non-sexual but highly-romantic relationship. There were several opportunities for me to have said no, or halted the relationship, but I didn’t want to, so I continued seeing him until he broke up with me rather abruptly. It’s been three months since the breakup, and I still miss him so much it is a constant ache, a whine in the back of my head. I know I got very, very lucky. It was a clean break, no drama on either side, end of career averted, Very Unsuitable Person voluntarily fucked off out of my life. The universe gave me a mulligan. I don’t think there’s any possibility of him popping back up again, either. But god do I miss him. I miss the laughter and smiles and in-jokes and sweetness. I miss the sound of my name from his mouth. I miss the way his breathing sounded when we watched a movie together and he was really into it. I miss the intensity of the way he loved me, and how it felt like it was us against the world. And if he did get in touch, apologize, explain…I would seriously consider taking him back, fully cognizant of how bad an idea that would be, and how I would be throwing away that mulligan. How do I him-proof myself? How do I get over this? Has it just not been long enough? I’m just so sad. Sincerely yours, Lucky, But Not Loved This sounds rough, LBNL, and I’m sorry you’re going through it. I do wish you’d explained a little bit more about why it would’ve been so unsuitable and how the two of you were in this romantically fraught relationship, and that could give a little more insight into how you’re feeling now. But I strongly suspect that a big reason why you’re still hung up on this is because the relationship ended so abruptly. It’s the suddenness of the break that screws with you, in part because one moment it’s there and everything is great and then suddenly it’s gone. It’s one thing if you feel a relationship starting to wind down – whether you’re realizing you’re losing that loving feeling or they seem to be pulling a slow fade. Or if you’re constantly in conflict and the good times seem like an increasingly distant memory. In those cases, you have more of a transition period, where your status quo has been changing and the relationship itself is altering until you reach the point where it ends. On those occasions, while it sucks that things fell apart, you at least saw it coming. You’re able to look back on the good times and miss them, but you can also see how – if not why – it all ended. When it comes screaming out of the clear blue sky, however, there’s no adjustment, no acclimation, no awareness of the change. It’s a bit like a chair you were sitting in vanished and dropped you to the floor, or a door you were leaning on opened without warning. This thing you had is gone and so quickly that you stumble and fall and you have no idea what the hell happened. Small wonder that you still feel so strongly about it. Yeah, you know this wasn’t good for you and it’s better that the relationship is over, intellectually… but emotionally, it’s next to impossible to make that sort of 180 degree turn in an instant. This is in no small part because what you’re feeling is as much chemical as it is emotional. You’re literally in withdrawal; you were still in the phase where your brain was being flooded with dopamine and oxytocin when he was around. You were getting high off of him – literally – and now suddenly your dealer cut you off with no warning. So what do you do about it? Well, part of it is that you give yourself closure. While this wasn’t the way you would’ve wanted the relationship to end, you know it needed to, and it’s better that things are over. You can and should acknowledge that you miss how you felt with him – trying to pretend you don’t just doesn’t work – but you also acknowledge that it’s better that this is over. The next part is that you treat this like any other break up. It may not have been a conventional or even healthy relationship, but it was a relationship, and it ended. So you sit with your feelings and let yourself feel them. You mourn the loss, you regret that it had to happen this way, and you process. Give yourself a couple weeks to have a sad about it, then work on reconnecting with your friends and family. Focus on things that help generate some oxytocin – laughing with your friends, physical touch, good conversations and so on. Get a massage, cuddle with your cat or dog, go for long walks or hit the gym and get your blood pumping and endorphins flowing. And then? Well, you will be surprised to wake up one day soon and realize that while you still miss these things you used to have with him… it’s not as bad as it was. And as each day passes, you’ll realize that you’re feeling a little better than the day before. And a bit better the next day, and so on and so on. Every day, you’ll miss him a little bit less. And in time, you’ll realize that not only are you over him, but you’re ready to go out and meet someone new – someone better for you, who isn’t six red flags in a trench coat. And some day, if Mr. Bad Decision does come back into your life – a day that, God willing, may never come – you’ll realize that you don’t want him back. You will have moved on and whether you’ve met someone who better meets your needs or not, you’ll know that this guy holds no more temptations for you. You’ve got this. Good luck. — This post was previously published on Doctornerdlove.com and is republished on Medium. — Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post I’m Terrified That I Was the Awkward Creep at a Party! What Do I Do? appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

One scientist ran the math and decided immortality is basically just a software update away. So yeah, your great-great-great-great-great-grandkids could still be waiting on you to Venmo them. The post One scientist ran the math and decided immortality is basically just a software update away appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

▶️ YouTube PiP on Chromebook: You can keep a YouTube video running while working on other tasks. Place your cursor on the video player, double-tap with two fingers on the touchpad, and select Picture in picture. A floating window will appear that you can resize and move anywhere on your screen. The post YouTube PiP on Chromebook appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

The Oakland AIs: The Oakland Ballers are going full Moneyball 2.0. They’re going to be the first pro sports team to let an AI manager handle in-game lineup, substitutions and field positions. It’s a one-time stunt, but it’s a first for pro sports. Fans used to manage the team via app. They lost. Now it’s the bots’ turn. The post The Oakland AIs appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

Democratic voters in particular increasingly prefer socialism, an opinion poll has indicated Barely half of Americans view capitalism favorably, while Democratic voters increasingly prefer socialism, a new Gallup poll has indicated. The survey, conducted in August among over 1,000 adults nationwide, showed just 54% of respondents had a positive opinion of capitalism – the lowest figure since Gallup began tracking views on the system in the early 2010s, when approval stood at 61%. Support for socialism remained largely unchanged at 39%, Gallup said Monday. Republicans continue to strongly back capitalism, with 74% expressing support. Among Democrats, approval has slipped to 42%, lower than half for the first time. At the same time, Democratic support for socialism has climbed to 66%, up from 50% in 2010. Gallup noted that Democrats have consistently favored socialism over capitalism since 2016, and that the gap has continued to widen. While Americans broadly approve of free enterprise and small business, their views of large corporations have dropped sharply, from 58% approval in 2012 to a record low of 37% this year. Democrats in particular expressed hostility toward Big Tech, Big Pharma, and other corporate sectors, with only 17% viewing them positively. Gallup said these shifts explain why openly socialist-leaning politicians can win elections in the US. Examples included Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani, who has proposed opening publicly owned food markets to address supply problems, is running without establishment Democratic backing despite defeating former Mayor Andrew Cuomo in the party’s primary. Cuomo is now campaigning against him as an independent. View the full article

An Israeli minister has called for the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority following the attack Six people were killed and several others injured in a shooting at a bus station in East Jerusalem, Israeli officials said Monday. Two Palestinian gunmen were shot dead at the scene, they added. The shooters reportedly came from the West Bank, prompting calls from Israeli officials for tougher measures against Palestinians living under Israeli military rule there. One of the victims was identified by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an ultra-Orthodox soldier from the Hashmonaim Battalion, a unit launched last year to accommodate Haredi Jews. “A pursuit and encirclement of the villages from which the terrorists came is under way,” Netanyahu said, describing the deaths as part of Israel’s “intense war against terror on several fronts.” President Isaac Herzog echoed the remarks, saying Israel is fighting “absolute evil.” Dashcam footage shows the moments of the deadly shooting attack at Ramot Junction in Jerusalem. Five people were killed and at least 11 others were wounded, including six seriously. Both terrorists, West Bank Palestinians, were shot dead. pic.twitter.com/w2OVu3cFOP — Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian (@manniefabian) September 8, 2025 The shooting came as Israel continues its military campaign in Gaza with the stated goal of destroying the militant group Hamas following its deadly October 2023 incursion. The attack has fueled calls to widen Israel’s crackdown on Palestinians. Economy Minister Nir Barkat blamed the Palestinian Authority, the internationally recognized governing body in the West Bank and a rival to Hamas, and called for dismantling it entirely. There was just a Nazi Jihadist shooting attack at Ramot Junction in Jerusalem Many people are injured, some possibly dead The 2 terrorists have been shot pic.twitter.com/liIDpF6jgi — Documenting Israel (@DocumentIsrael) September 8, 2025 Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas reacted to the incident by condemning “all forms of violence and terrorism from any source” and urged Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories. Hamas called the shooting “a natural response to the occupation’s crimes and war of extermination” in Gaza. The official death toll in the enclave surpassed 64,000 last week, while the real number of deaths is believed to be higher. Meanwhile, the party of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has called for the death penalty for terrorism-related crimes. Israel has used capital punishment only twice in its history – for Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann and for an Israeli officer accused of treason in 1948, who was later exonerated. Russia has warned that Israel’s sweeping response to the 2023 Hamas raid will not resolve its security challenges and has urged West Jerusalem to support the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, an outcome Netanyahu has vowed to block. View the full article

The decision to impose levies on the South Asian country for buying Russia oil is “the right idea,” the Ukrainian leader has said Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has claimed US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose 25% penal tariffs on India for buying Russian oil was the “right” thing to do. In an interview with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz that was aired on Sunday, Zelensky said “additional pressure” was needed on Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mentioning last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, Raddatz asked, “When you saw [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi there, who has helped Russia... so did the plan backfire of trying to put sanctions on them?” In response, Zelensky said, “I think the idea to put tariffs on the countries which continue to make deals with Russia, I think this is [the] right idea.” The US has imposed duties on most Indian products, which include a 25% tariff announced in early August followed by an additional 25% at the end of last month, as a “penalty” for India’s purchases of Russian oil and defense equipment – actions that Trump claims have indirectly fueled the Ukraine conflict. Before going to Tianjin for the SCO summit, Modi held a telephone conversation with Zelensky in which the Indian leader said New Delhi extends “full support” to “restore peace and stability” in Ukraine. “As far as the conflict in Ukraine is concerned, we welcome all the recent efforts towards establishing peace in Ukraine,” Indian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Friday. “We hope that all parties will proceed ahead constructively. India supports an early end of the conflict and the establishment of an enduring peace.” In his interview with ABC, Zelensky also spoke out against other countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas. ”To be open and to be clear, it’s not fair,” he said. “So we have to stop to buy any kind of energy from Russia… we can't have any deals if we want to solve them [conflict].” View the full article

I’m ten years old, playing down in the creek at the base of our driveway.It’s winter 1974, and the woods surrounding the creek are wet from fresh rain.The acidic flux of old oak trees fills the air with a soft vinegar aroma, and the lichens smell earthy and woodsy, like a damp Harris Tweed jacket.I roll off the slippery bark of a felled tree, and return to my yellow Tonka truck, sitting half-buried in the mud along the creek bed. An assortment of metal Matchbox toy cars are scattered in the leaves, along with some plastic toy soldiers.The light is fading, and I await the call of my father’s booming baritone, yelling “Johnny, Johnny!” He normally calls for me, just before dusk, when Mom is preparing dinner. But he doesn’t call.The air is silent.It’s getting dark.I trudge up the deer trail, through the brush, careful to avoid the poison ivy that has led to itchy rashes in the past. I crest the last of the trail and emerge on our front lawn. The grass is strangely dry and brown, despite the winter rain.I hear scrub jays calling one another and playing in the woods behind our house. I make my way to the brick patio leading to my parent’s bedroom door but discover that it’s locked. It’s strangely quiet. I walk around to the front door of the house, but it’s locked too. So I ring the doorbell. Then I knock loudly. Nothing. I stroll over to the living room windows and look inside. All the furniture is covered with sheets. There are cobwebs where the walls meet the ceiling. Then I noticed no vehicles in the driveway. A sort of panic settles into my being. I continue ringing the doorbell and calling out to my parents. I run around and look into several windows. Everything inside is covered up with sheets. It looks dusty, old, and abandoned. The sun has set and it’s now dark outside. Beneath the moon and starlight, I find some beach towels on the back patio where Mom left them beside an old chaise lounge. With towels in hand, I make my way to the woods and climb up into the old treehouse I built. I cover myself with the towels, as it’s getting cold. I curl up in a fetal position, feeling abandoned, afraid, and alone. And I begin to cry. That’s when I woke up from the dream. My heart was racing, and my back was slightly perspired. I sat up and focused on exhaling slowly, to calm myself down. It was strange because I was not ill, and when I went to bed I was feeling fine. I hadn’t even been thinking about my parents, my childhood, or the past. I believe in everything until it’s disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it’s in your mind. Who’s to say that dreams and nightmares aren’t as real as the here and now? —John Lennon The dream happened a few days ago, and I’ve been ruminating about it ever since. What does it mean? Where did these troubling thoughts come from? What am I to make of it all? An essay in The Viva Center states: According to clinician Jacky Casumbal, “Dreams are our brain’s way of organizing events of the day, memories, and images into vivid, symbolic, and nonsensical storylines.” Nightmares in particular are “dreams that are often connected to unresolved anxiety and trauma that our brain has not fully worked through.” I was with my father shortly before he passed away in 2008. And I held my mother in my arms when she passed in 2021. In both instances, my parents were well into their eighties and suffering irreversible medical afflictions. It was hard to lose them, but also a kind of relief. No more suffering. In short, I accepted the deaths of my parents. So where does such a troubling dream about abandonment bubble up from? What tangential events or thoughts could explain this subconscious landscape of childhood fear and loss? And why is it still affecting me? Our new kitten is asleep on my desk as I write this essay. Perhaps he is soothed by the soft piano music playing in the background, or maybe it’s just the sense of belonging and security he feels being near me as I write. There’s something comforting about being safely at home with the ones you love. John P. Weiss When I was a boy I used to sit on my father’s lap as he wrote legal decisions on yellow pads with his Parker 21 fountain pen. I’d watch mesmerized by my Dad’s immaculate, copperplate handwriting. Other times I’d hang out in the kitchen as my mother baked apricot squares for her bridge group later that evening. Or I’d venture upstairs and visit with my sister as she played with her Breyer model ponies. But life marches on. Many years ago we sold the family home after Dad passed away and it was too much for my mother to maintain. And then years later, I retired from my law enforcement career and we relocated from California to Nevada. Mom came with us and lived comfortably in a nearby assisted living center until she passed away in 2021. Most recently, my wife, son, and I downsized from our previous home here in Nevada to a new house only a few miles away. Also, I lost a friend to dementia this year, and have another friend who is in the throes of it. Yet another friend is battling an aggressive cancer. And a dear friend lost her mother, and I gave the eulogy at her funeral. One of the difficult things about growing older is that you start losing so many friends. On the other hand, the older you get, the less time you have to wait until you see them again. —Ron Brackin So there has been a lot of loss. And there have been other changes recently. I just canceled my digital subscription to a popular online newspaper, after many years of loyal support. Their updated digital format no longer reads like a newspaper, but rather like an endless blog. I much prefer reading the actual newspaper, but alas, the delivery was so unreliable I was forced into a digital subscription. It’s a small thing, but I mourn the pleasure of reading the physical paper. I used to clip out articles and send them to friends or slip them into my journals. My Dad used to send me newspaper clippings in his letters to me at university. I enjoyed the ink stains and tactile experience. Thus, the digital version is lacking for me. I guess that’s part of what’s going on. I’ve been slowly saying goodbye. To people, things, and the past ways of life. To say goodbye is to die a little. –Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye The world has become less familiar to me. The landscape keeps evolving and blurring. People don’t seem to take their jobs as seriously as they once did. Everywhere I look, faces are immersed in phone screens. It’s like people have become transfixed by algorithmic addictions. Conversations are fewer, and the dogma of politics infects even the simplest of interactions. I wonder if my Dad or Mom felt this way in their retirement years. Maybe this happens to all of us.We get comfortable in our generational time, with its music, technology, and way of life. Until the world spins faster, ever-changing, and you find yourself trapped in a dream of the past. A dream that becomes a nightmare. Nightmares are sometimes associated with unmet psychological needs or frustration with life experiences. As the essay in The Viva Center notes: …our nightmares tend to reflect our troubles through metaphor rather than literal representation. For example, a person who is dealing with a stressful move might not dream of the move itself, but about falling off the edge of a cliff or running late to an important event. Likewise, two people may experience similar nightmares (about, say, finding themselves naked in a public space) but for wildly different reasons. These variations can make it difficult to find a single, clear “meaning” behind our dreams. Experts often point to anxiety, depression, and trauma as the cause of nightmares. Which is strange in that I’m quite comfortable and happy with my family, friends, creative pursuits, animal companions, and new home. And I’m blessed to be in good health and have no history of depression. Some say that the loss of one’s career with retirement creates a sense of irrelevancy. We feel a bit adrift. But I haven’t felt this way, perhaps because I find purpose and meaning in my writing. So what then? I think there’s an answer for this lost boy in the woods. Memories may be like a warm blanket in the winter of our lives, but they can also become a wet blanket preventing us from new experiences and positive change. The more I cling to the past, to the “good old days,” the less I am willing to expose myself to new experiences. And when we stay stuck in the past, we stop growing. The only way that we can live, is if we grow. The only way that we can grow is if we change. The only way that we can change is if we learn. The only way we can learn is if we are exposed. And the only way that we can become exposed is if we throw ourselves out into the open. Do it. Throw yourself. —C. JoyBell C. Earlier today, I decided to escape the house. I took my dog, Nanuk, to the park, where the trees, birds, grass, and fresh air always lift my spirit. There was a group of young teenagers playing volleyball in the hot sun. One of the boys was being silly, wearing a football helmet, as one of the girls yelled, “You look totally ridiculous!” and he said, “I am magnificent!” John P. Weiss I had to laugh. I guess not every kid today is glued to a digital screen. As I walked past, the two girls asked if they could pet my dog. “We have a husky at home,” the one girl said. “Well, this one is an Alaskan Klee Kai,” I explained, “They’re a lot like Huskies, just smaller.” The girls pet Nanuk and then thanked me as they ran off for more Volleyball. It was a simple, pleasant interaction. A gentle reminder that the world changes, but people will always be people. And the only way to keep learning, and keep growing, is to get out there and expose yourself to this amazing, ever-changing world. Nanuk and I made our way back to my truck. I closed the doors and turned on the air conditioner. Closed my eyes. I could see my ten-year-old self in the dream, still in the treehouse in the woods. But it was different now. The sun had risen, and a few deer passed by below. I no longer felt alone and abandoned. I climbed down out of the treehouse and looked back at my childhood house one last time. I smiled and waved goodbye. To my Mom and Dad, and all the beauty and joy of those days gone by. To say goodbye to the past may be to die a little inside, but it also frees us to move on. To open our hearts and minds to new adventures, experiences, and the promise of the future. Pieces of an old Robert Frost poem came to mind: The woods are lovely, dark, and deep But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. Perhaps we’re all just children in the woods. Afraid and alone at first, but then realizing how much there is to explore. We all have miles to go before we sleep. Sitting back in my truck, eyes shut, I watched as the boy in the woods found a deer trail and set off to explore, learn, and grow. I don’t know where the boy in the woods will end up. There are so many deer trails and paths to take. So many directions and possible destinations. I guess it doesn’t really matter. All I know is that the boy in the woods is going to be okay. Before you go I’m John P. Weiss. I write elegant stories and essays about life. If you enjoyed this piece, check out my free weekend newsletter, The Saturday Letters. — This post was previously published on Medium.com. *** You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project Compliments Men Want to Hear More Often Relationships Aren’t Easy, But They’re Worth It The One Thing Men Want More Than Sex ..A Man’s Kiss Tells You Everything Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. A $50 annual membership gives you an all access pass. You can be a part of every call, group, class and community. A $25 annual membership gives you access to one class, one Social Interest group and our online communities. A $12 annual membership gives you access to our Friday calls with the publisher, our online community. Register New Account Log in if you wish to renew an existing subscription. Username Email First Name Last Name Password Password Again Choose your subscription level Dating Masterclass - $999.00 - unlimited Dating Masterclass: How to Date and Create Satisfying and Lasting Love and Sexi in this Crazy, Modern World 5 Ways to Build Confidence - $99.00 - unlimited 5 Ways to Build Confidence and Make Meeting and Dating Women Less Nerve-Wracking Monthly Platinum - free - unlimited Monthly - $6.99 - 1 Month Yearly - $50.00 - 1 Year Sponsored Columnist Annual - $1,250.00 - 1 Year Sponsored Columnist Monthly - $150.00 - 1 Month Annual Platinum - $50.00 - 1 Year Annual Gold - $25.00 - 1 Year Monthly Gold - $20.00 - 1 Month Annual Bronze - $12.00 - 1 Year Credit / Debit Card PayPal Choose Your Payment Method Auto Renew By completing this registration form, you are also agreeing to our Terms of Service which can be found here. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo credit: Annie Spratt The post The Boy in the Woods appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

🎥 Welles, Welles, Welles, what do we have here? AI studio Showrunner is trying to rebuild Orson Welles’ butchered masterpiece The Magnificent Ambersons. The missing 43 minutes were burned for storage space in 1942. Now, AI + live actors + face-swapping tech are piecing it back together. Amazon is backing it, but without the movie rights, it’s just a very expensive Frankenstein film. The post Welles, Welles, Welles, what do we have here appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

As I stroll my infant daughter through a neighbourhood lined with eight-figure houses (the median price on this street was $10.9M), my eyes catch a shimmer from a dark object on the boulevard. As I approach, observing its contours, highlights and shadows, I speculate on what I’ve found. Is it a hunk of graphite, obsidian, or raw onyx? Unlikely. The remains of hardwood charcoal? Do rich people even barbecue, though? Walking past it, I then realize I’ve been staring at a sun-blackened lump of dog shit, baking in the summer heat. It’s about well-done by now. As I’ll soon see, there’s more of it down the block. Blood, sweat and fears And that’s when a dark epiphany hit me. Could this be a metaphor for my hopes and dreams? My decades-long, relentless hustle for success. The gap between where I am and where I want…no, need, to be. The frustrating difference between my efforts and my results. I’m wondering if I value the right things in life. Or have I been focusing on dog shit, disguised as a gem, this entire time? What if everything I’ve worked towards is forever outside of reach? I grind the nine-to-five along with everyone else, but I didn’t consider myself a follower of what to like, celebrate, think, want, or purchase, without consulting my vibe check. And I’ll surely teach my daughter to think for herself and not to follow blindly. Yet I strive for what most people want or have (permanent housing), because I believe the key to my daughter’s future lies in her environment. A modest dream at an exorbitant cost No, I don’t want a multi-million-dollar house, but the entry-level price of a detached home in Vancouver proper is well north of $1M. I’m sure “entry-level” is code for an old shit shack bungalow that’s crawling with silverfish, walking distance from nothing notable. Maybe moving to the car-dependent ‘burbs can knock $300K off a house, but that’s still putting me on the hook for a million. Imagine being indebted by seven figures to have a lifestyle different from what you value. Not for me, thanks. … I don’t need a yard for my daughter to play in; there are plenty of nearby parks and beaches. Or a garden to grow my own vegetables, or a barbecue, or a garage to fix up my bikes. I can go smaller without dreaming smaller, and fill those needs with community spaces rather than private property. And yet, a 2-bedroom condo in a decently walkable neighbourhood can start at just under a million. So, what now? Go big or go home If we pretend that my options for tech work were equal anywhere in the country, I could take my well-paying career back to my hometown and live like a king. Yeah…nah, I’ll pass. … Forever in my mind, that place is where you get jacked 3-on-1 or jacked at knifepoint while standing at the bus stop. Something like this has happened at least once to most guys I know back home. You know you can’t have nice things when your buddy tells you he just got jacked for his $10 pair of no-name shoes, just because they were brand new. Many times, I’d be walking down the street with a friend, and a random carload of strangers would yell out slurs or other gestures of aggression. We’d yell back or flip them off, and they may turn the car around, sometimes flashing their weapons, and start hunting us down, as we cut through yards and scale fences to flee. I’ve been in more fist fights than I could count, but I’m glad all of this is behind me now. … I wasn’t always sure of having kids, but I later knew I didn’t want that for my kids. Growing pains When I chose to move halfway across the country nearly two decades ago, I was clueless about how maladjusted I was in my new environment. Childhood exposure to (and the normalization of) hostility, racism and violence had shaped me for the worse, in ways that weren’t obvious to me. The child me did what he needed to adapt, at the cost that my adult self was not completely civilized. Long-lasting positive change is hard, especially when you don’t recognize the psychology behind your thought patterns and behaviour. … It was a few years before life became better than any dream I could fathom. It’s not only that I wouldn’t dare to dream this big as a child or young adult; it’s that I didn’t yet possess the imagination for the possibilities. After seeing the lifestyle potential in the city I now call home, I knew that I wanted this for my children. The legacy I can afford to leave So the life I’m building isn’t an empire of wealth or material gain. It was all about laying down roots in a progressive society rich with culture and experiences. A city that is not only logistically walkable, but also relatively very safe to walk in. Between the mountains and the sea, a city with beaches, an abundance of parks, kilometres of greenways and modern urbanism. A metropolitan area with an eclectic food scene that is Michelin-worthy. A stop for touring musicians, for both big-name and obscure overseas bands. And to escape the city life, it’s a ferry ride away to over half a dozen unique and quiet islands. … I want my daughter to grow up with access to these beautiful things that life has to offer. She will understand wealth inequality, big city crime and street smarts, but from a safer perspective than I experienced it. She will dare to dream and become the person she is meant to be once she finds her purpose. As long as we can avoid being priced out of this city, I will do everything I can to ensure my daughter isn’t robbed of having a good life. … Buying time I’m a high-ish earner, but still a renter. I didn’t always earn as much, taking many years to build up my career. I’ve stayed debt-free by making a habit of living below my means. Nice cars, designer fashion, latest tech…it’s all nice, but they’re mostly a distraction from building wealth. There are more practical, life-improving things that most people aren’t willing to spend on. I’ve saved up and invested over the years. Enough to take a significant financial detour for Parental Leave, which will hurt, but not kill, having a housing down payment. Eventual permanent housing for my daughter is crucial, as rentals can be pulled out from you at any time. Final thoughts I’m not ashamed of where I’m from; I’m ashamed of the way we all treated each other. A lot has changed since then, but some areas are still like that. With today’s trending pushback against kindness, many around the globe want society to regress. That’s not the future I want for my daughter. I didn’t come here to chase riches; I came in search of change. Costly change, but change I welcome gladly. By design, my daughter will have inspiration and opportunities to thrive beyond my dreams. One day, she may want to leave her hometown and go after her own dreams. — This post was previously published on medium.com. Love relationships? We promise to have a good one with your inbox. Subcribe to get 3x weekly dating and relationship advice. Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there! Hello, Love (relationships) Change Becomes You (Advice) A Parent is Born (Parenting) Equality Includes You (Social Justice) Greener Together (Environment) Shelter Me (Wellness) Modern Identities (Gender, etc.) Co-Existence (World) *** – Photo credit: Sophie N on Unsplash The post How Much Is a Good Childhood Worth? appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

🗂️ Show hidden files: By default, Windows 11 hides certain system files and app data. But sometimes you need to see them to clean up old folders or fix an issue. Open This PC or any folder, click the three dots at the top and choose Options. In the new window, go to View and toggle on Show hidden files, folders, and drives. The post Show hidden files appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

Jesus Munoz-Gutierrez has reportedly said he “felt kidnapped” when Washington “wrongfully” sent him to South Sudan South Sudan has repatriated a Mexican national it accepted from the US in July under the third-country deportation scheme launched by the administration of President Donald Trump. The man was returned to Mexico on Saturday, the East African nation’s Foreign Ministry announced. Jesus Munoz-Gutierrez was among eight people US Homeland Security labeled “barbaric criminal illegal aliens” and deported to South Sudan on July 5, saying their home countries had refused to take them back. In a statement, the South Sudanese Foreign Ministry said it “affirms that Mr. Munoz Gutierrez was treated with full respect for his human dignity and fundamental rights throughout his temporary presence in the country.” Juba said Mexico had formally assured it that Gutierrez “will not be subjected to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, or undue prosecution upon his return.” The government added that it is committed to working with international partners, including the governments of the six remaining third-country deportees, to ensure their safe and humane treatment and eventual repatriation. Munoz-Gutierrez told journalists in Juba that he “felt kidnapped” when the US “wrongfully” sent him to South Sudan instead of returning him to Mexico, the Associated Press reported. South Sudan is one of four African countries that have agreed to host migrants deemed by Washington as ineligible to remain in the US over security concerns. Eswatini and Rwanda have also received deportees in recent weeks after the US Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned a lower court ruling in June, clearing the White House to proceed with removals. Last month, Uganda announced a “temporary arrangement” with the US to accept migrants without criminal records as part of broader bilateral cooperation. The deals, with financial incentives still unclear, have drawn widespread criticism. UN human rights experts have warned the Trump administration risks violating principles of migrant protection, due process, and protections against chain refoulement. The African Union’s human rights body, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, has denounced the agreements as an attempt by Washington to “externalize migration responsibilities.” The commission has urged participating countries to halt policies that risk turning the continent into a “dumping zone” for arbitrary expulsions. View the full article

Sudanese authorities have announced sweeping measures after surge in robberies and looting in the capital Sudanese authorities have introduced new security measures in Khartoum, including a ban on carrying weapons in public and wearing military uniforms, as well as restrictions on unregistered vehicles, the Sudan Tribune reported on Saturday. Sudan has been gripped by fierce fighting between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) since April 2023. Both factions are vying for control amid a stalled transition to civilian rule. The country faces what the UN has called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with thousands killed and millions displaced. The announcement was made on Saturday by a security committee led by Defence Minister Hassan Daoud Kabroun. He said the steps are necessary to reassert state control after months of conflict with RSF, who previously occupied large parts of the city. “We stressed the prohibition of carrying weapons and wearing military uniforms in neighbourhoods and public places,” Kabroun stated. Kabroun also urged residents to avoid contact with foreign nationals lacking legal residency, citing security concerns. Other measures include removing abandoned vehicles and dismantling unauthorized housing and informal market stalls across Khartoum. Last month, Sudanese authorities announced a plan to rebuild Khartoum’s roads, bridges and its international airport after government forces retook the capital from RSF. Sudan’s army also destroyed 4,500 mines and shells near Khartoum as part of a demining program, Sudan News Agency reported. According to the Sudan Tribune, the security committee was formed “to create a secure environment for citizens to return to the capital.” The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has showed the number of forcibly displaced people in the country was 11,918,777 as of September 2025. Meanwhile, the Sudan Doctors Network said in a statement last month that hospitals in El Fasher lack medical supplies and expressed “deep concern” over the worsening health crisis in the capital of North Darfur. In June, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin met with the UN secretary-general’s envoy for Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, to discuss ways to bring the armed conflict in Sudan to an end. View the full article

Moscow has called for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict, but says it will use military means until the root causes are addressed The Russian Armed Forces outmatch Kiev’s army in both manpower and equipment, Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Aleksandr Syrsky has said. His remarks come after months of Ukrainian setbacks on the front lines and mounting struggles to replenish the ranks, with the country’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky, accused of dragging out peace efforts by insisting on Western-backed security guarantees. In a Telegram post on Monday outlining the situation on the front line, Syrsky said August was a difficult month for Ukraine, acknowledging that Russian troops prevailed in all key areas. “August 2025 was a month of great trials for our troops,” Syrsky wrote. “ The enemy has a three-fold advantage in troops and means, and in the main areas of concentration of their forces outnumber us four to six times.” The general said Kiev’s main efforts are currently focused on holding back Russian advances in the Limansky, Dobropolsky, Pokrovsky, and Novopavlovsky areas, which he described as “the most threatening.” Syrsky nevertheless claimed that Ukrainian forces made limited gains in several areas, insisting they remain on “the right course,” which he defined as seeking “to exhaust and destroy” the Russian forces. Moscow has called for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict, but warned that it will continue its military action until the root causes are addressed. It insists that a settlement must include Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions, which joined Russia following referendums, as Russian territory. Commenting on the campaign in late August, Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov said the “strategic initiative” now rests “entirely with the Russian troops,” while Ukraine is forced to shift its most combat-ready units “from one crisis direction to another to plug holes.” He stressed that Russian troops are carrying out a “non-stop offensive” across nearly the entire front line, and will continue on this course in the autumn. Over the weekend, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that its forces launched massive strikes on Ukrainian drone production sites, military air bases in central, southern, and eastern Ukraine, as well as enterprises in Kiev. It reported that all targets were destroyed, including Starlink satellite antennas and heavy copters. View the full article

Aleksey Miller has cited a record storage shortfall ahead of a heating season The EU could face a major gas shortage if the region is hit by a cold winter, Gazprom CEO Aleksey Miller has warned. Citing data from Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE), Gazprom said that as of end-August only two-thirds of the gas withdrawn from European storage facilities last winter had been replenished, after five months of injections. The shortfall of 18.9 billion cubic meters was the second largest on record for that date. Gazprom, once the EU’s main supplier, reduced its exports to the bloc dramatically three years ago, following Western sanctions and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. Russian gas exports accounted for 40% of the bloc’s total supply before the escalation of the conflict and the imposition of unilateral sanctions by Brussels. “We are now seeing the situation steadily worsening. This is what we have been talking about. Another year will pass, and where else can it go? If there is a normal cold winter, this will become a real problem,” Miller told Russia’s TASS news agency on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum on Sunday. The EU does not fully grasp the scale of the challenge in refilling underground gas storage ahead of the heating season, Miler warned, adding that there is little time left to address the issue. The bloc imports nearly 90% of its natural gas and Russia still supplies a significant share despite sanctions. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a plan to phase out Russian oil and gas by 2027 under the REPowerEU strategy, aimed at accelerating the shift to renewables. The plan has faced resistance from Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily reliant on Russian pipeline gas. Bratislava initially blocked the EU’s 18th sanctions package targeting Russia’s energy and financial sectors, citing risks of shortages and price spikes, while Budapest joined the veto and pressed for concessions on energy and REPowerEU rules. The bloc ultimately adopted the package last month after overcoming opposition from both countries. Moscow has called the measures self-defeating, blaming them for soaring energy prices and a weaker EU economy. View the full article

I read the news today and felt something primal: fear. Not just worry or frustration, but that deep, gut-level sense that something has gone terribly wrong and no one is coming to fix it. It’s not just the steady drumbeat of rights being stripped away — though that’s bad enough. It’s the creeping sense that the ground rules of American life are being rewritten before our eyes. The Supreme Court rolls back rights our grandparents fought for. The president and his allies fuel division and anger. Laws target immigrants, the LGBTQIA+ community, women, and anyone who doesn’t fit a narrow, frightened definition of “American.” But this goes deeper than policy. It’s about the deliberate targeting of those seen as “undesirable.” The machinery of government is being harnessed to police, punish, and erase — just as it was in other dark chapters of world history. It feels like 1939 all over again — the year Nazi Germany invaded Poland and truly became the Third Reich’s war machine — when authoritarianism stopped being a threat and became the official state of affairs. Let’s call it what it is: This is Nazi America. The comparisons aren’t just rhetorical flourishes — they’re warnings from history. The shameful truth is that the Supreme Court of the land has become complicit. It’s scripted, predictable — its decisions less about justice than about consolidating power for the few and punishing the vulnerable. Each ruling seems designed to move us further from the promise of equality and closer to the machinery of oppression. Project 2025 — the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a far-right takeover of the federal government — isn’t a secret plan. It’s public, organized, and funded by a coalition of groups determined to rewrite the rules of American democracy. Project 2025 calls for purging the civil service, filling every federal post with loyalists, and stripping away decades of civil rights protections. It’s a roadmap for weaponizing the Department of Justice against political enemies and silencing dissent. It promises the rollback of protections for immigrants, the LGBTQIA+ community, women, and anyone outside the “acceptable” mold. It aims to criminalize protest, stifle the press, and consolidate power at the very top — an authoritarian wish list hiding in plain sight. This is not theoretical. Book bans. Censorship. The criminalization of teachers, doctors, parents. Vigilante laws and bounty hunters. Immigration raids that split families and terrorize communities. Project 2025 is already underway — piece by piece, law by law, ruling by ruling. Usually, I write about Black America — because that’s my lane, my lens, my lived experience. I know the terrain: the long struggle for dignity, the familiar ache of injustice, the history that never quite lets us go. But today, I can’t help but step outside my own shadow. What’s happening now isn’t just about one community. It’s about the soul of the whole country. We are being shown — clearly and openly — how a democracy is dismantled. It happens not in a single moment, but in a thousand coordinated steps: through legislation, court rulings, executive orders, and the normalization of cruelty. The blueprint is right in front of us. History isn’t repeating; it’s being reenacted with American accents and 21st-century technology. Because this is how it starts. Not with gas chambers, but with laws. Not with jackboots, but with bureaucrats. The machinery gets built, piece by piece, until one day the unimaginable becomes the law of the land. There’s no comfort in denial. There’s no safety in silence. The warnings are everywhere. The danger is real. The line between past and present is thinner than most people think. What once seemed impossible is already happening. The rights and freedoms we took for granted are being taken away, step by step. This is not a drill. This is how a nation unravels: one law at a time, one freedom at a time, one group at a time. If we ignore what’s happening now, we can’t pretend later that we didn’t know. We saw it coming. The responsibility is ours. History will judge what we did with the truth we had. I promised myself that I wouldn’t speak on these issues, that I’d hold my tongue and focus on other work. But the headlines demand that I do. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t afraid. History shows us what happens to those who speak out against rising authoritarianism. Sometimes, the people who dare to warn others become the targets — censored, silenced, or worse. That fear is real. And if you’re feeling it too, you’re not alone. It’s a sign of how far things have gone, how thin the line is between safety and repression, between democracy and something darker. But silence won’t protect us. If enough of us speak, it becomes much harder to silence everyone. The time to decide what side of history we’re on is now. FYI: I stand in solidarity with the oppressed. Originally published on Daily Kos, where the community’s engagement took this essay to #1 and led to hundreds of thoughtful comments. I’m honored by the response and eager to continue the dialogue here. — This post was previously published on medium.com. *** Does dating ever feel challenging, awkward or frustrating? Turn Your Dating Life into a WOW! with our new classes and live coaching. Click here for more info or to buy with special launch pricing! *** —– Photo credit: Image created using AI tools (OpenAI’s DALL·E, 2025). Note: This image is AI-generated and does not depict a real person.W. Smith III(Author) The post Oh My God! What Country Are We Living In? — And What Year Is This? appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

That’s how many years a human could live if we hack aging at the DNA level. The post 20,000 appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

Paying too much for cloud services? Check this out. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI, is built for speed, power and serious savings, without the usual cloud headaches. That’s why some of the biggest AI innovators trust it. Try it for free right now. The post Paying too much for cloud services appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee. Tsukerman views U.S. visa revocations for PA/PLO officials and suspension of a Gaza childcare program as charged steps complicating any PA role in post-Hamas Gaza. In South Korea, she links indictments to entrenched corruption undermining public trust. In South Africa, she doubts a G20 inequality study will overcome ANC cronyism. Thailand’s ouster of Paetongtarn Shinawatra signals elite power struggles. She praises UAE prodigy Roudha Al Serkal’s WGM title as a significant step forward. Tsukerman condemns Russia’s occupation tactics in Zaporizhzhia and the Taliban’s escalating repression of Afghan women. Interview conducted August 29, 2025. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we are back here with Everywhere Insiders, a mix of Associated Press and Reuters, today. The U.S. State Department, under Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has revoked the visas of several Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization officials ahead of a high-level meeting at the UN General Assembly. The groups previously maintained representatives in the United States. The State Department has also suspended a program that allowed some injured Palestinian children from Gaza to come to the U.S. for medical treatment. This decision reportedly followed political pressure from conservative voices on social media. It is unclear whether Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas himself will be affected by these visa restrictions. Any thoughts? Irina Tsukerman: So far, the administration has not declared Abbas persona non grata, and it would not be easy to do so for the head of the Palestinian Authority. It is, however, noteworthy that this step was taken even as discussions continue about who might govern Gaza if Israel succeeds in removing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority has been floated as a possible candidate. Reports indicate that Egypt has been training Palestinian security forces for a potential role in Gaza’s administration and post-conflict stabilization. Those would be personnel from the West Bank working in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. Essentially, the U.S. move signals that at least some members of the PA and PLO are viewed as problematic, citing reasons such as corruption, prior or ongoing support for terrorism, or human rights abuses. However, the administration has not provided detailed evidence publicly. If alternative leadership is being considered for Gaza, it has not been made clear who those figures would be. Israel and the UAE have discussed potential candidates, but no confirmation has been made. This step by Washington complicates the prospect of the Palestinian Authority taking on a leadership role in Gaza. It makes U.S. diplomatic involvement in such an arrangement more awkward, given that several PA-linked officials have now been sanctioned. On the medical program, Democrats in Congress are pressing for its reinstatement. Conservatives have raised concerns for several reasons. First, they object in principle to foreign nationals receiving medical care in the U.S. funded through American programs or resources. Second, they argue that hospitals in Israel, Egypt, or closer regional facilities are better positioned to treat most injuries, with only highly complex cases requiring U.S. expertise. Third, conservatives worry that family members accompanying injured children could include individuals with ties to Hamas, who might overstay their visas or cause security issues in the U.S. The concern is that the medical program could be exploited as a means of entry under pretenses. Historically, most Palestinian children in need of specialized care have been treated in Israeli hospitals, in the West Bank, or in countries like Egypt and Jordan, with some also going to Europe or the Gulf states. Relatively few cases involved travel to the U.S., particularly after restrictions on movement in and out of Gaza tightened in recent years. Nevertheless, the program existed, and its suspension has become a public controversy. Even if it was rarely used, the fact that it has now been explicitly revoked has elevated it into the headlines. Moreover, it is not the fact of how many people were actually utilizing it. However, the fact that it existed and is now being shut down—presumably as a political measure—is causing the outcry. If there were zero children actually coming to the U.S. and it was quietly defunded for that reason, I do not think anyone would have even noticed. However, because it was made into a public gesture, I think that is part of the reason for the pushback, at least theoretically. People are saying that it is not a good look because the kids have no involvement in any combat-related activities and, therefore, should not be penalized for any potential violations by their family members. Jacobsen: The wife of South Korea’s former president was indicted Friday as part of investigations into his administration in an attempt to overcome opposition by declaring martial law. Yoon Suk-yeol is the jailed ex-president. The historical context is that South Korea has had several political crises involving corruption, bribery, and abuse of authority. However, there was no successful imposition of martial law by Yoon Suk-yeol. Any thoughts on this continuing saga? Tsukerman: Yes. The key issue here is that allegations of corruption in South Korea—whether involving financial misconduct, bribery, or influence peddling—have repeatedly eroded public trust in leadership. Past leaders have sometimes used claims of national security threats or foreign interference to justify strong measures; however, these claims have not always been substantiated. In this case, the underlying driver is corruption, involving not only financial misconduct by leaders themselves but also by their close associates and family members. Attempts to cover up such wrongdoing by framing it as a national security issue can backfire, causing more long-term damage to South Korea’s institutions and public confidence than if the leader had resigned outright. What is interesting is that subsequent administrations have taken a different tack, especially in foreign policy. Some leaders have sought a more dovish approach toward North Korea, engaging in dialogue and peace overtures, even though Pyongyang has often rejected them. South Korea has demonstrated openness to supporting U.S.-led diplomatic initiatives, as seen when former President Donald Trump pursued meetings with Kim Jong-un. So, while corruption scandals weaken domestic governance, they also intersect with South Korea’s broader security posture, raising the question of whether short-term political survival tactics have created greater instability than doing nothing at all. Jacobsen: South Africa has commissioned an inequality report for the G20 summit, announced on Thursday, August 28. South Africa has appointed American Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who is widely respected, to lead a group of six experts in compiling the report and presenting it to world leaders. Kenya-based nonprofit Oxfam, which regularly releases reports on wealth inequality, stated in June that the wealth of the wealthiest 1% has surged by $33.9 trillion since 2015—an amount they argue could eliminate global poverty 22 times over. I am not familiar with the precise definition of poverty that Oxfam uses. South Africa itself is ranked as one of the most unequal countries in the world. Any thoughts on this? Tsukerman: I do think there is value in studying inequality, but given the level of corruption within the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African government more broadly, I am not sure whether such a study will be conducted fairly or provide real insight into the causes of the current situation. The root causes of inequality in South Africa are self-evident. A small minority controls vast resources, often using political connections to dominate industries and significant sectors of the economy. That naturally results in limited upward mobility for most citizens unless they are politically connected. This system has persisted for decades. The ANC, historically supported by the Soviet Union, inherited some of the same political and economic tendencies, where elites benefited disproportionately compared to the general population. Although South Africa today has a multi-party system, the ANC’s dominance means corruption and cronyism remain entrenched. If the ANC genuinely wanted to address inequality, it would need to allow a more competitive political environment and reduce the stranglehold of monopolistic forces that control both politics and resources—whether energy, mining, or transportation. Without that, studying inequality alone risks being an exercise in futility. I also question the timing. Commissioning such a study right before the G20 summit seems more like a public relations move to appear responsive to global concerns rather than a serious attempt to tackle inequality. If they had started earlier, they could have presented both data and tangible progress. As it stands, this feels performative. It appears that South Africa is commissioning this study not for genuine impact, but rather for presentation purposes—something polished to show at an international gathering, only to be shelved afterward until the next summit. Meanwhile, the country faces very real economic problems. There have been recurring energy blackouts, widespread corruption in the energy sector, and even allegations of internal sabotage. Public frustration is high over mismanagement and the perception that leaders are selling out national resources to foreign interests. South Africa has faced controversies over its ties with sanctioned states like Iran and Russia. While President Cyril Ramaphosa has at times attempted to reassure the U.S. and Western partners by downplaying such relationships, critics argue that little substantive change has occurred. If South Africa is serious about reform, it must hold accountable those within the ANC and its allies who are undermining the economy. That requires truly independent inquiries rather than ones controlled by the very political actors sustaining the status quo. Jacobsen: This one is significant. Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was dismissed today, Friday, by the Thai Constitutional Court for violating ethics. She is the sixth prime minister from, or backed by, the billionaire Shinawatra family to be removed by either the military or the judiciary in a two-decade struggle between the country’s rival elites. Paetongtarn was also Thailand’s youngest prime minister. A special session of Parliament is scheduled for early September to determine the way forward. Any thoughts? Tsukerman: The dismissal continues Thailand’s cycle of political instability. The Shinawatra family has dominated Thai politics for years, but members of the family—or leaders aligned with them—have repeatedly been ousted through coups or judicial rulings. Paetongtarn’s removal reflects both ongoing allegations of corruption and entrenched elite rivalries. There are also external dimensions. Thailand’s political crises often intersect with regional tensions, such as strained relations with Cambodia. Nationalist rhetoric, combined with opaque dealings between Thai and Cambodian elites, has fueled unrest. While international mediators, including the United States, have occasionally stepped in to pressure dialogue and de-escalation, these interventions rarely resolve the deeper domestic divides. Ultimately, Thailand’s instability stems from persistent elite infighting, recurring judicial interventions, and a lack of durable democratic protections for its population. The cycle of removing Shinawatra-linked leaders shows no signs of ending, and it continues to destabilize Thailand’s governance and credibility abroad. Thailand has suffered for decades from political turmoil—characterized by authoritarian crackdowns, populist measures employed for demagoguery, and persistent rivalries between entrenched factions. The dismissal of Paetongtarn Shinawatra is clearly a blow to her supporters, who saw her position as a vehicle for advancing their factional interests. However, this does not mean a new appointment will improve Thailand’s prospects or ease tensions with Cambodia. What is needed is sustained, serious diplomacy to address long-standing regional disputes. Internally, Thailand faces the deeper issue that the same political elites continue to dominate, regardless of which figurehead is in power. Their constant infighting rarely translates into better governance or more opportunities for the Thai public. The reality is that Thailand’s political culture has become entrenched in cycles of corruption, judicial intervention, and elite power struggles. Without systemic reform, simply replacing one official with another will not deliver stability or progress for ordinary citizens. Jacobsen: That covers much heavy political news. Let us look at something positive. A recent milestone for women’s representation in sports: 16-year-old Roudha Al Serkal from the United Arab Emirates has become the first woman from the Gulf region to earn the title of Woman Grandmaster in chess. She achieved the title during the Arab Women’s Chess Championship, scoring enough points to qualify for the title. Al Serkal, who is from Abu Dhabi, is now celebrated as a breakthrough figure for Gulf women in international chess. This is being hailed as a win for Emirati women in a sport long dominated by men. It is also being framed in some reporting as a Gulf-wide achievement. Any thoughts? Tsukerman: This is indeed a positive development. In several Gulf countries—particularly the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia—there has been a notable increase in women’s political empowerment, social visibility, and ability to pursue careers and activities that were once largely inaccessible to them. In the UAE, for example, women have become increasingly active in business, cultural activities, and now in sports, such as chess. This is not entirely new—elite women in the region have historically had some visibility—but what is different now is the broader participation beyond just the ruling or elite families. That said, there are important nuances. Saudi Arabia, despite its reputation for strict conservatism, is a much larger and more diverse society, with over 30 million people and a long history of urban centers where women have been relatively engaged and active. The harshest restrictions on women were more common in rural, tribal, and suburban areas. In contrast, the UAE is a smaller country with a more closely knit population. While it has long been outward-looking in trade and business, its social norms have, on average, been more conservative. The increased visibility of Emirati women—whether in business, diplomacy, or sports like chess—is the result of many years of gradual internal change. Unlike Saudi Arabia, where reforms under recent leadership were rolled out in sweeping public announcements, the UAE’s progress has been quieter and less internationally publicized, but still significant. It is encouraging to see Emirati women gaining more opportunities and recognition. Realistically, conservative family structures in the UAE will continue to shape society for some time, and women’s political power remains limited—diplomatic and official roles exist. However, they are not yet close to decision-making authority. Even so, the progress matters. It has the potential to create opportunities not just for elite women, but also for middle- and working-class women, making society more vibrant and inclusive over time. So, a symbolic gain, but still important. It is an improvement, and in this context, even symbolic change carries weight. Jacobsen: Let us go with the short version here. Russia’s occupation of Zaporizhzhia, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, has kept the region a focus point since the invasion. Enerhodar, once a thriving city of around 50,000 people, has now been described by Reuters as a “ghost town,” with reports of intimidation and seemingly arbitrary detentions aimed at erasing Ukrainian identity. What are your thoughts on Russia’s use of terror, intimidation, and cultural erasure in this particular area? Tsukerman: None of this should come as a surprise. Cultural erasure—bordering on genocidal intent—is part of Russia’s strategy in Ukraine. Russian officials and state-linked figures have made repeated calls for the liquidation or re-education of Ukrainians, rhetoric that clearly indicates genocidal intent. Disturbingly, such statements have not triggered proportionate international political consequences. The European Union has imposed successive rounds of sanctions—now in the high teens—but sanctions alone have not altered Russia’s fundamental objectives. Russia has been remarkably successful at infiltrating Western political discourse, normalizing the idea that Ukraine is not truly sovereign and advancing the narrative that Russia has some “rightful” role there. This undermines Ukraine’s international standing and emboldens further aggression. On the ground, Russia has combined repression with depopulation. Many residents of Enerhodar and the surrounding area have fled, both out of fear of repression and because Russia cannot be trusted to manage nuclear infrastructure safely. Russia has a long history of corruption, negligence, and poor maintenance in technical and nuclear facilities—a legacy from Soviet times that persists today. There have even been questions about the functionality of its own nuclear arsenal due to chronic mismanagement. When it comes to captured infrastructure like the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Russia’s attitude is deeply troubling: a mix of arrogance, nihilism, and disregard for human life—including its own soldiers. That creates a real risk of a nuclear accident under occupation, whether through incompetence or neglect. This danger is a primary reason people have evacuated; no one wants to remain near a potential nuclear catastrophe. At the same time, Russia benefits strategically from depopulating occupied regions. Fewer Ukrainians in the area means less risk of resistance, sabotage, or organized opposition. For Moscow, holding the nuclear plant is already a tactical and symbolic success—they prefer to reduce the local population rather than face ongoing civilian resistance. What astonishes me is that the Zaporizhzhia plant has not become the subject of far more urgent and focused diplomatic negotiations. The potential consequences of an accident are catastrophic, not just for Ukraine but for Europe as a whole. Even an accidental discharge at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would be an environmental disaster, resulting in massive casualties. I do not understand why there has not been more international pressure to secure this area and negotiate it out of Russian hands. Of course, for Russia, this site represents significant leverage, and they would be very hesitant to part with it without demanding something substantial in return. At the very least, there should be sustained diplomatic efforts, given the sensitivity of the nuclear security issue in this conflict. A disaster at that plant could render parts of Ukraine uninhabitable for decades. Jacobsen: We have time for one more today. This one comes from UN News. At a press conference in Geneva, Sophia Kalthorp, UN Women’s Chief of Humanitarian Action, stated that despite existing bans, Afghan people overwhelmingly want girls to have access to education. Reportedly, more than 90% of Afghan adults support the right of girls to be in school, despite the Taliban’s restrictions. As I understand it, the Taliban bans girls from education beyond grade six. Any thoughts? Tsukerman: The UN has been remarkably ineffective in pressuring the Taliban. The regime has not been weakened by international non-recognition; instead, it has leveraged economic and geopolitical partnerships to entrench its rule. Despite horrific reports of repression—including banning girls from secondary and higher education, restricting women from most jobs, prohibiting them from travelling without a male guardian, and even imposing rules about women not being visible through windows in their own homes—the Taliban has managed to build ties abroad. Russia, for example, removed the Taliban from its list of terrorist organizations and has invited Taliban officials to international forums. Reports suggest that Russian security services have even provided training and assistance in camps. China and Iran have also increased their engagement, particularly through energy and trade deals. Pakistan remains central to the Taliban’s rise and survival, despite ongoing border clashes, while India has cautiously opened diplomatic channels to counter Pakistani influence. At the same time, the Taliban attempts to present itself internationally as a legitimate government. Some of its so-called initiatives—such as claims that banning women under 35 from driving reduces greenhouse emissions—are absurd and highlight their instrumentalization of policy for control and propaganda rather than genuine governance. Western governments have also engaged selectively: for example, the UK has negotiated with the Taliban over the return of Afghan refugees, with the Taliban promising housing and economic support for returnees. However, none of this changes the fundamental reality: the Taliban continues to erase women from public life systematically, and international engagement has so far failed to reverse or even slow that trend. Jacobsen: Do you have any more comments on that? Tsukerman: Yes. To finish the point, while the Taliban has promised to build housing for Afghans being expelled from the UK, Iran, Pakistan, and other countries, and might be using resources from energy and trade deals to do so, repression inside Afghanistan has not lessened. In fact, it has continued to intensify, particularly against women. Germany has also entered the picture. It has negotiated the return of certain Afghan nationals classified as criminals under German law, arranging their transfer under heavy security convoys and specific conditions. I find it troubling that so much emphasis is placed on returning such individuals, while far less focus is directed toward protecting the rights of ordinary Afghans who are not criminals and who face severe repression at home. The humanitarian priority should be securing the safety and rights of the vulnerable, rather than simply expelling offenders. Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina. — Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations. *** If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today. Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo by Global Residence Index on Unsplash The post Everywhere Insiders 13: U.S. Visa Moves, Gaza Care, and Power appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Caracas is set to send 25,000 soldiers to coastal states after American warships arrived in the Caribbean to counter drug cartels Venezuela is set to boost its military deployments in coastal and border states amid heightened tensions with the US. The move comes after Washington dispatched several warships to the Southern Caribbean last month in what it describes as an operation against drug cartels. Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez announced on Sunday that President Nicolas Maduro had ordered the deployment of “all available” troops and equipment to the states of Zulia, Falcon, Nueva Esparta, Sucre, and Delta Amacuro. He added that Caracas will increase troop deployments from around 10,000 to 25,000, noting that the area constitutes a “drug trafficking route.” “No one is going to step on this land and do what we’re supposed to do,” Padrino said in a video uploaded to social media. Last month, Venezuela also mobilized 15,000 troops to its border with Colombia. The latest deployments come amid weeks of rising tensions with Washington. The US has mobilized three warships and around 4,000 troops to the Southern Caribbean, saying the operations are aimed at countering drug cartels. Last week, the US Navy sank a boat it claimed was transporting drugs from Venezuela, killing 11 people. After the incident, two Venezuelan jets conducted a flyover of a US warship. President Donald Trump has said Venezuelan planes could be shot down if they pose a threat to American vessels. Despite Washington’s claims that its operations are focused on combating drug trafficking, Maduro has accused the US of seeking regime change in Venezuela. He has urged Washington to abandon its alleged plans, saying he respects Trump and that Caracas is open to dialogue. He has also vowed to declare Venezuela a “republic in arms” if attacked. Last week, Trump denied seeking regime change, but questioned Maduro’s legitimacy. He has also argued that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans from drugs justify expanded US military activity in the Caribbean. The US is currently offering a $50 million bounty for information leading to Maduro’s arrest, accusing him of collaborating with organized crime groups. Maduro has repeatedly denied the allegations. View the full article

The Ukrainian leader risks alienating the only power besides Moscow with a realistic approach to ending the war In a weekend interview with ABC News, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky accused US President Donald Trump of giving Russian President Vladimir Putin “what he wanted” at the Alaska summit in August. Whether a passing complaint or a calculated jab, it may come at a steep cost for Zelensky. To suggest that Trump bent to Putin’s will is to imply weakness, and weakness is something Trump never tolerates being accused of. This rhetorical swipe was directed at a man who holds significant sway over the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine war. For Zelensky, the insult may prove more damaging than cathartic. Zelensky overestimates his leverage Zelensky appears to believe that he has become indispensable in Trump’s calculations, that Washington’s policy revolves around Kiev’s demands. But this overstates his importance. Trump has been consistent about one priority: he wants the war to end, and more than that, he wants the US disentangled from it. His approach reflects the sentiment of much of the American public – weary of sending weapons and aid overseas while domestic problems fester. By framing Trump’s summit with Putin as a giveaway, Zelensky risks alienating the one Western leader positioned to actually shift the direction of the war. Trump is sensitive to personal slights. For years, allies and adversaries alike have learned that once he feels personally insulted, he hardens, not softens. To tell Trump, in effect, that he’s Putin’s stooge is to court precisely that reaction. Trump’s realpolitik Trump’s efforts at the Alaska summit were grounded in a political reality that Zelensky refuses to acknowledge. The battlefield is not tilting in Kiev’s favor. Russia’s position, bolstered by sheer resources and strategic depth, is proving resilient. Ukraine’s European backers continue to speak in lofty terms of standing “as long as it takes,” but they lack the power to deliver a Ukrainian victory. Trump, by contrast, pursued a path that might actually move events forward: direct talks with Russia, engagement on security concerns, and the search for a negotiated framework. It is not an approach designed to satisfy Zelensky and the Europeans’ maximalist goals but rather one rooted in ending an exhausting conflict. To dismiss this effort as capitulation is to ignore that it may be the most realistic option still on the table. The rhetoric of survival vs. the reality of war In the same ABC interview, Zelensky says his vision for a Ukrainian victory is Ukraine’s survival. Yet his strategy as evident from his actions appears geared less toward survival and more toward dragging the war on for as long as possible. Each new demand for weapons, each new appeal for escalated sanctions, pushes the conflict forward without changing the battlefield reality of Russia grinding forward toward its objectives – and whatever Zelensky claims, total occupation of Ukraine is not one of those objectives. In the name of “survival,” Ukraine is exhausting its people, its infrastructure, and its economy. If survival truly is the goal, then ending the war must be the only priority. Right now, Trump has the best shot at it, because he is realistically engages with the interests of Russia – the side that has the clear upper hand on the battlefield. And Zelensky is pushing that opportunity away. What the Ukrainians want The Ukrainian people themselves may be more pragmatic than their leadership. Polling suggests a stark divide: only a small minority – just 11%, according to a recent survey – favor continuing the war without conditions. Meanwhile, overwhelming majorities favor pursuing talks with Russia. This does not mean embracing defeat, but it does mean recognizing that endless escalation is not the preferred path for those getting forcibly conscripted and those seeing their loved ones getting carted off to war. For Zelensky, this creates a dangerous disconnect. Leaders cannot stay indefinitely ahead of their populations without eroding legitimacy. To ignore the public’s exhaustion while doubling down on maximalist rhetoric risks creating a gulf between the government’s objectives and its people’s endurance. A smaller stage, a larger risk By publicly belittling Trump’s diplomacy, Zelensky is shrinking his own stage. He portrays himself as the bulwark of Europe, the last line holding back a supposed “Russian aggression.” Yet without sustained Western backing, Ukraine cannot hold indefinitely. And of all Ukraine’s backers, the US remains the most consequential. Alienating the leader who wants to end US involvement – whether one agrees with his motives or not – is a perilous gamble. Zelensky’s rhetoric may win applause in certain European capitals. It may even rally a domestic audience for a time. But it risks costing him the one relationship he cannot afford to lose. Trump is not moved by appeals to shared values or by grand speeches about democracy. He is moved by respect and recognition of his central role. By suggesting Trump has already caved to Putin, Zelensky undermines both. Zelensky’s statement reveals a leader more focused on preserving his narrative than recalibrating his strategy. Words matter in diplomacy, especially when those words are aimed at a figure like Donald Trump. In calling Trump weak, Zelensky may have weakened his own hand. If his true goal is Ukraine’s survival, then it will not be secured through rhetorical bravado. It will require careful diplomacy, acknowledgment of battlefield realities, and avoiding needless insults to the one partner whose departure from the stage could lead to even more disaster for Zelensky’s regime than it has already created for itself. View the full article