Nov 30(Jowhar)-Ciidamada Xoogga Dalka ayaa howlgallo ka dhan ah Khawaarijta ka wada deegaanno ka tirsan Gobolka Shabeellaha Dhexe, gaar ahaan Deegaanka Xawaadley oo duqeymo iyo weerar toos ah loogu geysaday cadowga.
Trump urges Venezuela’s skies be regarded as off-limits
When a Single Social Post Grounded a Nation: The Day Caracas Held Its Breath
It began with a blunt pronouncement on a Sunday morning feed that felt more like a declaration from a movie set than a diplomatic communiqué.
“To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY,” read the terse message that rippled out from the seat of power in Washington and landed like a stone in the placid, fraught pond of Venezuelan life.
What followed was confusion, anger, and a flood of questions. Airports jittered. Flight planners searched for confirmation. Families making holiday plans held their phones tighter. And in the narrow alleys of Caracas, people tried to pick up the thread of their day while a larger knot of geopolitics tightened overhead.
Caracas: small dramas inside a geopolitical storm
Walk through Sabana Grande or El Hatillo and you encounter a city that never quite settles into the ordinary. Vendors call out over sizzling arepas; children in faded school uniforms chase pigeons; elderly men sip espresso on cracked sidewalks. Yet even these rhythms felt disrupted after the post. “It’s like someone pulled the rug out from under us,” said Rosa Mendoza, a schoolteacher, watching a group of tourists rebook their flights at the airport kiosk. “People are supposed to be with family this week — now everything is uncertain.”
At Simón Bolívar International Airport, employees did what they could with scant information — fielding calls, checking notices, and consoling travelers. Manuel Vargas, an airport ground handler, described a parade of anxious faces. “There were people crying, there were grandparents who had planned to fly out to see their grandchildren,” he said. “We don’t know how to explain this to them when nobody is giving us straight answers.”
The strategic puzzle: what closing airspace actually means
Blanket statements are easy. Enforcement is not. Military analysts and former officers were quick to underline that declaring airspace “closed” is light on specifics and heavy on implications.
“Closing airspace can mean anything from a travel advisory to a no-fly zone enforced by combat air patrols and surface-to-air defenses,” said an aviation security consultant with decades of regional experience. “The difference between a declaration and an act is measured in ships, fighters, logistics and, crucially, legal authority.”
The practical challenges are tremendous. A sustained no-fly zone requires persistent surveillance, control of approaches, and rules of engagement — not to mention overflight permissions from neighboring countries. It also risks creating dangerous encounters between military and civilian aircraft if coordination breaks down.
Law, sovereignty, and rhetoric
The Venezuelan government called the statement a “colonialist threat” and lodged official condemnations, framing the message as an attack on national sovereignty. President Nicolás Maduro and his ministers, who have been in power since 2013, used state television to decry what they described as the latest in a long line of U.S. interventions — a narrative that resonates with many Venezuelans who remember past foreign interventions in Latin America.
An international law scholar I spoke with emphasized the legal minefield. “Under international law, closing another country’s airspace without consent is an act that would require a clear legal basis — such as Security Council authorization or an invitation from the legitimate government,” she said. “Absent that, declarations of closure are largely rhetorical unless backed by boots, ships and munitions.”
On the water and in the sky: a backdrop of mounting operations
The president’s social post did not emerge from a vacuum. For weeks, the region had seen increased U.S. military activity across the Caribbean and sustained strikes on vessels suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. U.S. officials have publicly tied their operations to a campaign aimed at curbing fentanyl and cocaine flows that U.S. leaders say originate or transship through Venezuela — allegations Maduro denies.
Reports indicate the U.S. has been considering a broad menu of actions, from sanctions and covert operations to more kinetic military options. Some analysts say covert measures are already in play. Others point to the fragility of the humanitarian and migratory crisis that has driven more than 7 million Venezuelans from the country in the past decade, according to UN and regional agency estimates, as a reason for caution.
On the ground: human consequences and everyday worries
For ordinary Venezuelans, what matters most is practical: can they fly to medical appointments? Will visiting relatives arrive in time for the holidays? Migration has already reshaped families and livelihoods across the region. “My brother lives in Bogotá,” said Laura, a nurse in central Caracas. “We had planned to see each other this year. Now I don’t know if the flight will go, and when you live half a continent away from peace, each travel plan is a fragile thing.”
Businesses that rely on quick international connections — importers, exporters, small tour operators — also felt the tremor. Airlines, too, face tough choices. After the U.S. aviation authorities issued warnings about heightened military activity, several carriers temporarily suspended routes, prompting Venezuela to revoke the operating rights of six international airlines that halted flights. The tug-of-war between safety, sovereignty and commerce is visible in every delay and cancellation.
Voices from the street and the experts
“We are not actors in someone else’s propaganda,” a local bar owner snapped when pressed about the geopolitical narrative. “We have children who need medicine, and workers who must fly for their jobs. Policies like this can hurt ordinary people more than anyone else.”
A retired military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, framed the declaration as a signaling move. “Statements of this kind are often meant to flex muscle rather than to be followed immediately by kinetic action,” he said. “But rhetoric can escalate. Misinterpretation at 30,000 feet can have dangerous consequences.”
What does this mean for the region and the world?
Beyond the drama of a single social post lies a set of persistent, global themes: the struggle between state sovereignty and transnational crime; the humanitarian fallout of political and economic collapse; the blurred line between counter-narcotics efforts and geopolitical stratagems; and the question of who gets to decide the rules of the sky.
We live in an age when a single message can reshape markets, reroute flights and inflame national pride from half a world away. That power demands responsibility. Who, ultimately, bears the cost when high-stakes policy plays are carried out with little public explanation? Whose lives are disrupted in the name of deterrence?
Questions to carry forward
As you read this from wherever you are — from a capital city boardroom or a provincial kitchen — consider this: what limits should govern the use of military language in diplomacy? When does “security” become a cover for coercion? And how do we protect civilians whose lives are folded into strategic chess games?
The air above Venezuela may be a matter of national boundary, military logistics, and legal jurisdiction. But for the families in Caracas waiting at airport gates, the diplomats drafting policy memos, and the migrants scanning flight boards for a slim chance to cross a border, it is simply the sky under which they live. On that day, the sky felt very close and very contested — and the rest of the world watched, unsettled, as decisions that could reshape lives dangled in the balance.
Inkabadan 600 qof oo ku dhintay Daadad ku dhuftay Koofurta Aasiya
Nov 30(Jowhar)-Roobab mahiigaan ah ayaa dhaliyay daadad iyo dhul go’ ka dhacay guud ahaan qeybo ka mid ah koonfurta Aasiya, waxaana ku dhintay ku dhawaad 600 oo qof.
Pope Concludes Turkey Visit, Prepares to Travel to Lebanon
Rain, choral echoes and an ancient promise: A pope’s pilgrimage from Istanbul to Beirut
Under a pewter sky on the edge of the Bosphorus, rain stitched itself into the fabric of the day as thousands gathered to see a pope who has barely had time to claim a papal ring.
Pope Leo XIV — the first pontiff from the United States — arrived in Turkey for a four-day visit that felt part liturgy, part diplomatic tightrope. He moved from the marble hush of Istanbul’s churches to the red-tiled serenity of Iznik, a town that remembers the First Council of Nicaea as if it were yesterday. Along the way he met President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, shared a table with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, and signed a joint declaration that promised “new and courageous steps” toward Christian unity. Then, like a seasoned traveler following an urgent calling, he packed his suitcases for Lebanon — a nation that is burning slowly and needs a voice more than pontifical protocol.
A wet morning, a warm welcome
Rain did nothing to deter the faithful. They came from across Turkey, some in slickers, some under umbrellas made soggy by the drizzle. The mass was multilingual — Turkish, Arabic, Greek, Latin — a small mirror of Christianity’s global patchwork. Choirs rose and fell in haunting harmonies that seemed to hang in the air long after the music ended. For many, it wasn’t just a liturgical performance: it was a visible, audible assertion that the Christian presence in Turkey, small as it is, refuses to vanish.
“We came because this is history,” said Elena Markarian, a grandmother from the Armenian quarter. “We wanted our grandchildren to hear the hymns, to see the pope, to know that our prayers are counted.”
Official figures underscore how rare such gatherings are here. Turkey, a nation of roughly 86 million people, is overwhelmingly Muslim; its Christian community numbers in the low hundreds of thousands. Yet the emotional density of those who showed up felt disproportionate to those statistics — proof that faith communities carry memory and meaning far beyond census numbers.
Iznik, Nicaea and a 1,700-year-old conversation
In Iznik, the modern relived an ancient argument with grace. The town’s narrow lanes recall mosaics and bishops, old theological quarrels and the birth of a creed that would define Christendom. This trip marked 1,700 years since the Council of Nicaea convened in 325 AD, an event that helped crystallize Christian doctrine and set theological lines that, centuries later, would harden into schism.
By making pilgrimage to Iznik, Pope Leo XIV did something quiet but significant: he threaded his ministry through the same stones where Christianity first negotiated its collective voice. In the local tea gardens, vendors sold simit and sweet pastry to priests and pilgrims alike; children chased pigeons past centuries-old tile shops painted in the same cobalt blues that once decorated Orthodox churches.
“Nicaea is not a museum,” said Dr. Maria Rossi, an ecumenical studies scholar. “It is a living memory. The pope’s presence there reminds us that theological disputes of antiquity have legacies in our politics and our cultures. Symbolic gestures can catalyze concrete change if they are followed by patient work.”
Crossing a millennia-old divide
The day’s quiet climax came with a public liturgy at the Patriarchal Church of St. George and a private lunch with Patriarch Bartholomew I. The two leaders signed a joint declaration promising to take “new and courageous steps on the path towards unity.” They also agreed to continue efforts to establish a common date for Easter — a seemingly small clerical matter that carries outsized symbolic weight.
To understand the gravity of such gestures, consider the Great Schism of 1054, the rupture that split Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. For nearly a thousand years the churches have been speaking past and to one another rather than with each other. In recent times, the fissures have worsened — not least because the Russian Orthodox Church withdrew recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarch in disputes accelerated by geopolitics, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“Unity rarely looks like unanimity,” said Father Antoine Haddad, a Maronite priest who will meet the pope in Beirut. “It looks like two siblings learning to live in the same house. Sometimes it is loud, sometimes it is awkward, but it is always worth the work if it protects the weakest among us.”
Why Turkey matters — and why Lebanon beckons
Turkey, for all its secular institutions and Muslim-majority identity, remains a vital crossroad between East and West. The pope’s visit is the fifth by a pontiff to the country — following Paul VI in 1967, John Paul II in 1979, Benedict XVI in 2006, and Francis in 2014 — and each visit has had its own political and pastoral undertones.
Yet the trip’s second leg — Lebanon — may be where the pope’s words weigh the heaviest. Lebanon is a country of around 5.8 million people that has been battered by economic collapse since 2019, the catastrophic 2020 port explosion in Beirut, and recent conflicts along its southern border with Israel. Unemployment, currency collapse, and a mass exodus of professional talent have hollowed out civil society. Faith communities, once the engines of social services, are stretched thin.
“People here are not just looking for liturgy,” said Layla Mansour, a social worker in Beirut. “They want recognition that our suffering is real and that someone powerful will speak for our protection. A pope is more than a preacher; he is an amplifier.”
What to watch in Beirut
- The pope’s meetings with political and religious leaders — will they nudge toward ceasefires or humanitarian corridors?
- How the pontiff frames migration, economic aid, and the role of faith-based charities in rebuilding trust.
- Whether the visit galvanizes international attention, and potentially tangible resources, for a country in freefall.
Beyond symbolism: the hard work ahead
For many observers, the visit is a test of how spiritual symbolism translates into policy and compassion. Symbolic reconciling — a handshake here, a joint declaration there — can inspire, but without follow-through it risks becoming photo-op thinly veiled as diplomacy.
“The real question isn’t whether popes can bring together churches,” Dr. Rossi told me. “It is whether such meetings can translate into joint action on poverty, migration and the climate — issues where moral leadership is desperately needed.”
So ask yourself: what does reconciliation mean when nations are fractured and people are hungry? Can rituals on ancient soil help steer modern politics? And if you were standing in that rain in Istanbul, would you feel hope, skepticism, or both?
Pope Leo XIV’s trip reads like a carefully composed chord — liturgical notes, ancient echoes, political undertones. It’s a melody that can comfort, annoy, or inspire; what matters now is the next movement. Will it be a slow, patient symphony towards unity and relief, or will it fade into the long list of gestures that glitter briefly and then vanish?
In matters of faith and geopolitics, few answers are tidy. But for the people who braved the rain to stand in a marble courtyard and listen to voices lifted in prayer, the moment was not about tidy conclusions. It was about presence — an insistence that their stories, their songs, and their suffering are still part of the world’s moral imagination. That, in a city of bridges, is perhaps the most practical pastoral act of all.
Bedbug Infestation Forces Temporary Closure of Renowned Paris Cinema
When a Cinema’s Quiet Lights Went Out: Bedbugs, Panic and the Price of Public Trust
On a cool Parisian morning, the doors of the Cinémathèque Française stood open to a city that adores its cinemas like cathedrals. Then, almost overnight, the hush of projection bulbs was replaced by the low hum of vacuum cleaners, the metallic clank of dismantled seating and the clipped voices of technicians in protective suits. The institution announced a month-long closure of its screening halls after a series of bedbug sightings — including, strikingly, during a high-profile masterclass with actress Sigourney Weaver.
For many, it read like a modern urban fable: a venerable cultural palace interrupted by an insect that has been stalking human sleep for millennia. For those who were there, it felt much more immediate — itchy, unsettling and deeply intimate.
The moment it became real
“I felt something crawling along my ankle,” said Claire, 42, a regular at the Cinémathèque who traveled from Montreuil for the masterclass. “At first I thought it was a mosquito. Then someone across the row whispered that they had bites. We all started checking our clothes. It turned a glamorous night into something very small and very gross.”
Word spread fast. A few social media posts, a smattering of local reportage, and the art-house community found itself confronting a problem that refuses to be polished away by posterity or prestige.
“We had to act decisively,” said a Cinémathèque spokesperson in a statement announcing the closure. “All seats will be removed and treated; carpets and surfaces will undergo intensive cleaning and thermal treatment, and trained dogs will perform final sweeps.” The institution stressed that other parts of the building, including an ongoing Orson Welles exhibition, would remain accessible to visitors.
Why this matters beyond the itch
Bedbugs are not merely a nuisance. They are a public-health, economic and psychological problem that has come roaring back across cities worldwide over the past two decades. These flat, wingless insects — adult bedbugs are roughly the size of an apple seed — feed on human blood, typically at night, and are expert hiders. Mattresses, seams of upholstered seats, clothing hems, and the folds of luggage are their preferred refuges.
Exposure can lead to red welts, severe itching, and in some cases allergic reactions. The visible wounds are only part of the toll. “People report disrupted sleep, anxiety and a sense of contamination that can last long after the insects are gone,” explains Dr. Luc Moreau, an entomologist who studies urban pests. “The psychological overlay — shame, helplessness, hypervigilance — is often the most debilitating.”
Local authorities in France have acknowledged an uptick in infestations in recent years. In 2023, the government launched a coordinated effort to tackle bedbugs — a campaign that gained urgency as Paris prepared for the 2024 Olympics. Officials warned then that outbreaks had been reported on public transport, in communal housing and in some health facilities. The following year, authorities also said that disinformation on social platforms had amplified public alarm, spreading myths and fears that sometimes outpaced facts.
Cleaning by science and scent: how the Cinémathèque is responding
The remediation plan is methodical. Seats will be removed, disassembled and exposed to high-heat steam treatments repeatedly; carpets and fabrics will be similarly treated. Canine teams trained to detect bedbug scent will move through the halls for verification, a technique increasingly relied upon because humans and machines can miss tiny clusters hidden in crevices.
“Heat is our friend,” said Nadia Bertrand, a pest-management technician who has worked on infestations in heritage buildings before. “Bedbugs die at sustained temperatures above roughly 50°C. The dry steam they’re using is far hotter and, when applied correctly, will eradicate adults, nymphs and eggs.” She cautions, however, that the operation must be precise. “If you miss one seat or a seam in a carpet, it can repopulate.”
Beyond heat, integrated pest management calls for rigorous inspection, public education and sometimes chemical measures — used judiciously — to prevent recurring problems. The Cinémathèque’s choice to limit the closure to a month reflects both confidence in the treatment and a desire to balance public safety with cultural continuity.
Voices from the lobby
“I love discovering films here. It felt wrong to leave,” said Marco, 28, who had been at the masterclass. “But I also want the place to be safe. If that means closing and being thorough, so be it.”
Not everyone is convinced. “You tell people it’s fixed and then anxiety lingers,” said Aïcha, a Parisian who runs a small bookshop near the Bastille. “My aunt had an infestation once. She kept washing everything for months. It never really felt clean again.”
These reactions highlight a stubborn truth: pests are as much about perception as they are about biology. Public confidence in institutions — whether a transport authority, a hospital or a cinema — is fragile. And in an age of viral images and rapid rumor, managing a pest problem can be as much about communication as it is about extermination.
What this says about cities and modern life
Is there something specifically Parisian about this episode? Not really. Cities everywhere wrestle with the same paradox: dense human activity creates extraordinary cultural energy, and at the same time it creates perfect conditions for certain pests to thrive. Travelers and commuters move microbes, insects and myths across borders with equal ease.
Consider a few larger patterns:
- Urbanization concentrates people — and opportunities for pests to feed and hide.
- Global travel accelerates the spread of hitchhiking species; bedbugs often arrive in luggage.
- Stigma and shame delay reporting, which allows infestations to grow silently.
In this sense, the Cinémathèque closure is a small, vivid symptom of a global challenge. It is also a call to rethink the way public spaces are maintained — and how institutions communicate when something goes wrong.
Questions to sit with
How do we preserve the intimacy and communal pleasure of cinema while safeguarding public health? When a beloved institution falters, how should it regain trust? And how can communities confront pests without shame or panic?
Those are not easy questions. But they are important.
Final frames
When the Cinémathèque reopens, patrons will walk over freshly cleaned carpets and sit in seats that have been steamed, inspected and double-checked by dogs. The Orson Welles exhibit — an elegy to cinematic audacity — will still be there. The city will, as it always does, keep turning.
“We love films because they bring strangers together,” Claire said, summing up why she remains loyal. “If a few weeks of closure means the lights come back on for good, that’s worth it.”
And to you, dear reader: the next time you settle into a dim theater, let this be a reminder that the pleasures of public life require care — from the custodians sweeping the aisles to the institutions that must tell us, frankly and calmly, when something goes wrong.
Pope Makes Historic Visit to Istanbul’s Blue Mosque
Under the Blue Domes: A Quiet, Heavily Guarded Moment in Istanbul
The courtyard smelled of citrus and roasted chestnuts, the kind of aroma that seems to belong to every great city that has ever risen on a crossroads of civilizations. On a bright morning in Istanbul, pigeons hopped among feet and whispers as security vans rolled along the road. Inside the Sultan Ahmed Mosque — the Blue Mosque, as tourists know it — a pontiff from afar removed his shoes and stepped into a sky of Iznik tiles.
It was a small ritual and a heavy gesture all at once: a leader of the Roman Catholic Church pausing in one of Islam’s most iconic houses of prayer. For about fifteen minutes, Pope Leo XIV moved slowly beneath the mosque’s cascading domes, tracing centuries of Christian and Ottoman history in a place that has long symbolized Istanbul’s layered identity.
The sensory politics of a visit
Sunlight filtered through stained glass and fell like prayer on walls glazed in blue. The muezzin, Askin Tunca, who still calls the faithful to prayer from the mosque’s centuries-old pulpit, guided the pope through the nave. “He wanted to see the mosque, he wanted to feel the atmosphere of the mosque,” Tunca told reporters afterward, his voice both proud and weary. “He was very pleased.”
Short visits such as this are dense with meaning. They are not parliamentary addresses; they are theater and theology, diplomacy and devotion braided together. The last two popes to stand within these tiles did so here: Benedict XVI in 2006 and Francis in 2014. Each departure and return to this site is read — in capitals — by many as a message about rapprochement, tolerance, or the limitations of symbolic gestures.
Between gates and glass: spectators and security
Outside the mosque, the scene felt split. Behind high barriers, a few dozen onlookers — mostly foreign tourists with cameras and guidebooks — craned their necks for a glimpse. “The pope’s travels are always a beautiful thing because he brings peace with him,” said Roberta Ribola, a visitor from northern Italy, smiling despite the crush of cameras. “It’s good that people from different cultures meet.”
Closer to the stalls, local vendors watched with a more complicated mixture of curiosity and irritation. “People are fearful of what they do not know,” said Sedat Kezer, a street food seller whose cart smelled of lamb and spices. “It’s good when leaders cross thresholds. But all of this…” He gestured toward the cordons and helmeted officers. “He would seem more sincere if he mingled with the public. No one can see or touch him.”
Not everyone welcomed the visit. “The pope has no business here,” snapped Bekir Sarikaya, a Turkish tourist who said his elderly parents had traveled a long way to pray at the mosque but were unable to enter because of security restrictions. “They came for worship and they were turned away.” His wife, balancing a small handbag, replied more patiently: “We can visit churches in this city. He can visit our mosques. That is fairness.”
Accessibility vs. symbolism
The tension between gesture and lived interaction is an old one. Security is a practical necessity in a world where high-profile visits often draw not only admirers but risks. Yet when a visit is so tightly managed that it becomes a tableau rather than a meeting, questions arise: Who benefits from the image? Who is left out?
History’s long shadow: Hagia Sophia and the politics of space
In a city where churches became mosques and mosques became museums and then mosques again, every footstep is an act of reading history aloud. Pope Leo XIV did not visit Hagia Sophia, the sixth-century basilica that has been many things to many peoples. Built in 537 during the reign of Emperor Justinian, revered as a masterpiece of Byzantine architecture, then converted into a mosque under Ottoman rule, Hagia Sophia became a museum under the early Turkish republic before being designated again as a mosque in 2020 — a move that drew international criticism and emotional responses from many quarters.
“Places like Hagia Sophia are not only stone and mortar,” said a local historian watching the pope’s itinerary unfold. “They are stories. When you open and close those stories, people feel their pasts are being rewritten.”
What happens next: meetings, declarations, and liturgies
The pope’s day in Istanbul did not end beneath blue tiles. Later he met with local church leaders, joined a brief service at the Patriarchal Church of St. George, and visited Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I on the banks of the Golden Horn. There, they were expected to sign a joint declaration, a diplomatic paper whose content was withheld from the press but which signifies what the visible greeting could not: shared commitments on charity, peace, and mutual respect.
That evening, the pope was scheduled to lead a mass at the Volkswagen Arena, where some 4,000 worshippers were expected to attend. Tomorrow’s plans included an Armenian cathedral for prayers, followed by a divine liturgy — the Orthodox equivalent of a mass — at St. George’s. After that, the papal itinerary calls for a departure to Lebanon, the next stop on what has become his first overseas trip as pontiff.
Why these visits matter — and what they don’t solve
On one level, these engagements are about optics: photos of a pope removing his shoes before a mosque’s holy threshold, handshakes on a waterfront balcony, a joint statement signed in an ornate palace. On another level, they are old-fashioned diplomacy, at once pastoral and political. Interfaith dialogue, after all, is rarely a grand unveiling. It is often incremental, messy, and uneven.
“Symbolic acts are important,” said an interfaith practitioner who has worked in Istanbul for decades. “But they must be embedded in real, sustained work: educational programs, community partnerships, legal protections for minorities. Otherwise, they are postcards from a meeting.”
Questions for the reader
How should we judge such moments — by the optics they produce, or by the policies that follow? Is a fifteen-minute visit inside a mosque worth the attention it receives if it does not change everyday realities for people on the ground? And what do we ask of religious leaders in a century that so urgently needs both moral clarity and practical action?
There are no easy answers. But a city like Istanbul, where minarets puncture a skyline that once carried Byzantine domes and where pilgrims, tour groups, and daily commuters all brush shoulders, offers a living laboratory for those questions. The clatter of trays, the soft footfalls in prayer halls, the shouts of vendors — these are not props for diplomacy. They are the daily life that any meaningful gesture must reckon with.
After the visit: the long, quiet work
As the pope’s motorcade receded through the city’s winding streets, life outside the barriers resumed its usual rhythm. Tea vendors folded up their trays. Tourists consulted maps, still smiling. The Blue Mosque’s lamps glowed as evening fell, casting its mosaic blues into a softer, more private light.
Perhaps that is the point. Even the grandest gestures travel slowly from image to impact. The moment a leader steps across a threshold can open a door. Whether that door leads to long-term conversation or simply to a photograph depends on the patience and persistence of people — clerics and shopkeepers, scholars and street vendors, officials and ordinary citizens — who live with the consequences day after day.
What might you do, standing where those tiles meet the old stones? How would you turn a brief, symbolic moment into something that touches the grocery shelves, the classrooms, the neighborhood mosques and churches, and the legal protections that secure daily life? Istanbul has answers; it simply asks that we listen.
Trump Set to Pardon Former Honduran President Just Days Before Vote
A Pardon, a Post, and a Country Holding Its Breath
The rain had just stopped in Tegucigalpa, the air heavy with the scent of wet asphalt and frying plantains, when the news landed like a thunderclap: the president of the United States had stepped into the middle of Honduras’ election. It arrived not through an embassy communique or a carefully staged press conference, but as a short, blazing post on Truth Social — a pardon for a man convicted in New York, and a blunt warning about the future of U.S. aid.
Juan Orlando Hernández, who ran Honduras from 2014 to 2022 and was extradited to the United States after leaving office, was sentenced in March 2024 in a U.S. courtroom to 45 years for his role in facilitating drug shipments into the United States — accusations that prosecutors say involved some 400 metric tons of cocaine. The pardon, announced days before Hondurans cast ballots in what has already been described as a volatile and pivotal election, turned that legal punishment back into a political earthquake.
On the Ground: Voices in Tegucigalpa
“We were buying coffee when my brother showed me the post,” said Maribel Santos, a street vendor near the central market. “I thought my phone had been hacked. Who pardons a man convicted of sending so many deaths and addictions across our borders?”
Across town in a cramped living room, municipal utility worker Carlos Mendoza brushed his hands together as if wiping dust from his palms. “It feels like our sovereignty is being auctioned. They tell us who to prefer, and then they say they’ll stop money if we don’t listen. It’s humiliating,” he said.
Others were pragmatic: “If Mr. Trump wants to lend his weight to Nasry Asfura, fine,” said Elena Rivas, a teacher who said she planned to vote for the left. “But don’t use our poverty and our children to leverage your politics.”
Campaigns in Collision
Nine years after Honduras’ last major political crisis, the country finds itself in a tight three-way fight. Nasry Asfura — the 67-year-old former mayor of Tegucigalpa and a construction magnate — is the candidate of the right-wing National Party. He’s running against leftist Rixi Moncada, seen by many as the political heir to President Xiomara Castro, and Salvador Nasralla, a veteran TV host whose populist fire has made him a perennial spoiler.
In his post, the U.S. president reinforced an earlier endorsement of Asfura and took the additional step of tying future U.S. support to the election’s outcome. “If he doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad,” the message read. That line — short, cold, transactional — landed with particular force in a nation where remittances, foreign assistance, and the U.S. market are lifelines for millions.
Facts and Figures: A Quick Look
- Population: Honduras is home to roughly 10–11 million people.
- Remittances: Money sent home by migrants in the U.S. and elsewhere represents roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of Honduras’ GDP — a vital cushion for many households.
- Conviction: Juan Orlando Hernández was convicted in March 2024 in New York and sentenced to 45 years; prosecutors alleged he facilitated the trafficking of about 400 metric tons of cocaine over many years.
- Regional security: The U.S. has conducted a titanic interdiction and military campaign in Latin America aimed at drug networks; more than 80 people have been killed in strikes in international waters related to these operations.
Why This Matters — Beyond One Election
We should ask ourselves: when does support cross over into meddling? Foreign influence in elections is hardly new. But the blunt utilitarian calculus — pledge aid for a favored candidate and threaten to withhold it otherwise — raises deep questions about sovereignty, inequality, and who decides a country’s destiny.
“This is not just foreign policy theatre,” said Dr. Alan Reyes, a U.S.-based scholar of Central American politics. “It’s a signal to elites and voters alike: U.S. strategic preferences remain decisive. That may stabilize certain short-term outcomes, but it corrodes democratic legitimacy in the long run.”
For people who live in coastal towns where coffee is harvested and buses depart packed with migrants bound for the U.S. border, the stakes are visceral. Aid programs, trade preferences, and deportation policies directly affect whether a family eats, sends a child to school, or is uprooted. The threat to “stop throwing good money after bad” reads, to many, like a warning that help can be switched off like a tap.
Local Color and Cultural Threads
Honduras is more than politics and statistics. In the colonial quarter of Comayagüela, muralists are painting over graffiti with birds of vivid blue and green. In coffee-growing regions, women in embroidered blouses sort cherries under the shade of guava trees. Politics threads through everyday life here: a bus driver hums campaign jingles; a barista debates trade tariffs; a grandmother folds tortillas as she tells her grandchildren about days of protest and hope.
“People here have a kind of hard-won humor,” mused Mariela Gómez, a community organizer. “We joke and we sing, but we also remember coups and betrayals. We know power changes hands, but the mines, the plantations, the gangs — they’re different kinds of power. Those don’t always get corrected by a pardon or a tweet.”
The Wider Echo: Migration, Drugs, and Geopolitics
The Honduran election sits at the crossroads of several global currents: the U.S. war on drugs, rising populism in both hemispheres, and the migration flows that have reshaped politics from Washington to Tegucigalpa. The conviction of a former president on drug charges is a dramatic symbol of how deeply the narcotics trade has penetrated governance in parts of Latin America — and why the U.S. is so invested.
“Someone who looks at this from the outside might see a law-and-order victory,” said political analyst María López. “But domestically, people see long histories — of land grabs, of impunity, of elites who alternate between power and exile. A pardon changes the legal record, but not the memory.”
What Comes Next?
When the ballots are counted, Honduras will still be a place where the weather sets the pace of life, where soccer is religion and Sunday family lunches are sacred. But it will also be a measure of whether external pressure can decide internal fate. Will the U.S. be content to use influence like a lever? Will Hondurans accept directives from abroad, or will they push back in some form?
Ask yourself: would you accept the condition that your country’s aid is tied to the fate of a single candidate — or to the pardon of an ex-leader found guilty in another nation’s courts? How do you balance concerns about crime and drug trafficking with the right of a nation to choose its own leaders?
For now, the markets will watch, the campaign rallies will continue, and families will keep making decisions — small and large — based on incomes that may, one day soon, depend on a promise posted on a social platform.
In a country used to storms, Hondurans watch another kind — political, sudden, and global — moving in from the north. They will vote, they will complain, and then they will live with the consequences. Whatever the outcome, the scene in Tegucigalpa made one thing clear: the heartbeat of a nation cannot be silenced by a single post. But it can certainly be shaken.
Mounting Trump controversies raise fresh questions about the BBC’s mission
At the Edge of the Studio: The BBC’s Moment of Reckoning
On a chilly morning in London, the familiar hum of buses, street vendors and the distant clock of Westminster feels discordant with the headline that has rattled the corridors of power: the BBC — a broadcaster that has for nearly a century been stitched into the fabric of British public life — is in crisis.
What began as a controversy over a single edited clip of a former US president’s speech has mushroomed into something far larger: resignations at the top, leaked memos, accusations of institutional bias, and a public debate that now spans continents. The corporation’s founding mission — “to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high‑quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain” — feels, for many, both a touchstone and a test.
The Spark: A Panorama Edit and the Fallout
The immediate ignition point was an episode of Panorama that included an edited excerpt from Donald Trump’s January 6 speech. The clip, which the BBC later acknowledged “gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action”, set off a chain reaction.
Within days, two senior figures had stepped down. Director‑General Tim Davie and Deborah Turness, the CEO of News, left their posts amid the uproar — resignations that signalled how seriously the crisis was being taken internally.
“It felt like the heart of the organisation had been exposed,” a veteran BBC producer, who asked to remain unnamed, told me. “People aren’t just worried about one story. They’re worried about the culture that allowed it.”
Leaked Memos and the Question of Bias
Into the breach came a leaked internal memo from Michael Prescott, a former editorial adviser. In testimony to the House of Commons Culture and Media Committee, Prescott described a range of concerns: coverage of the Gaza war in BBC Arabic, reporting on transgender issues, and what he saw as slippage on coverage of Trump.
“I am a strong supporter of the BBC,” Prescott told MPs, adding, with an almost self‑deprecating flourish, “I’m a centrist dad.” His words were meant to frame his critique as corrective rather than combative, but the memo lit a fuse.
For critics on the left and the right, the same document became proof of opposite assertions: some argued it revealed institutional bias against certain perspectives; others suggested it showed cowardice in the face of pressure. And between these poles, ordinary audiences felt increasingly unsure whom to trust.
Parliamentary Pressure and a Wobbly Steadying Hand
In the ornate committee room at Westminster, BBC Chair Samir Shah faced questions that went beyond editorial minutiae. Caroline Dinenage, chair of the select committee, did not mince words: she voiced concern about “a lack of grip at the heart of BBC governance” and pressed for concrete steps to prevent a repeat.
Shah responded with a phrase that sounded like a plea for calm: “My job now is to steady the ship, put it on even keel.” But to some MPs that was not enough. “We were really looking for hard evidence that the BBC board are going to grip this,” Dinenage told reporters afterwards, adding that she was “not entirely convinced” by what she heard.
In the weeks that followed, political and media commentators debated whether asking the chair to resign would help or harm an organisation already wobbling under scrutiny. “Leadership vacuums are lethal for trust,” one former regulator observed. “But so is hasty scapegoating.”
A Historian’s Charge: Censorship or Caution?
Then came another allegation that widened the emotional landscape of the controversy. Rutger Bregman, the Dutch historian, publicly accused the BBC of removing a line from his Reith Lecture — a sentence in which he had called Donald Trump “the most openly corrupt president in American history.”
Bregman framed his complaint in moral terms: “When institutions start censoring themselves because they’re scared of those in power, that is the moment we all need to pay attention,” he wrote on social media. He argued that the deletion was symptomatic of the very cowardice his lecture sought to diagnose — a kind of soft submission to intimidation.
The BBC’s reply was procedural: a spokesperson said that “all of our programmes are required to comply with the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.” No one at the corporation disputed that legal counsel had been consulted; they insisted the removal was not political capitulation but risk management.
Voices on the Ground: Confusion, Frustration, Loyalty
Walk through any coffee shop near Broadcasting House and you’ll hear versions of the same question: if the BBC stumbles, what replaces it?
“I grew up with BBC radio in the kitchen,” said Aisha Khan, a teacher in Camden. “It’s awful to see it under fire. But I also want better. Impartiality isn’t a slogan — it’s a practice.”
A young journalist inside the building offered a different worry. “We’re being pulled in four directions at once: politicians demanding accountability, the public demanding truth, lawyers demanding caution, and management demanding no more mistakes,” she said. “It’s exhausting.”
Across the Atlantic, US media analysts watched with a mixture of schadenfreude and concern. “This is a global media brand,” said Dr. Miguel Alvarez, a New York‑based media studies professor. “When trust in that brand cracks, the ripples are felt everywhere.”
Trust, the Currency of News
Trust is fragile and expensive. In recent years, major polling and media research bodies have documented a long decline in public confidence in news organisations in many countries. Whether the figure is “less than half” or “around a third” depends on the survey and the country — but the direction is clear: trust is not what it used to be.
That context matters because the BBC does not operate in a vacuum. It is financed by licence fee payers in the UK, it operates globally, and it is quoted and relied upon by governments, NGOs and everyday citizens. A dent in its reputation has consequences beyond headlines — it can change how people interpret crises, foreign conflicts, and public health messaging.
What Comes Next?
The corporation is now in the middle of a search for a new director‑general and plans to appoint a deputy director‑general focused on journalism — structural reforms aimed at shoring up confidence. But structural fixes take time and the clock on public patience is short.
What would a healthier BBC look like? For some, it is simply one that adheres more faithfully to its editorial guidelines and that disciplines bad actors swiftly and transparently. For others, it is a broadcaster that widens its perspectives, that invests more in local and international reporting, and that protects journalists from political and commercial pressures.
“If we want journalism that serves a plural society, we need institutions that can be imperfect and still be trusted,” said a veteran editor who has worked across continents. “That means transparency, humility, and a willingness to change.”
Questions for the Reader
What do you believe a public broadcaster should do when legal risk collides with editorial judgment? How much caution is reasonable when a paragraph can trigger lawsuits across oceans? These are not only parliamentary questions — they are civic ones.
One thing is clear: this is not just a British debate. It is a global conversation about how democracies, and the institutions that inform them, survive in an era of powerful personalities, social media furor, and declining trust. The BBC’s current predicament is a case study in the delicate, dangerous craft of modern journalism.
The ship must be steadied, but which direction it sails will depend on choices that are technical, cultural and moral. And those choices will be debated not just in committee rooms, but in kitchens and cafés around the world. Are we ready for that conversation?
Bolsonaro’s legal team petitions court to overturn coup conviction
The Fall of a Colossus: Bolsonaro’s Last Legal Gamble and a Country Holding Its Breath
On Avenida Paulista, under the cool shade of skyscrapers and the impatient hum of São Paulo’s traffic, people danced like they’d been given permission to exhale. Banners flapped in the breeze, the smell of street food braided with the tang of car exhaust, and strangers hugged each other as if they had known one another forever.
“It feels like justice is finally catching up,” said Marisa Oliveira, a 47-year-old teacher who had come early with a thermos of coffee and a small Brazilian flag. “We have waited a long time for this.” Her voice trembled in the kind of way that mixes relief and the wary awareness that few political battles truly end at a single verdict.
That scene of celebration contrasted sharply with a different one hundreds of kilometres away: a dimly lit police headquarters in Brasília where Jair Bolsonaro, the combative former president, was spending his first nights behind locked doors after a court ordered him to begin serving a 27‑year prison sentence. And inside high court chambers, his legal team quietly filed what may be their last major move — an appeal asking Brazil’s full Federal Supreme Court to annul the trial that found him guilty and to declare him innocent.
What the appeal asks — and what it risks
The petition, lodged by Bolsonaro’s lawyers, asks the full 11-justice court to overturn the conviction handed down by a smaller, five-justice panel of the Supreme Court. The defence frames the move as a fight for vindication: “The unfair conviction imposed on Jair Messias Bolsonaro,” the filing reads, “must be submitted for the scrutiny of the Full Chamber so that, in the end, his innocence is recognised and declared.”
Legal experts are cautious about the appeal’s prospects. “Appeals to the full court in cases like this are not uncommon, but success requires persuasive proof of procedural error or constitutional violation,” explained Dr. Ana Carvalho, a constitutional law professor at the University of São Paulo. “Courts are protective of their own decisions — especially in politically charged cases. The question is whether the defence can do more than argue politics and actually show legal grounds to annul a process that multiple judges have already affirmed.”
That legal terrain is stark: Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court has 11 justices, and the decision to convict Bolsonaro came from a five‑justice section of that court. The smaller panel declared the judgment final earlier this month, and prosecutors insist the legal paths for delay and challenge have largely been exhausted.
The charges that led here
Bolsonaro was convicted after a trial that found he led a plan to prevent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from assuming the presidency following the 2022 election — a scheme prosecutors say included an assassination plot and other conspiratorial moves. Investigators concluded the plan failed largely because key figures in the military refused to back it. The sentence of 27 years, if upheld, is among the harshest ever given to a former Brazilian president.
Bolsonaro, now 70, denies wrongdoing and frames himself as a victim of political persecution. “This is not about justice,” his lawyers told supporters in a televised statement. “This is about ridding the public square of a man who many fear to be a real political alternative.”
On the streets: jubilation, alarm, and enduring divisions
Celebrations in São Paulo were mirrored in dozens of smaller gatherings from Recife to Porto Alegre. People who felt betrayed by the 2018‑2022 presidency — and by the chaos that followed the 2022 election — saw the convictions as a rebuke to the kind of politics that aimed to overturn democratic outcomes.
“When I came here today I felt… light,” said Paulo Mendes, a 32-year-old graphic designer who joined the crowd on Paulista with paint on his face. “Not just for Lula or for the courts — for Brazil.”
But in other pockets, Bolsonaro’s supporters reacted with fear and defiance. In Brasília, a small group of demonstrators gathered near the prison facility, chanting and waving flags, their faces set like flint. “He’s a political prisoner,” said João Ribeiro, a retiree who had supported Bolsonaro since 2018. “They can put him in a cell, but they can’t jail millions of people’s beliefs.”
A wider story about institutions and the rule of law
Beyond the drama of one man’s fall lies a deeper test for Brazil’s democracy. How a country handles the legal accountability of former leaders reflects broader questions about the rule of law, the independence of judges, and the capacity of institutions to withstand polarization.
Brazil’s modern political history is littered with the legal troubles of former presidents — Bolsonaro is the fourth to be jailed since the end of the military dictatorship in 1985. That pattern raises questions about how the country prosecutes corruption, sedition, and other high political crimes without the process itself appearing to be a partisan tool.
“We are at an inflection point,” observed Mariana Leite, a political analyst at Brasília’s Institute for Democratic Studies. “If the justice system is seen as fair and impartial, it strengthens democracy. If people perceive it as victor’s justice, it deepens distrust and fuels extremism.”
International echoes and the push-and-pull of global politics
Bolsonaro’s conviction did not play out in a vacuum. Around the world, populists and their supporters watch such trials with keen interest: either as a cautionary tale or as perceived evidence of targeted judicial overreach. Some foreign politicians and media have framed the case as politically motivated; others stress the independence of Brazil’s judiciary and the necessity of accountability.
The global trend is familiar: democracy itself has become a contested asset in many countries, with courts increasingly asked to adjudicate political conflict. What happens in Brasília matters not just to Brazil, but to observers in capitals from Washington to Warsaw, Jakarta to Pretoria.
What comes next — and what it means
The full Supreme Court will now consider whether the trial can be annulled and whether Bolsonaro might be cleared. Legal observers say the path to full acquittal is narrow. In the meantime, Brazil will continue to grapple with the social and political fallout.
As the appeals process unfolds, questions linger: Can a nation stitch itself back together after such a raw political rupture? Will accountability for alleged crimes strengthen or fracture public faith in institutions? And perhaps most pressing, what does it mean for the future of politics when legal systems become arenas for settling what once were strictly electoral fights?
When you read this, what do you see? A country holding firm to the rule of law, or a democracy walking a tightrope with no safety net? The answer may depend less on a single court case than on how Brazilians — and the world — choose to respond to the verdicts that follow.
Zelensky Holds Meetings to Select New Presidential Chief of Staff
Midnight in Kyiv: sirens, a shaken presidency, and a country holding its breath
The city was still smarting from last night’s explosions when the news rippled through Kyiv: the man who had stood at President Volodymyr Zelensky’s side through the darkest hours of the war had resigned. In a few terse lines and a short video address, Mr Zelensky said his presidential office would be reorganised and that Andriy Yermak had stepped down as head of the presidential office. Minutes later a decree formalised the move.
Outside, people weighed the news between generator hums and conversations in underground shelters. “You don’t trust the lights, and now you don’t trust the people who run the lights,” said one apartment block janitor, who gave his name as Anatoliy. “It’s cold soon. We need answers.”
What happened — and why it matters
The resignation follows a high-profile raid by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office on Mr Yermak’s apartment. Authorities say the operation is connected to an investigation into a suspected kickback network in the energy sector — a probe that allegedly revolves around sums near $100 million. Investigators haven’t made detailed accusations public; Mr Yermak has said he is cooperating.
On the face of it, this is a corruption scandal. But beneath the headlines is a far more combustible mix: war, fragile unity, and diplomacy on the cusp of a potentially decisive moment. The removal of Yermak, until now widely seen as Zelensky’s closest aide and the president’s chief negotiator, comes as the United States is pushing a framework of its own to end the war — a U.S.-led process that Kyiv fears could involve concessions Moscow would exploit.
A gatekeeper falls
Yermak is not an anonymous bureaucrat. A former film producer and copyright lawyer, he rose alongside Zelensky from the world of entertainment to become, to many, the second most powerful person in Ukraine. Colleagues and critics have long described him as the gatekeeper — the man who decided who had the president’s ear.
“He was always the pivot,” said a former senior official who asked not to be named. “If you needed to see the president you had to be vetted through Yermak. He gathered power quickly, and that made enemies.”
That concentration of influence has long frustrated Zelensky’s opponents and some civil society activists who fear that wartime emergency has eroded checks and balances. A March 2025 poll by the Razumkov Centre found that roughly two-thirds of Ukrainians distrusted Yermak — a striking level of public scepticism during a time when unity is emphasized as a survival strategy.
Diplomacy in flux: who will speak for Ukraine?
Diplomatic calendars rarely take raids into account. Yermak had been scheduled to lead Ukrainian negotiators in talks in the United States this weekend. With his exit, Kyiv’s delegation will reportedly be headed by Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council.
“We are preparing to sit at the table with our partners at the end of the week,” a senior official briefed on the matter told a reporter, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. The composition of a negotiating team matters: foreign counterparts look not just for policy clarity but for the authority of the messenger.
A Kyiv-based analyst, Olena Marchenko, warned that the change could complicate Kyiv’s posture. “When a negotiator disappears at a crucial hour, it weakens signalling,” she said. “Even if the substitute is competent, the optics are terrible: opponents will say Ukraine is disunited just when unity is most strategic.”
At home: power lines, protests and public anger
The corruption allegations land against a bleak backdrop. Russia’s campaign has increasingly targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure — leaving cities flickering and hospitals running on backups. The idea that a portion of funds meant for strategic energy projects might have been diverted has inflamed public anger.
“We are paying with our warmth and our children’s sleep. To hear money may have been stolen — it cuts deep,” said Oksana, a nurse in the city center who spends her nights on call during blackouts. “People aren’t just angry about money. They’re afraid.”
President Zelensky has tried to respond both to public outrage and to the diplomatic fallout. “If we lose our unity, we risk losing everything,” he told the nation in a recorded message, urging cohesion in the face of manoeuvres he said were intended to make Ukraine falter.
European and international reactions
The European Union cautiously backed the anti-corruption agencies’ actions. “We have respect for the investigations which demonstrate that Ukrainian anti-corruption bodies are doing their work,” a European Commission spokeswoman said. The comment underscores a delicate balancing act: Brussels and Washington have pushed Kyiv to clamp down on graft even as they supply weapons and political cover.
That pressure is mutual. Earlier this year, Zelensky faced criticism — and rare wartime protests — after attempts to alter the independence of NABU and the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office. He later walked back the move under European pressure, illustrating how anti-corruption institutions have become a test of Ukraine’s democratic resilience even in wartime.
Shadow war and the human tally
As these political tremors unfolded, the physical war carried on. Early this morning Kyiv came under a drone attack that wounded seven people and damaged residential buildings and vehicles, officials said. Sirens, shelters, and the smell of burned rooftops have become punctuation marks in daily life.
Russia’s full-scale invasion, launched in February 2022, has been the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. Estimates vary, but experts say the fighting has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions from their homes — a human catastrophe that changes the stakes of any political scandal.
So where does Ukraine go from here?
There are immediate questions: who will take over the presidential office? Can Kyiv present a united front in negotiations? Will the anti-corruption drive hold fast to due process, or will it be weaponised?
There are also bigger ones that cut to the heart of the crisis: How does a democracy at war maintain the rule of law without damaging its capacity to defend itself? How do leaders balance urgent security needs with long-term institutional health? And perhaps most poignantly — how does a nation cling to hope when the lights and the politicians both flicker?
“We are exhausted,” a volunteer who runs a makeshift soup kitchen in a suburb of Kyiv told me. “But we are not broken. We demand honesty from our leaders because we know the cost of lies.”
In the coming days, Kyiv will test both its governance and its resilience. The choice of a new chief of staff and lead negotiator will be closely watched in Washington, Brussels, and Moscow. For ordinary Ukrainians, the immediate concern remains practical: warmth through winter, security for their children, and above all, clarity — who is steering their country through this storm?
Denmark, Greenland delegations to hold talks with Senators Vance and Rubio in U.S.
Under the Midnight Sun: Why Greenland Has Suddenly Become the World’s Most Contested Island
On a wind-whipped street in Nuuk, a woman in a brightly...
President Congratulates Buckley on Remarkable Recognition, Hails Achievement
When Killarney Applauded in Los Angeles: Jessie Buckley’s Golden Globe and the Quiet Power of “Hamnet”
It was barely daylight in Killarney when the cheers...
Minnesota Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over ICE Operations
A City in Vigil, a State in Court: Minneapolis After a Death that Changed Everything
The wind that evening carried the smell of melted wax...
Trump Imposes 25% Tariffs on Countries Trading with Iran
When the city refused to be quiet
Tehran at dusk is a city of layered sounds: the call to prayer, the rattle of buses, the...
Trump to meet opposition leader Machado amid mounting pressure on Venezuela
Outside El Rodeo: Waiting, Hope and the Politics of a Prisoner Release
On a dusty stretch of road about 30 kilometres west of Caracas, tens...