Author: GETAWAYTHEBERKSHIRES

Home / Author: GETAWAYTHEBERKSHIRES

Share

15th Jul 2019

While the much-delayed 25th James Bond film, Bond 25, is only set to hit our screens in April 2020, it has now been reported that current Bond Daniel Craig will enjoy a retirement of sorts in the storyline.

While Craig is still playing the titular role of James Bond, a new, and some may say improved, character takes the front as agent 007–31-year-old actress Lashana Lynch. Previously seen in Captain Marvel, Lynch makes an astonishing entrance as viewers see the newest 007 as a modern day female. “There is a pivotal scene at the start of the film where M says, ‘Come in 007’, and in walks Lashana who is black, beautiful and a woman,” a movie insider reports to the Daily Mail. “Bond is still Bond but he’s been replaced as 007 by this stunning woman.”

As the upcoming film begins with Bond retiring in Jamaica, the agent number 007 becomes open for Lynch’s taking. Craig’s Bond still makes a comeback in the film when spymaster M, played by Ralph Fiennes, calls Bond back to take on a new global catastrophe. 

Craig was originally cast as 007 agent Bond back in 2006. And while fans were shocked by the unlikely choice, Craig now ranks as one of the most loved Bond actors of all time, having played the character in the films Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall and Spectre. Bond 25 marks his fifth film in the decades-running franchise. 

Bond 25 is currently filming in Italy and the UK, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Scott Z. Burns and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. 

Click:中国文化

For the hopeless romantics out there, royal weddings are magical occasions, filled with sweet, tender moments reaffirming that yes, love is real. It’s impossible not to sigh wistfully at the thought of princes and princesses exchanging heartfelt vows and promising to love one another for the rest of their natural lives.

Yes, there’s nothing more romantic than when a fairytale comes to life in the form of a royal wedding. Royal weddings, in all their pomp and ceremony, are the standard by which the romantic at heart set their dream nuptials.

For royals, nothing is off the wedding table, from custom wedding gowns to jewelled tiaras. Case in point: at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s 2018 wedding, the bride wore a custom Clare Waight Keller for Givenchy wedding gown, borrowed Queen Mary’s diamond bandeau tiara from The Queen, and had Grammy Award-winning singer, Elton John, perform at the reception. Talk about a fairytale wedding!

These kind of events don’t just happen overnight, though, months of planning go into royal weddings to make them into momentous history-making events. However, at the end of the day, royals and their wedding planners are only human, and despite the best-laid plans, things can and do go wrong, even to royals.

From a broken tiara to a bottle of perfume spilled all over the bride-to-be’s wedding gown, we chart the most memorable royal wedding day mishaps in history.

In 1947, the then Princess Elizabeth (see above) experienced a bridal nightmare when her diamond tiara snapped into two pieces as her hairdresser was securing it to her veil. The tiara, known as the Fringe Tiara, was loaned to Elizabeth by her mother, The Queen Mother, as her “something borrowed”. It had been commissioned in 1919, for Elizabeth’s grandmother, Queen Mary. The royals were prepared for something like this, though. A court jeweller was on standby and took the tiara via police escort to the royal jewellery house, Garrard to salvage the damage. The tiara was welded back together in time for the then Princess Elizabeth’s wedding. The only evidence of the mishap was the slight gap between the central diamond spike and the one on the right.

Lady Gabriella Windsor married financier Thomas Kingston in a gorgeous ceremony at St George’s Chapel in May of 2019. Her dress was designed by Italian fashion designer Luisa Beccaria, whom Gabriella is a huge fan of. According to , Gabriella broke tradition by working on the dress without her mother overseeing anything. Despite all her planning, there was a small hitch during her procession up the aisle. In her interview with , she recalled how her little bridesmaids kept wandering over her sheer tulle 20 foot veil, unaware it was actually causing her tiara to pull back. “I slowed down until they’d stepped off it, but then it happened again. Fortunately my hairdresser had pinned the tiara in place and it stood firm.”

On her wedding day, Princess Diana decided to wear her favourite scent down the aisle of St Paul’s Cathedral: Quelques Fleurs. Or rather, the perfume wore her. Barbara Daly, Diana’s wedding day make-up artist, revealed that the scent – which is the first ever true multi-floral blend, according to Houbigant Paris – spilled over the front of her gown as she was dabbing it on her wrists. According to , Daly advised Diana to hold her dress up as though she was avoiding to step on it to cover the stain. Luckily, her mishap was unnoticed by millions and to this day, only her stunning beauty is remembered.

There was a lot of secrecy surrounding Princess Diana’s wedding dress. Per , the now iconic wedding dress was actually kept in a safe overnight and was taken through a window on the morning of the wedding so the crowd gathered on the street wouldn’t catch a glimpse of it. However, despite all of this, onlookers gaped at the 25 foot train as much as the wrinkles on the gown as Diana stepped out of her carriage. reports that Elizabeth and David Emanuel, the designers of the gown, were “horrified” by the creasing on the dress. “We did know it would crease a bit but when I saw her arrive at St Paul’s and we saw the creasing I actually felt faint,” Elizabeth said.

Back in 2011, Kate Middleton’s wedding ring was a little too small. During the ceremony, as Prince William tried to slip the ring on his bride’s finger, it took some time as the ring was not moving past her knuckle. Kate had the wedding ring made a size smaller so the ring wouldn’t slip off as she had the same issue with the engagement ring.

Lady Charlotte Wellesley married Alejandro Santo Domingo in a ceremony in Spain in 2016, wearing a long-sleeve, off-the-shoulder ball gown designed by Emilia Wickstead. The cathedral veil she wore over her head, adorned in a Swiss dot pattern, flew up as the wind blew, but Charlotte just laughed it off. The wind, apparently, does not seem to care whether you’re a royal or not.

Princess Diana’s incredibly extravagant wedding dress almost didn’t fit in the glass carriage she had to travel in. The legend states her gown was so voluminous she only just fit inside the ceremonial coach, a necessity the designers had forgotten to account for.

Due to controversy surrounding Princess Beatrix marrying Claus von Amsberg back in 1966 (due to his German nationality), a large amount of protests took place nearby the ceremony. As the pair said their vows together in Amsterdam, security had to navigate smoke bombs outside.

During the four-hour wedding service of King Baudouin and Queen Fabiola which took place at the Royal Palace in Brussels in 1960, the bride was fasting for the Eucharist prior to the nuptial. This caused the bride to almost faint during the ceremony.

Guest stood in the sunshine in 1978, to wait for the beautiful bride Princess Caroline, the princess of Monaco, to arrive in the arm of father. Wearing a Marc Bohan for Christian Dior gown with a floral headpiece and veil, the bride looked the perfect picture of a relaxed royal bride. Unfortunately, prior to her wedding day, her dress design was leaked. The house of Dior couldn’t have the princess walk out in a gown that had already been seen, so days before the maison hastily made changes to the gown.

There was quite a commotion when the then Princess Elizabeth realised her pearls were not with her moments before the wedding, instead, they were around the corner at St James’s Palace. A courtier was displaced on foot to get them. As well, the bridal bouquet could not be located, eventually it was found in a cupboard!

The tiara Princess Diana wore on her head on her wedding day caused her some grief. The tiara, known as the Spencer tiara, was a Spencer family piece that was elaborately styled with flowers and diamonds in silver settings. Despite its beauty, Diana’s brother, Earl Charles Spencer, recalls the weight of the tiara gave Princess Diana a “cracking headache.”

The beautiful Queen of Spain, Sofía, accidentally tripped over on her wedding day in 1962. As the bride was so excited to tie the knot, she tripped over her Jean Desses gown. The gown, designed by the Parisian designer with silver and white lamé and covered in a tulle and antique lace, had a five-metre train, so there was no surprise that the bride took a small stumble.

All wedding days come with nerves, but for this royal bride, the nerves really got the best of her. During the civil ceremony which was held at the Empire Salon of the Palace in 1959, the bride burst into tears due to her heightened emotions. In the middle of the ceremony the groom’s grandmother, the Dowager Queen Elizabeth, had to step forward and comfort the bride to calm her down and make her feel at ease, right in the middle of the nuptials.

During the couple’s vows, Princess Diana said the wrong name! Instead of saying ‘Charles Philip’, she got the order wrong and instead said “Philip Charles.’

Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, (and not pictured above) experienced one of the most horrifying scenarios on the morning of her wedding. Her wedding dress was a magnificent white and silver dress with white diamonds. It also didn’t fit. Her dress was apparently made before her arrival in France and her dressmakers had to estimate her measurements. Legend has it that her bodice was too tight and could not be properly cinched. So, it was left open with a gap, revealing the lace she had on underneath.Click Here: watford fc shirt

Image credit: Jonathan Daniel Pryce

Given the main objective of a holiday is to relax, unwind, and press pause on the demands of everyday life, its little wonder that the worlds of escapism and skincare are intersecting. Nowadays, the new norm is to turn on the out-of-office and turn up to a far-flung wellness retreat to recharge the mental, spiritual and physical batteries. And that starts at the departure gate. Can you even recall a time before your cabin baggage was stocked full of sheet masks to ease the moisture-sapping effects of hours spent in the air? Here, our airside favourites.

Aman Desert Dew Face Mist, $84

Just as Aman properties reimagined the typical hotel experience with its unrivalled attention to detail and understated luxury, their skincare feels similarly focused. We love the Desert Dew Face Mist for its around-the-clock hydration.

Summer Fridays Jet Lag Mask, $73

It has a loyal following for good reason, this nourishing mask is loaded with vitamins and antioxidants to deliver a nice zing to lacklustre skin.

Chanel Les Eaux de Chanel Travel Set, $300

A liberal spritz of a pocket-sized Chanel scent is enough to perk up even the weariest traveller.

Lancome Renergie Multi-Lift Ultra Mask 5-Pack, $120

If you didn’t apply a sheet mask, did you even travel? This one comes loaded with gravity-defying firming ingredients which persist long after the 20-minute ritual.

Lano Face Base The Aussie Flyer Leave-On Recovery Mask, $26

For best results, apply this no-rinse mask to sleep-deprived skin just before touch down.

Dior Capture Youth Glow Booster Illuminating Serum, $162

Loaded with vitamin C for brightening, slather on this serum within minutes of landing for a complexion that defies jetlag.

Chanel La Crème Main hand cream, $87

Where to start? The ultra-hydrating formula means it’s an in-air essential, while the chic packaging means you’ll be looking for any excuse to whip it out of your carry-on.

Aesop Departure, $65

Ultra-chic packaging aside, these in-flight essentials are everything you need for a fresh-faced arrival.

The Travelista Jetset Antioxidant Boost, $82

With vitamin B3, C and hyaluronic acid, this lightweight formulation protects against environmental stressors like air-conditioning and UV rays.

Click Here: watford fc shirt

Share

16th Jul 2019

When Greta Thunberg began her school strike for the climate last August, the then 15-year-old could not have dreamed of the global impact she would have. The Swedish teenager has inspired 1.6 million young people in over 100 countries around the world to join in her demand for urgent action on the climate crisis. Thunberg and her peers have achieved what the adults before them could not: bringing the issue to the forefront of people’s minds. 

But there is still a lot of work to be done, and it is young activists around the world who are continuing to lead the charge. In fact, Thunberg – whose speeches have been turned into a book, No One is Too Small to Make a Difference – is now planning to take a sabbatical year off school to concentrate on campaigning. “Once you fully understand the climate crisis, you can’t un-understand it; you have to do something,” she tells Vogue

Spurred on by Thunberg, young campaigners are calling for adults to join in a mass global climate strike on 20 September, in a bid to force politicians and business leaders to act immediately. In the meantime, Fridays For Future strikes are continuing to take place every week and there’s a Youth Climate Action camp taking place in Germany in August – an indication of just how organised the youth movement is.

As well as taking part in coordinated action, a new generation has been inspired to look at specific issues relating to the climate crisis that are important to them. Here, Thunberg and seven other activists around the world, from Mexico to Uganda, share the reasons they are campaigning and the vital steps we can all take now to tackle the climate crisis.

Greta Thunberg on making your voice heard

Thunberg, 16, from Stockholm, Sweden, began the school strike for climate movement – known as Fridays For Future – in August 2018. She has met with politicians around the world, and spoke at the UN Climate Change Conference last December. 

Making your voice heard is what makes a difference; that is what’s going to save us. Yes, we need a system change, but we can’t have a system change without strong pressure from a large group of individuals. That is what needs to happen: an awakening among people. 

“I’m trying to influence people so together we can put pressure on those in power. It is especially important for young people to make our voices heard. We can’t vote, [but] we can influence people who can. And that is what we’re trying to do, among other things.

“[The school strikes] has told me that when enough people – especially young people – organise themselves and get together, we are unstoppable. Many think it’s too late to get involved. But what they don’t realise [is] how few people are actually fighting for this. If you start now, then you are one of the pioneers. It is never too late.” 

Isra Hirsi on ensuring the climate movement is inclusive

Hirsi, 16, from Minneapolis, US, co-founded the US Youth Climate Strike earlier this year, after initially getting involved in her school’s “green team”. She is particularly interested in climate justice, after seeing how global warming is affecting non-white communities around the world. 

“People [are already] dying and suffering today because of the climate crisis, in countries like Bangladesh and Mozambique which are suffering from cyclones, hurricanes and drought. My parents are from Somalia, [which] in the past few years has suffered extreme droughts. When [those affected] are black and brown, people don’t really talk about [it].  

“The people in these front-line communities know their communities and the solutions the most; allowing them to lead this movement is crucial. I feel it is important for me as a black woman to use the platform I have to talk about this. People of colour have voices and they deserve to be heard.” 

Nakabuye Hilda Flavia on tackling plastic pollution 

Flavia, 22, from Kampala, Uganda, is one of the leaders of Fridays for Future Uganda, which has been organising school strikes in the east African country since January. The student also carries out plastic clean-ups every week with other volunteers. 

“Plastic pollution is one of the biggest challenges we face. It takes 400-plus years to decompose, [and] is a threat to lives both on land and in water. Africa has many freshwater lakes and if plastic goes into the lakes, it has a really big impact [contaminating the water supply]. During my clean-ups, I find dead fish suffocated by plastic. 

“[Although] Uganda has declared a plastic ban, it has not implemented it; we still have plastic everywhere. I would like the government to implement it. Recycling doesn’t bring the issue to an end, [but] there should be globalised efforts to help countries that cannot recycle a lot of plastic by themselves. I also urge [people] to join plastic clean-ups and to reduce their [plastic] footprint. Take personal responsibility.”  

Image credit: Getty Images

Asheer Kandhari on stopping deforestation  

Kandhari, 15, from Delhi, India, is one of the coordinators of the school strikes in India, and also a member of #DelhiTreesSOS, a campaign group calling for the government to stop deforestation in the capital. 

Click Here: watford fc shirt

“Last year, the pollution in Delhi was higher than it’s ever been. One of the main reasons was deforestation on a large scale. A year ago the government ordered the cutting of more than 16,000 trees [in south Delhi]. We climbed the trees and hugged them so the contractors could not cut them down. I think it was one of the most effective things we’ve done yet.

“Deforestation is one of the major factors affecting the climate crisis right now. [Trees are a] natural resource, they take in the carbon dioxide [being emitted]. Pollution is significantly increased; it’s already causing so much harm. It’s not only the humans [affected]; animals are losing their homes. We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction caused by humans.” 

Natalia Naranjo on moving to renewable energy 

Naranjo, 19, from Mexico City, Mexico, is a member of environmental group Nosotros por la Selva, as well as setting up her own local action group which organises litter pick-ups. She is studying sustainable development engineering at university. 

“President [López Obrador] in Mexico recently said he wanted another coal-powered plant for electricity. We don’t need that; you have to invest in sustainable energy. I would like the government, and corporations and big industries, to take action [on this].

“Coal is the most polluting way of creating energy. You can use nature instead – the sun, the wind, or water. We want every house to have solar panels, every hospital [to be powered by] wind energy. As part of my university course, we’re learning about new technologies. We have to create new solutions [to tackle the climate crisis].” 

Anna Taylor on the importance of education 

Taylor, 18, from London, UK, co-founded the UK Student Climate Network, after being inspired by the school strikes taking place in other countries. The group is demanding for education reform, along with a green new deal for Britain. 

“Education is extremely important, because [that’s] what allows people to see the real need for action. [One of our] demands is [for the government] to reform the national curriculum, so it addresses the ecological crisis as an educational priority. It should be something that’s taught in every subject; it is the greatest threat facing our future. 

“What the climate strikes are doing is actually educating kids. Other children are seeing their friends going and they’re starting to read about climate change. The [wider] public are also being educated because of the strikes.” 

India Logan-Riley on protecting indigenous communities

Logan-Riley, 25, from Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand, is part of Te Ara Whatu, an indigenous youth climate group. She was part of the first indigenous youth delegation to attend the 2017 UN climate change conference.

“For me, climate change is an outcome of colonisation, which has removed indigenous communities’ ability to defend the land and the water. We know that within my lifetime, we will be forced to move inland because our land will be eroded by the sea. We have also seen seasonal droughts, which have become much more severe. We’re starting to see wildfires, too. There’s a very real threat of losing our land, our home.

“It’s really important that the wider climate movement aligns itself with the aspirations of indigenous communities [and] amplifies the solutions that we advocate for. [We have to] address climate change in a way that leaves no one behind.”

Marinel Ubaldo on lobbying governments

Ubaldo, 22, from Tacloban City, Philippines, is Plan International’s youth ambassador for climate change. She was among those who submitted a petition to the Human Rights Commission in the Philippines, demanding for an investigation into the actions of fossil fuel companies.

“It’s important to lobby governments; they need to act now – it’s an emergency. I want them to make laws [to tackle climate change] and own the problem. Governments can get big businesses to follow environmental guidelines, they can implement laws to stop rubbish being burned. They have the resources to [create a] big impact. 

“It’s important to get the involvement of local governments, too. The Tacloban City council submitted a letter to the [Philippines’] Human Rights Commission in May in support of the petition we filed [to investigate whether 47 fossil fuel companies have violated human rights due to their role in climate change]. 

“Protesting is one way of getting attention from the politicians. Writing letters is another way. Invite them to your events to make them realise [the work] you’re doing.”

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Four Democratic congresswomen issued a brief statement on Monday urging President Donald Trump to go back to Russia and improve the dire conditions of that country.

Click Here: highlanders rugby gear world

In the tersely worded statement, the four lawmakers—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York; Ilhan Omar, of Minnesota; Ayanna Pressley, of Massachusetts; and Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan—indicated that Russia was “broken and crime-infested” and required Trump’s immediate attention.

The statement went on to suggest that, once Trump had fixed the problems plaguing Russia, he could return to the United States and “show us how.”

In a tweet, Trump mocked the congresswomen, contrasting them with the “real revolutionaries” honored over the weekend on Bastille Day. “In 1789, these brave people stormed Louis XVI’s airports,” he wrote.

“Citizen Kane” offers us only a glimpse or two of Charles Foster Kane’s ill-fated run for governor of New York. The most memorable is the boisterous speech that Kane, by this point a famous and well-connected newspaper publisher with an ego as large as his fortune, delivers to his supporters outlining the vaguely populist themes of his campaign. “The working man and the slum child know they can expect my best efforts in their interests,” he bellows. “The decent, ordinary citizens know that I’ll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the underfed!”

After Kane’s loss, he’s confronted by an old friend, who drunkenly assesses the contradictions of his public career and his self-image as a champion of the working class. “You used to write an awful lot about the working man,” he sneers. “He’s turning into something called organized labor. You’re not going to like that one little bit when you find out it means that your working man expects something as his right, not as your gift.”

Today, a century after the progressive movement that inspired Kane and real-world patricians, class and inequality are once again at the center of American politics. Two of the leading candidates for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have pushed inequality to the center of the Party’s political discourse, levelling indictments at the millionaires and billionaires who have absorbed much of the gains that the economy has made over the past few decades and particularly post-recession. The chief villain of this narrative is now Donald Trump—the self-proclaimed populist billionaire President who got to the White House with the help of a press that both burnished and indulged his reputation as a savvy businessman worth hearing out and taking seriously. Much of the free publicity his campaign was granted can be tallied among the many complimentary perks that the wealthy are habitually offered in this country.

This week, Tom Steyer—who is not only a billionaire but one of the largest political donors in the country, having spent an estimated hundred and twenty-three million dollars on last year’s midterms—joined Sanders and Warren in the progressive lane of the Democratic primaries. Both candidates greeted his entrance coldly. “I like Tom personally,” Sanders said in an MSNBC interview, “but I do have to say—as somebody who, in this campaign, has received two million campaign contributions, averaging, I believe, nineteen dollars a person—I am a bit tired of seeing billionaires trying to buy political power.” Warren tweeted, “The Democratic primary should not be decided by billionaires, whether they’re funding Super PACs or funding themselves. The strongest Democratic nominee in the general will have a coalition that’s powered by a grassroots movement.”

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

To his credit, Steyer has already built a movement of sorts. His campaign to impeach Trump, publicized in ubiquitous social-media and cable-news ads, claims to have collected 8.2 million e-mail addresses. His nonprofit and political-action committee, NextGen America, registered about a quarter million young voters for the midterms last year and helped rally activists behind environmental campaigns like the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline and the effort to extend California’s cap-and-trade program. In his campaign-launch video, however, Steyer focusses on an all-encompassing fight against inequality. “We have a society that’s very unequal,” he says to the camera, “and it’s really important for people to understand that this society is connected. If this is a banana republic with a few very, very rich people and everybody else living in misery, that’s a failure.”

Sanders and Warren rail against the upper class as a whole—both individual millionaires and billionaires and the corporate world for unbalancing politics and the economy. In Steyer’s narrative, the villains are not the wealthy as a class but a malevolent set of corporations that have bought a disproportionate share of influence within our political system. “If you give them the unlimited ability to participate in politics, it will skew everything, because they only care about profits,” he says in the launch video. “I think eighty-two thousand people died last year of drug overdoses. If you think about the drug companies, the banks screwing people on their mortgages—it’s thousands of people doing what they’re paid to do. Almost every single major intractable problem, at the back of it you see a big-money interest for whom stopping progress, stopping justice, is really important to their bottom line.”

Steyer himself is a big-money interest, of course. But his campaign seems to hinge on the argument that his own wealth has bought him both political independence and courage. “I’m an outsider,” he said in a CBS interview, on Thursday. “I’ve been doing this—successfully beating the oil companies, the tobacco companies, closing tax loopholes—from the outside for ten years. I don’t believe that this failed government is going to be reformed from the inside.” This is part of the case Trump made for his own candidacy in 2016—that only he, an outsider with the privilege to jump into the political system—could drain Washington’s swamp. “Remember, I am self-funding my campaign, the only one in either party,” he tweeted in January of 2016. “I'm not controlled by lobbyists or special interests-only the U.S.A.!”

On the whole, the experience of the Trump Presidency does not inspire much confidence that wealth is a political insulator or purifier of motives. For starters, Trump only self-financed a small portion of his campaign, and ultimately took in millions from donors large and small, while also benefitting from contributions made by mega-donors like Robert Mercer and Sheldon Adelson to Trump-supporting super PACs. Trump’s wealth has not prevented his Administration from developing shady ties to some of those big donors and other special interests; his extensive business holdings, including his hotels, have, in fact, facilitated bribery in plain sight. And his populist rhetoric has been belied by a policy agenda, including a tax-cut package in 2017, that has been well in keeping with the inequality-exacerbating orthodoxy of conservative economics.

All of this has reinforced the sense that the wealthy embrace many of the policies that they do not only because some are beholden to or own this or that particular company but because the wealthy, as a class, share certain common interests. This is the locus of the distrust toward the rich that has built within the Democratic Party post-recession, the underlying suspicion behind the rise of millennial socialism and its superstars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. One of her chief policy advisers, Dan Riffle, uses the Twitter handle “Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure.” When the New York Times asked the 2020 candidates whether anyone could truly deserve to have a billion dollars, Beto O’Rourke and Kirsten Gillibrand said no. (Sanders and Warren, a bit more cautiously, emphasized the need for the wealthy to pay their “fair share” in taxes. “My guess is when you have that, you’re not going to have too many billionaires left,” Sanders said.) As of last year, according to Gallup, a majority of Democrats do not believe that America benefits from having a class of rich people. These are the currents Steyer will be swimming against. Buying name recognition with ad dollars won’t necessarily bring him buy-in from progressives.

By odd coincidence, Steyer announced his candidacy the day that Ross Perot, a wealthy populist of a different stripe, died. A consensus has emerged among political historians and journalists that Perot’s outsider campaigns likely did not tip the outcomes of the 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaigns. But he did, through his fortune and reputation, help promote a particular set of ideas, particularly a rough-hewn brand of free-trade skepticism that survives to this day. Steyer might similarly influence discourse during the primary—but any wealthy politician advances, too, in their own person, another set of ideas. Steyer’s candidacy and career rest on an argument that the benevolent rich can truly be relied upon as the benefactors of the working class. Fewer and fewer Democrats agree.

On Sunday afternoon, the Guatemalan government issued a statement cancelling a highly anticipated meeting, scheduled for Monday, in Washington, between Jimmy Morales, the President of Guatemala, and Donald Trump. The subject of the meeting was a deal between the two countries that would allow the U.S. government to begin sending asylum seekers to Guatemala under the terms of a so-called safe-third-country agreement. The idea was to outsource part of the American asylum system to Guatemala, despite the fact that many of the Central-American asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border are Guatemalans fleeing poverty, hunger, and violence in their home country. “Opposition to the deal was widespread in Guatemala,” Lucrecia Hernández Mack, a newly elected member of the Guatemalan congress, told me. “Morales was acting alone.” Over the weekend, the country’s Constitutional Court was considering three separate petitions filed in an attempt to block the deal; on Sunday night, a few hours after Morales cancelled his plans for Washington, citing the pending legal case, the judges issued their ruling: Morales was forbidden from negotiating the deal on his own, without consulting the Guatemalan congress. According to a member of the Trump Administration, “if the injunctions didn’t happen in Guatemala, then the deal would have been signed on Monday.”

Reports about a possible agreement between the two countries have been circulating for more than a month, but some of the concrete details of what the arrangement would actually look like emerged late last week. The New Yorker obtained a draft of the agreement, which stated that the U.S. would be able to send asylum seekers from any country to Guatemala, including, in theory, those who never even travelled through Guatemala in the first place. As such, the over-all agreement seemed to go even further than a traditional safe-third-country agreement. According to a person with knowledge of the deal, there were additional stipulations in a second document, called the “implementation plan,” which made clear that the Trump Administration intended the agreement to apply primarily to asylum seekers from Honduras and El Salvador. Still, at an earlier stage of deliberations over the policy, there had been a discussion inside the Trump Administration about taking advantage of the agreement’s broad language to send more people to Guatemala. Ultimately, that position was considered too extreme, though the language of the agreement itself, which allowed for that possibility, remained intact.

“The Guatemalans did not know what they were getting into,” the Trump Administration official told me. “To this day, Morales believes this agreement is not a safe-third. They don’t want anyone to call it that.” One reason for Morales’s confusion seems to be that there were no real examples of an analogous deal for him to use as a point of reference. The U.S. does have a safe-third-country agreement with Canada—if asylum seekers arrive at a Canadian port of entry, immigration authorities will send them back to the U.S., on the grounds that they could receive a fair hearing in the American system, and vice versa—but it’s different from anything under consideration at the southern border. For one thing, the number of asylum seekers from Central America is significantly higher there, and has been on the rise. There are also serious concerns about whether Guatemala could provide a safe and stable environment in which Hondurans, Salvadorans, or anyone else travelling through the country could actually seek asylum. Manfredo Marroquín, a Guatemalan human-rights advocate and recent Presidential contender, who filed one of the three petitions to the Constitutional Court, told me, “Signing this agreement would be putting at risk the constitutional rights of Guatemalans, because the government would be forced to give to others what it hasn’t given to Guatemalans—safety, employment, health care, and education.”

Part of Morales’s considerations related to Mexico, Guatemala’s northern neighbor, which is also in the midst of tense negotiations with the Trump Administration over a safe-third-country deal, according to the person with knowledge of the negotiations. Although the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador has publicly opposed such an agreement, it conceded last month, under pressure from Trump, that the option was on the table. “The Guatemalans likely thought that partnering with the U.S. on this would help them highlight how Mexico isn’t doing enough,” the Administration official told me. “Mexico has been against signing this kind of agreement, which the Guatemalan government knows. The Guatemalans wanted to not be seen as the problem.”

A Presidential runoff in Guatemala will be held in August, and Morales has six months left in office; pursuing the deal, Jordán Rodas, Guatemala’s human-rights ombudsman, told me, “was yet another way he was trying to ingratiate himself with the Trump Administration” before the end of his term. Sunday’s court ruling in Guatemala has effectively ended speculation about the viability of a deal between the two countries. Because Morales lacks support in congress to pursue the agreement, and the Constitutional Court has barred him from acting alone, it isn’t clear what the President could do to revive the talks with Washington. “Morales wanted to end his time as close as he could to the U.S.,” the person familiar with the negotiations told me. Rodas, who also filed one of the court petitions, told me, “We cannot trust that this government won’t try this again, but it’ll be very hard now. It was very important that, once again, the Constitutional Court has asserted the rule of law.” (On Twitter, Francisco Villagran de Leon, a former Guatemalan Ambassador to the U.S. who is a visiting scholar at George Washington University, said, “It wasn’t Jimmy Morales who canceled the meeting. It was Trump. Jimmy didn’t want to miss an opportunity to go to the White House, but they told him not to go. They didn’t want to expose Trump to the fiasco of signing something that the Constitutional Court in Guatemala could have disallowed.”)

On Monday morning, the Trump Administration revealed that it had also, simultaneously, been planning a sweeping new regulation to limit asylum at the southern border. Announced by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, the regulation, which will almost certainly be challenged in U.S. federal court, states that a person cannot qualify for asylum in the U.S. if she failed to apply for asylum in a third country through which she travelled on her way to the U.S. “In one line, it’s really ending the ability of Central Americans to apply for asylum at the southern border,” Sarah Pierce, a lawyer with the Migration Policy Institute, told me. “As a result of this move, we would be deporting people who qualify for asylum in the U.S. back to the countries from which they fled.”

Share

15th Jul 2019

Documentary filmmaking is in the midst of a golden age. Once relegated to late-night TV, non-fiction releases accounted for just two per cent of films shown in British cinemas in 2001. By 2013, they made up almost 21 per cent of projects being produced. Streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon have invested in the genre and are bringing it to larger audiences, but cinema attendance is also up. In 2018, four documentaries surpassed $10 million at the box office: Fred Rogers’ retrospective Won’t You Be My Neighbor, adoption saga Three Identical Strangers, Ruth Bader Ginsburg tribute RBG and the Oscar-winning Free Solo, which chronicles Alex Honnold’s ascent of El Capitan. Ambitious in scale and willing to court controversy, they were far removed from documentaries of the past which had become synonymous with archival footage, talking heads and staid topics. Increasingly, objectivity is falling by the wayside in favour of sheer spectacle, and viewers are hungry for more.

2019’s biggest releases weren’t afraid of taking sides
The year began with Sundance, where Knock Down the House, Rachel Lears’s documentary following Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, premiered to critical acclaim. It even broke the festival’s documentary sales record after being bought by Netflix for a reported $10 million. HBO’s The Inventor: Out For Blood In Silicon Valley charted the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes, while Amazon’s One Child Nation interrogated China’s one-child policy. There was also Lorena, a series about Lorena Bobbitt who became a tabloid sensation in 1993 after cutting off her husband’s penis. Joshua Rofé’s re-examination of the case sought to vindicate her, uncovering the years of abuse Bobbitt claimed to have endured at the hands of her partner.

A still of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Knock Down the House. Image credit: Netflix

Despite the broad range of subjects explored, the documentaries at Sundance were united in their desire to effect change. All raised crucial talking points—the impact of domestic violence, the excesses of Silicon Valley power players, the need for activism in the age of Trump—and became catalysts for movements that resonated far beyond the festival itself. This was most true of Leaving Neverland, Dan Reed’s four-hour exposé outlining allegations of child sexual abuse against Michael Jackson. Comprised of interviews with two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, as well as their families, it accused the singer of decades of grooming and molestation.

Reed’s goal was to challenge the public’s assumptions about the case. “The allegations had been dismissed for so long that they’d become part of people’s comedy routines,” the director tells Vogue. “I’m glad we’ve been able to reset attitudes to that story.” Many disagreed, accusing Reed of bias due to the documentary’s unwillingness to present the other side of the argument. Although he had recorded interviews with the police investigators involved, the footage was not used. “These are accounts we’ve heard before and they’ve never been decisive,” he explains. “If we found anyone else with direct knowledge of the abuse, I would’ve included them in the film.”

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

The power of documentaries to effect change
Leaving Neverland arrived in the UK and US in early March and was promptly sold to channels in 130 territories including Australia, Latin America and Russia. A social media storm ensued, after which several radio stations banned Jackson’s music. The Simpsons episode “Stark Raving Dad”, guest-starring Jackson, was cut from future box sets of the show, Jackson memorabilia was removed from the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis and plans to dress Brussels’s Manneken Pis in a Jackson costume to commemorate the 10th anniversary of his death were abandoned. At Louis Vuitton, all the Jackson-inspired items from Virgil Abloh’s autumn/winter ’19/’20 menswear collection were pulled.

The backlash was equally swift. Jackson’s estate condemned the production and a $100 million lawsuit was filed against its US broadcaster HBO. According to Billboard, the documentary led to a spike in sales of Jackson’s music. Three of his albums re-entered the UK charts, streams increased by six per cent, and his videos were viewed 22.1 million times, a 1.2 million rise from the previous week. In France, three Jackson fan clubs have since sued Robson and Safechuck, as the country’s defamation laws, unlike the UK and US, extend libel beyond death. Michael Jackson: Chase the Truth, a rival documentary seeking to exonerate the star, is expected to be released this August.

Although Robson and Safechuck had filed lawsuits against Jackson in 2013 and 2014 respectively, their cases received little publicity until their meeting with Reed. In a crowded media landscape where stories blow up and blow over at a rapid rate, documentaries can turn the spotlight back onto a topic and hold it there until it produces results. Surviving R Kelly, the Lifetime documentary detailing allegations of sexual abuse against the R&B star, certainly did. Despite long-standing accusations of misconduct and the #MuteRKelly movement, it was only after the series aired that Kelly was dropped by his record label and indicted on 10 counts of aggravated sexual abuse.

A still from Fyre, the Fyre Festival documentary. Image credit: Netflix

For other documentaries, the impact has been harder to assess. Netflix’s Fyre and Hulu’s Fyre Fraud, chronicling the fallout over the fraudulent festival, sparked a resurgent interest in the story two years after it took place. Discussions around the responsibilities of social media influencers followed, but the films had little effect on the case itself. Similarly, Amy Berg’s The Case Against Adnan Syed delved back into the murder investigation discussed on the podcast Serial in 2014. Her four-part series contained new evidence (forensic tests that found no traces of Syed’s DNA on the samples taken from the victim’s body), but the defendant remains in prison. “The search for justice drives people to unpick cases like this,” the director says. “We need to discover the truth.”

In the era of fake news, documentaries cater to an increased appetite for authentic information
“Whether it’s the R Kelly series or Fyre, these are substantial pieces of work that people feel like they can trust,” says Reed. More are on their way: Netflix will drop The Great Hack, an examination of the Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal, later this month and Hulu is expected to follow with Untouchable, which tracks the allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

Could these documentaries influence the cases of those implicated, by securing either their release or conviction? Perhaps not, but that is rarely their intention. “Leaving Neverland was never about taking Michael Jackson off his pedestal,” says Reed. “It was about telling a story that would resonate with other survivors of abuse. You need to understand the issue in order to recognise it in your own life and to be able to stop it happening to someone you know.”

Berg agrees that her work was about more than just a single case. “People need to feel like they can trust the criminal justice system and stories like this can shake that trust,” she explains. Ultimately, the power of these films lies in their ability to change our perceptions of the world, for better or worse. “I hope more people see our work,” adds Reed. “And then if they can look at Wade and James speaking about their own experiences without shame, maybe they’ll feel like they can do that too. That’s how we can have a real long-term impact.”

Megan Rapinoe, the co-captain of the champion U.S. women’s soccer team, is confidently and casually everyone’s current favorite athlete, leader, and lesbian. As I watched her take the podium at the ticker-tape parade in New York on Wednesday, her gestures and posture unapologetically what some of us watching would classify as dykey (others may say, politely, that her presentation was not traditionally feminine), I wondered what this moment felt like for another woman, the first American professional athlete to come out. So I called the tennis player Martina Navratilova, who is currently at Wimbledon, working as a commentator but also playing—in a legends doubles match—and asked.

Navratilova’s own coming-out, in 1981, was conflicted and mangled. Six years earlier, at the age of eighteen, Navratilova, who grew up in Czechoslovakia, had defected to the United States. At the same time that she made the decision not to return to Czechoslovakia, she also realized that she was gay. Navratilova was then one of the world’s top two female tennis players—the other was Chris Evert. She had to talk to the press a lot, and the press was becoming increasingly interested in the subject of female athletes’ sexuality.

Navratilova had a policy of deflecting the question. “I never said no, I wasn’t gay,” she recalled. “I just said, ‘I don’t want to talk about it, it’s private’—which I really feel it is, private. But they would never ask that question of a male athlete.” Sports was a manly business: “Of course they are straight, unless they are figure skaters or something. Female athletes had to prove that they were straight. It’s not a girl activity.” There were, of course, lesbians on the women’s tennis tour, but Navratilova said that the proportion was, “percentage-wise, not that much higher than the general population. There were a lot more lesbians on the golf tour, but they were more closeted.”

Click Here: toulon rugby shop melbourne

In 1979, Navratilova fell in love with the writer Rita Mae Brown, whose 1973 novel, “Rubyfruit Jungle,” remains the only American lesbian-themed massive best-seller. (It was published by a feminist collective and picked up by Bantam, a few years later, when it had sold seventy thousand copies.) Brown introduced Navratilova to the world of politically active lesbians, in which she was a celebrity, and Navratilova began thinking of coming out publicly. The problem was, her application for U.S. citizenship was still pending and could be denied on the grounds of her homosexuality. (This provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act was dropped in 1990, when it was redrafted by Representative Barney Frank, of Massachusetts, who is gay.) Navratilova developed a new way of deflecting the sexuality question: she would now say, “I can’t talk about it now.” Privately, she told some journalists that she couldn’t talk about it until she became a citizen. She also told some of the other tennis players that, once she had her passport, “If anybody asks me about it, I’m just going to say, ‘Yes, I am gay.’ ”

In April, 1981, a woman named Marilyn Barnett sued Billie Jean King, one of the great female players and the founder of the Women’s Tennis Association. Barnett, who had been King’s lover for seven years, claimed that King had promised to support her for life, and was demanding compensation. Navratilova knew Barnett, who was a hairdresser and had travelled with King for several years. “She did my hair, too,” Navratilova told me. King acknowledged the relationship but said that it was an affair she regretted, and affirmed her commitment to her marriage. “She was trying to pretend that she was still straight,” Navratilova remembered. “She wasn’t, but she didn’t come out until the late nineties.”

The lawsuit caused journalists to ask ever more questions about tennis players’ sexuality. Navratilova knew that she was about to be granted citizenship, which would have freed her to come out—except for one thing: “The sponsors had said to the people in charge that if there was another scandal that they would pull their sponsorship from the tour. So first I was protecting my citizenship, and then I was protecting the people I was with at the W.T.A. I felt I was responsible for sixty to a hundred women.” Their livelihoods depended in large part on the sponsorship money that came from Avon, the cosmetics company then behind the W.T.A.

In the summer of 1981, Navratilova got her passport. “And two days later this journalist calls me, in Monte Carlo. Now I can’t come out because I’m protecting the tour. So I said, ‘You are not going to write about it, are you?’ He said, ‘Not if you don’t want me to.’ I said, ‘Of course I don’t want you to.’ He said, “O.K., I won’t, then.” And two days later it was in the Daily News.” The headline was “Martina Fears Avon’s Call if She Talks.”

Avon did not in fact drop its sponsorship of the W.T.A. Nor did Navratilova lose the endorsements she had—the racquets and shoes stayed in place. “But I couldn’t get any deals outside of that in the U.S., because I was out,” she said. Even as her career soared, as did the popularity of women’s tennis, advertising agencies stayed away. “They would call my agent about a commercial or something, and she would say, ‘How about Martina?’ and they would say no and then Chris [Evert] would get the deal, or somebody else. It was the kiss of death. Advertisers wouldn’t touch me with a ten-foot pole.”

I asked how long that lasted, and Navratilova had to think a moment. The only exceptions were Olivia Cruises, a company offering cruises for lesbians, and, in the late nineties, Subaru, the car company that ingeniously decided to advertise specifically to lesbians. Audiences, though, were more accepting than the advertisers. Two months after the article, Navratilova lost to Tracy Austin, and the crowd clapped its support for the one who lost. “So I felt accepted by the general public,” Navratilova said. “They didn’t care.”

Even after the Daily News article, Navratilova couldn’t speak openly about her sexuality. She had left Brown for Nancy Lieberman, a professional basketball player who was in the closet. “Now I was protecting her. We were ‘friends.’ Everybody knew, but I never owned up to [our relationship] because she was still trying to get endorsements and play basketball.” In theory, Navratilova believes, the question of one’s sexuality should be separate from the question of one’s relationship: “I will own my sexuality, but I don’t want people in my private life. It’s private; that’s why it’s called that.” In practice, however, she felt she couldn’t be fully out until her relationship with Lieberman ended, in 1984. Her next girlfriend, the beauty queen Judy Nelson, had no objections to being open about their relationship. A media frenzy ensued. “The first year we were together, the paparazzi followed us everywhere,” Navratilova said. “It was pretty nasty. And the stories were all about ‘her lesbian den.’ And when we split up, they were calling it our ‘love shack’ or something. We’d been together for seven years, and they were calling it a ‘love shack.’ ”

So what did it feel like now, to see the adulation of Rapinoe, the celebration of the soccer team’s victory accompanied by photographs of players kissing their same-sex partners, the ESPN photoshoot of Rapinoe and her partner, the basketball player Sue Bird? “It’s just fantastic,” Navratilova said. “It took a long time. This was thirty years ago that this was going on. It seems like it happened so quickly, gay marriage and all that, but if you are living in the middle of it, it happened very slowly. I am just thrilled that it’s not only O.K.—it’s becoming less and less of a thing. When people come out, it doesn’t make headlines anymore. It’s a non-issue, which I’ve always said—that I hope one day it will be a non-issue. That’s exactly what I’ve been marching for for decades. I’m thrilled. I’m just so thrilled.”