Category: News

Home / Category: News

Share

9th Sep 2019

Brazilian-born Victoria’s Secret model Lais Riberio, 28, announced on Instagram that she is engaged to her NBA player boyfriend of one year, Joakim Noah.

Sharing the happy news on her profile, the 28-year-old model posted a snap of the couple in a deep embrace inside a tent, which as the model noted, was taken at the Burning Man 2019 festival moments after the proposal had taken place. 

“I’m a bit late for Burning Man pics and of course I didn’t touch my phone for 5 days and I don’t have a single pic but thanks to my Bff @jeromeduran he captured one of the best moments in my life!” The model wrote. Adding: “ @stickity13 surprised me at my fav place in the world and proposed And I couldn’t be happier! We are getting married guys”.

While we don’t have details as yet of how the proposal happened, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if it didn’t adhere to the traditional get-down-on-one-knee scenario, given the location of the proposal and Ribeiro’s Burning Man outfit.

The Burning Man festival is held in the Black Rock Desert in Nevada, a region that has an almost science fiction-like arid landscape not typically associated with romance and roses (the floral situation is a particular sticking point given it’s a desert and roses aren’t really on the growing agenda there). 

Coupled with Ribeiro’s festival look—a transparent neon green mesh mini over a matching bikini bottom and no top—the set-up doesn’t appear to be the most traditional for inspiring declarations of eternal love. However, in this case, appearances are deceiving. The desert location, the Burning Man festival and Ribeiro’s Burning Man wardrobe proved there are no rules of engagement when it comes to matters of the heart, with Noah popping the question and Ribeiro accepting.

And perhaps the lack of clothes, the desert heat and the whole Burning Man element actually contributed to the moment. The groom-to-be also posted the couple’s happy announcement to his Instagram account, @stickity13 with a number of flame emojis, indication how “hot” the whole proposal was. “Proposing to you was the easiest decision of my life. Seeing that smile riding the playa at the burn… I will never forget that. I got your back picanha!!! I know you know because I tell you everyday. I love u. On another note this wedding is about to be lit, ️️” Noah wrote on Instagram.

Congratulations to the happy couple and, in the words of Paris Hilton, “That’s hot”.

Click Here: Germany Football Shop

Share

9th Sep 2019

Following months of their romantic relationship status remaining unconfirmed, we’re almost certain that recent snaps of Timothée Chalamet and Lily-Rose Depp getting cosy on a yacht are the clincher to confirm a rumour we’ve long hoped was true.

With both travelling to Italy for the annual Venice Film Festival, the pair—who we’ve been shipping all year long—stepped out on the red carpet to promote their soon-to-be-released, Shakespeare-based film, The King.

Over the course of just a few days, Chalamet and Depp appeared for the premiere and photocall for said film, walking the carpet together, but with a very obvious, very friend-appropriate distance between them at all times. Could we have been wrong? Could the relationship we have suspected since October last year, when the two were spotted kissing in the New York City rain in a scene reminiscent of any rom-com resolution, be nothing but a figment of our imaginations?

Well, we may have thought so until one rather public, rather heated, and rather recent display of affection. Recently, Chalamet and Depp set off on a yacht trip in Capri after the film festival wrapped, as reported by Popsugar. And although they looked to have partaken in this sailing venture with a group of friends, it didn’t stop the two from taking a momentary break from their self-imposed physical distancing and engaging in a whole lot of kissing on the bow of their luxury boat.

In fact, fans—us included—were so excited for this break-out moment in celebrity dating history, that it became worthy of meme status.

 

 

And this ultra-romantic moment wasn’t the only relationship-like behaviour the two looked to be displaying. Many cute moments preceded the now-worldwide news-worthy kiss, including Chalamet carrying Depp to the yacht thrown over his shoulder, the two of them swimming in the Mediterranean sea and cuddling on the bow of the yacht before the previously referred to kiss.

These glimpses of their passion aside, we feel like any PDA sessions between Chalamet and Depp will still be few and far between, so if you really want more glimpses into their passion you’re going to have to tune into their Netflix film, The King, once it drops. With Chalamet starring as King Henry V, and Depp playing Catherine of Aragon opposite him, their on-screen chemistry will no doubt cement our off-screen hopes.

Click Here: Germany Football Shop

But we think we’re going to keep our eyes on each of their Instagram profiles, just in case they decide to make their relationship Insta-official sometime soon.

Last week, Alexandra Bondi de Antoni, executive editor of Vogue.de, travelled to Paris to visit star photographer Peter Lindbergh in his studio. Sadly, the podcast episode she recorded with him for the first season of the podcast, , proved to be the last interview he would ever give; Peter Lindbergh died on Tuesday 3 September, aged 74. Here, you can read an excerpt from the interview – and listen to the entire podcast episode.

How has the fashion industry changed since you started?

“Incidentally, I have now been in Paris for 40 years. And very early on, it was all about fashion houses – the designer was practically the house. Today, we have a corporate system where talented designers are placed in something they have not founded, which they only have to half-respect, and make personal contributions. That’s also very interesting. But it’s a very different feeling. I still remember everything, right back to the beginning. I shot the campaign for Jil Sander, Prada, Armani, and you were always friends with the designers there, and the house belonged to them. It did not feel more original or creative. It was just a different feeling, like a family restaurant. That was all completely different from big corporations. Today, it’s more about the numbers. As a designer, that has to be terribly stressful. The press says, ‘That was the greatest collection we’ve ever seen’. Then you start to think that you can rest a bit, sit down. Then someone from the finance department comes and says, ‘It did not sell at all’. Terrible – and not just for you: you are also responsible for someone who has invested a lot of money in it. You can feel that, too.”

Do you sometimes miss it, that family feeling?

“Yes, of course I miss that, also because I was younger and people did not have such immense respect for me. It’s awful; it’s like a wall around you. People say, ‘It’s an honour to meet you’.”

What do you say when someone says, “It’s an honour to meet you”?

“Do not say such nonsense. What’s that supposed to mean? I thought we were having a nice conversation just now [laughs].”

The first Vogue you worked for was American , right? 

“Funnily enough, the first one was British and I was allowed to contribute three crumpled pages at the back of the magazine. I was told: ‘Young man, do you know what you’re doing? This is British, so you’d better be good.’ It was really the last piece in the back, which no one looks at anyway. And then I started working for Italian . And that highlights the differences. I always try to make this clear to the photographer: The photographers themselves have to be flexible, they have to adapt. For example, when I work for Anna [Wintour], that’s completely different from Italian – from the beginning, from idea inception, from preparation, with everything. That’s fun. Some say, ‘That’s commercial, it’s the kind of thing you would do for American ’. And I say, ‘You’re nuts! That’s not commercial at all’. […] I’ve done a lot of nice, narrative stuff for them.” 

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

The first American cover you had back then was completely taboo: couture linked with jeans. The story is widely known. Do you think that could still do that today? Is there anything else that could make the kind of waves this cover did back then?

“No, because everything is out there now. Think of the many hundreds of covers that Steven Meisel has created for Italian : practically everything that could be done, has been done. If you want to do something revolutionary now [it’s more difficult]. It was a completely different situation at the time. There were very fixed rules; it was all close-ups with a turban and perfect makeup, retouched – beautiful. When Anna got there, she just had the feeling that that was all over. That jeans story… it wasn’t me that started that massive revolution. I just let it be. The camera frame is a bit longer than the body, so you have to leave some room to crop the image. Leave the jeans, and you don’t need to do anything – and just let it remain. The revolutionary act, that was all Anna, because she said: ‘That’s great, let’s leave it like that.’ She had the courage to do that – and practically gave the world a great big slap. That was crazy then.”

What was it like to work with Franca Sozzani for Italian ?

“Italian was always totally free. It was incredible how Franca Sozzani protected us, the three photographers she loved. They could do what they wanted. To have such support, that was indescribable, to have that kind of backing. We often did not talk about what we were doing. She always said, ‘Do it.’ And that was it. So you could do what you wanted. And Franca was always slightly offended and wanted to get me to create fewer double-pages, because then she loses credit. And I thought to myself: ‘Franca, come on! It’s great; on a vertical page, you can’t see anything – everything is cropped out.’ She said, ‘Yes, but I need it.’ Then we made double pages anyway and then she said nothing. Franca was, in any case, something special. You are, of course, very spoiled if you get to work like that. Very spoiled, I have to say.”

You also often work together with Christiane [Arp, editor-in-chief of Germany].

“The great thing is, Christiane only comes up with great stuff. Christiane just comes in and says, ‘Say, wouldn’t you want to do this? Karl (Lagerfeld) has this painter in Belgium that he loved so much, and you also worked in Deauville forever, and Karl, too – so let’s just drive to Deauville and do something great out there, inspired by the paintings.’ When Christiane comes to me, mostly with stories that you can say a bit more about, she knows – in contrast to what everyone says about me – that the idea that I find fashion stupid and that I’m not interested in fashion is totally wrong. I just don’t base the photos I take on the fashion itself. That’s not the starting point for me; I don’t go ‘Ah, collection was…’.” 

One cover that you’ve just published is the September issue of British, guest edited by Meghan Markle to showcase great women moving and shaking the world. Is fashion political? Should fashion be political?

“So, they all looked very nice, and the fashion was very nice. But that was not the focal point, as is usually the case in September. It was a beautiful statement that they all made. And Edward (Enninful), the editor-in-chief, is one of those people who makes me think: Great! We just kept it running and did not try to have a point of view with the fashion. We actually wanted to do something completely different, and then we just slipped in there. So it ended up looking the way it did.” 

You often say that it is the job of photographers to free women. What must we be freed from today?

“Women must be freed from the idea that they always have to stay young and that they must disfigure themselves at a certain age. That’s how all traces of life disappear. After all, you gather, in a sense, what you’ve lived through in your face and body. If you have a nose that [you think] does not suit you and you spend your whole life thinking ‘I am so ugly’ and you then do something about it and are pleased that the nose is now sharper, and feels more like how you’ve always wanted to look: wonderful. Nobody should take that away from you. But these youth complexes are so nonsensical.” 

 

How does it feel to know that right now, you are influential? 

“That feels really good [laughs]. I have to say, honestly, I wanted to lie just now, but it makes you happy, that you have clearly been relevant.” 

Do you think that being influential is still possible today? 

“Of course. It’s always possible. Today is no different than the day before yesterday. It’s always the same thing, presented in a different way. Some think that it was so much easier in the past. It has never been easier. It is not difficult today. It’s just the way it is.”

How do you connect with yourself?

“I have been meditating for 40 years. It makes it a bit easier to know who you are. You just have to find a way to access all the things that you have seen. Everything you see, everything you hear and smell, and everything you say, remains within. It’s there, in you, and you have to use it. Most people don’t know that. They carry the biggest treasure in the world with them.” 

Is there anything that you are afraid of?

“No, not anymore. Not in a long time. I have extreme ‘no fear’ [laughs]. What kind of language is that? I mean: extreme lack of fear.”

How do you deal with negative feelings?

“I’m indestructible. There are so many things about me that make me indestructible.”

Maybe that plays a part in you not being afraid, no negative feelings? 

“I do not have negative feelings. But that’s great, I think, when you know you’re invulnerable. I can’t think of what anyone could do to me that would send me reeling. There are people who have a little skin cancer on their big toe and jump out the window. The only thing would be if something terrible were to happen to my children. That could completely floor me. But nothing else.” 

How do you know when you’ve done something right, or that something feels right? 

“It’s also connected to meditating. Which is underestimated, how precisely and comprehensively you get to know yourself. With it comes a lot of discernment, also in connection with the creativity and the hidden things that are tucked away within oneself and that start to transcend and become available to you. You get closer to yourself when you give yourself time. It is an insane instrument, which does you a lot of good. It’s just there, it’s right in front of people and nobody wants to see it.” 

Do you sometimes experience doubt within this process as well? 

“Not anymore. There is nothing to doubt. You always reach the source of the solution when you take a step back. If you’re just a follower, you never know why you are doing something. Then you can’t know if something is good or not. How would you know that what you thought is right, if you didn’t think it? [Laughs] It’s that simple. Nobody thinks about that.” 

Is there anything else that amazes you today? 

“What really amazes me is when someone is really nice to someone else, and gains nothing from it. When you look at all the criminal politicians, then it astounds me to see someone completely different; the Prime Minister of New Zealand, for instance. It’s really amazing that that kind of woman can be a politician. Where it’s not these usual tired phrases, whereby people just want to keep what they already have and believe that’s politics. My interest is in geopolitics. When you see the mess that is created in countries like Venezuela and how it is then sold to the poor, I think ‘what a tragic world we live in’.” 

In the last , there was an article in which centenarians talked about what moved them in life, but also what they regretted. Many said that the only thing they regret is that they misplaced their priorities and lost things or made wrong decisions. While you are not 100 years old, far from it, can you relate to that? 

The wrong decision was that I worked too much. That I have had too little time for everything around me. I was never so attracted to the glamorous world. That never impressed me. My children and grandchildren impressed me more. I always thought that I was the best father in the world because I just loved them. Looking back, I do not think it was true, because I was not there half the time. But that’s not a crazy thing to regret.”

What does ageing mean to you? 

“It’s actually not a tragedy. As far as work or my mind are concerned, a lot is much better than it used to be. You think so differently about things. When someone approaches you, and you’d never really noticed them before. Suddenly, you see these people and recognise them. You get a lot more out of it.”

What is the biggest lesson you have learned in your career? 

“That is quite easy. Never think that you did anything great. As soon as you do, everything great disappears. One should not give too many interviews. One can work much more positively in obscurity. If someone ever said to me, ‘You know you’re the best fashion photographer in the world.’ I would wave that off. Today, I caught myself thinking ‘Actually, it is true, is there anyone better out there?’ [Laughs] After that, I thought, ‘Heavens, you really caught yourself there.’” 

The full podcast episode by Germany can be streamed on Spotify, Apple and Soundcloud

This article originally appeared on Vogue.de.

What If We Stopped Pretending?

September 8, 2019 | News | No Comments

“There is infinite hope,” Kafka tells us, “only not for us.” This is a fittingly mystical epigram from a writer whose characters strive for ostensibly reachable goals and, tragically or amusingly, never manage to get any closer to them. But it seems to me, in our rapidly darkening world, that the converse of Kafka’s quip is equally true: There is no hope, except for us.

I’m talking, of course, about climate change. The struggle to rein in global carbon emissions and keep the planet from melting down has the feel of Kafka’s fiction. The goal has been clear for thirty years, and despite earnest efforts we’ve made essentially no progress toward reaching it. Today, the scientific evidence verges on irrefutable. If you’re younger than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilization of life on earth—massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought. If you’re under thirty, you’re all but guaranteed to witness it.

If you care about the planet, and about the people and animals who live on it, there are two ways to think about this. You can keep on hoping that catastrophe is preventable, and feel ever more frustrated or enraged by the world’s inaction. Or you can accept that disaster is coming, and begin to rethink what it means to have hope.

Even at this late date, expressions of unrealistic hope continue to abound. Hardly a day seems to pass without my reading that it’s time to “roll up our sleeves” and “save the planet”; that the problem of climate change can be “solved” if we summon the collective will. Although this message was probably still true in 1988, when the science became fully clear, we’ve emitted as much atmospheric carbon in the past thirty years as we did in the previous two centuries of industrialization. The facts have changed, but somehow the message stays the same.

Psychologically, this denial makes sense. Despite the outrageous fact that I’ll soon be dead forever, I live in the present, not the future. Given a choice between an alarming abstraction (death) and the reassuring evidence of my senses (breakfast!), my mind prefers to focus on the latter. The planet, too, is still marvelously intact, still basically normal—seasons changing, another election year coming, new comedies on Netflix—and its impending collapse is even harder to wrap my mind around than death. Other kinds of apocalypse, whether religious or thermonuclear or asteroidal, at least have the binary neatness of dying: one moment the world is there, the next moment it’s gone forever. Climate apocalypse, by contrast, is messy. It will take the form of increasingly severe crises compounding chaotically until civilization begins to fray. Things will get very bad, but maybe not too soon, and maybe not for everyone. Maybe not for me.

Some of the denial, however, is more willful. The evil of the Republican Party’s position on climate science is well known, but denial is entrenched in progressive politics, too, or at least in its rhetoric. The Green New Deal, the blueprint for some of the most substantial proposals put forth on the issue, is still framed as our last chance to avert catastrophe and save the planet, by way of gargantuan renewable-energy projects. Many of the groups that support those proposals deploy the language of “stopping” climate change, or imply that there’s still time to prevent it. Unlike the political right, the left prides itself on listening to climate scientists, who do indeed allow that catastrophe is theoretically avertable. But not everyone seems to be listening carefully. The stress falls on the word theoretically.

Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins completely out of control. The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (maybe a little more, but also maybe a little less). The I.P.C.C.—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—tells us that, to limit the rise to less than two degrees, we not only need to reverse the trend of the past three decades. We need to approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades.

This is, to say the least, a tall order. It also assumes that you trust the I.P.C.C.’s calculations. New research, described last month in Scientific American, demonstrates that climate scientists, far from exaggerating the threat of climate change, have underestimated its pace and severity. To project the rise in the global mean temperature, scientists rely on complicated atmospheric modelling. They take a host of variables and run them through supercomputers to generate, say, ten thousand different simulations for the coming century, in order to make a “best” prediction of the rise in temperature. When a scientist predicts a rise of two degrees Celsius, she’s merely naming a number about which she’s very confident: the rise will be at least two degrees. The rise might, in fact, be far higher.

As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios in which collective action averts catastrophe. The scenarios, which I draw from the prescriptions of policy-makers and activists, share certain necessary conditions.

The first condition is that every one of the world’s major polluting countries institute draconian conservation measures, shut down much of its energy and transportation infrastructure, and completely retool its economy. According to a recent paper in Nature, the carbon emissions from existing global infrastructure, if operated through its normal lifetime, will exceed our entire emissions “allowance”—the further gigatons of carbon that can be released without crossing the threshold of catastrophe. (This estimate does not include the thousands of new energy and transportation projects already planned or under construction.) To stay within that allowance, a top-down intervention needs to happen not only in every country but throughout every country. Making New York City a green utopia will not avail if Texans keep pumping oil and driving pickup trucks.

Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey

The actions taken by these countries must also be the right ones. Vast sums of government money must be spent without wasting it and without lining the wrong pockets. Here it’s useful to recall the Kafkaesque joke of the European Union’s biofuel mandate, which served to accelerate the deforestation of Indonesia for palm-oil plantations, and the American subsidy of ethanol fuel, which turned out to benefit no one but corn farmers.

Finally, overwhelming numbers of human beings, including millions of government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe curtailment of their familiar lifestyles without revolting. They must accept the reality of climate change and have faith in the extreme measures taken to combat it. They can’t dismiss news they dislike as fake. They have to set aside nationalism and class and racial resentments. They have to make sacrifices for distant threatened nations and distant future generations. They have to be permanently terrified by hotter summers and more frequent natural disasters, rather than just getting used to them. Every day, instead of thinking about breakfast, they have to think about death.

Call me a pessimist or call me a humanist, but I don’t see human nature fundamentally changing anytime soon. I can run ten thousand scenarios through my model, and in not one of them do I see the two-degree target being met.

To judge from recent opinion polls, which show that a majority of Americans (many of them Republican) are pessimistic about the planet’s future, and from the success of a book like David Wallace-Wells’s harrowing “The Uninhabitable Earth,” which was released this year, I’m not alone in having reached this conclusion. But there continues to be a reluctance to broadcast it. Some climate activists argue that if we publicly admit that the problem can’t be solved, it will discourage people from taking any ameliorative action at all. This seems to me not only a patronizing calculation but an ineffectual one, given how little progress we have to show for it to date. The activists who make it remind me of the religious leaders who fear that, without the promise of eternal salvation, people won’t bother to behave well. In my experience, nonbelievers are no less loving of their neighbors than believers. And so I wonder what might happen if, instead of denying reality, we told ourselves the truth.

First of all, even if we can no longer hope to be saved from two degrees of warming, there’s still a strong practical and ethical case for reducing carbon emissions. In the long run, it probably makes no difference how badly we overshoot two degrees; once the point of no return is passed, the world will become self-transforming. In the shorter term, however, half measures are better than no measures. Halfway cutting our emissions would make the immediate effects of warming somewhat less severe, and it would somewhat postpone the point of no return. The most terrifying thing about climate change is the speed at which it’s advancing, the almost monthly shattering of temperature records. If collective action resulted in just one fewer devastating hurricane, just a few extra years of relative stability, it would be a goal worth pursuing.

In fact, it would be worth pursuing even if it had no effect at all. To fail to conserve a finite resource when conservation measures are available, to needlessly add carbon to the atmosphere when we know very well what carbon is doing to it, is simply wrong. Although the actions of one individual have zero effect on the climate, this doesn’t mean that they’re meaningless. Each of us has an ethical choice to make. During the Protestant Reformation, when “end times” was merely an idea, not the horribly concrete thing it is today, a key doctrinal question was whether you should perform good works because it will get you into Heaven, or whether you should perform them simply because they’re good—because, while Heaven is a question mark, you know that this world would be better if everyone performed them. I can respect the planet, and care about the people with whom I share it, without believing that it will save me.

More than that, a false hope of salvation can be actively harmful. If you persist in believing that catastrophe can be averted, you commit yourself to tackling a problem so immense that it needs to be everyone’s overriding priority forever. One result, weirdly, is a kind of complacency: by voting for green candidates, riding a bicycle to work, avoiding air travel, you might feel that you’ve done everything you can for the only thing worth doing. Whereas, if you accept the reality that the planet will soon overheat to the point of threatening civilization, there’s a whole lot more you should be doing.

Our resources aren’t infinite. Even if we invest much of them in a longest-shot gamble, reducing carbon emissions in the hope that it will save us, it’s unwise to invest all of them. Every billion dollars spent on high-speed trains, which may or may not be suitable for North America, is a billion not banked for disaster preparedness, reparations to inundated countries, or future humanitarian relief. Every renewable-energy mega-project that destroys a living ecosystem—the “green” energy development now occurring in Kenya’s national parks, the giant hydroelectric projects in Brazil, the construction of solar farms in open spaces, rather than in settled areas—erodes the resilience of a natural world already fighting for its life. Soil and water depletion, overuse of pesticides, the devastation of world fisheries—collective will is needed for these problems, too, and, unlike the problem of carbon, they’re within our power to solve. As a bonus, many low-tech conservation actions (restoring forests, preserving grasslands, eating less meat) can reduce our carbon footprint as effectively as massive industrial changes.

All-out war on climate change made sense only as long as it was winnable. Once you accept that we’ve lost it, other kinds of action take on greater meaning. Preparing for fires and floods and refugees is a directly pertinent example. But the impending catastrophe heightens the urgency of almost any world-improving action. In times of increasing chaos, people seek protection in tribalism and armed force, rather than in the rule of law, and our best defense against this kind of dystopia is to maintain functioning democracies, functioning legal systems, functioning communities. In this respect, any movement toward a more just and civil society can now be considered a meaningful climate action. Securing fair elections is a climate action. Combatting extreme wealth inequality is a climate action. Shutting down the hate machines on social media is a climate action. Instituting humane immigration policy, advocating for racial and gender equality, promoting respect for laws and their enforcement, supporting a free and independent press, ridding the country of assault weapons—these are all meaningful climate actions. To survive rising temperatures, every system, whether of the natural world or of the human world, will need to be as strong and healthy as we can make it.

And then there’s the matter of hope. If your hope for the future depends on a wildly optimistic scenario, what will you do ten years from now, when the scenario becomes unworkable even in theory? Give up on the planet entirely? To borrow from the advice of financial planners, I might suggest a more balanced portfolio of hopes, some of them longer-term, most of them shorter. It’s fine to struggle against the constraints of human nature, hoping to mitigate the worst of what’s to come, but it’s just as important to fight smaller, more local battles that you have some realistic hope of winning. Keep doing the right thing for the planet, yes, but also keep trying to save what you love specifically—a community, an institution, a wild place, a species that’s in trouble—and take heart in your small successes. Any good thing you do now is arguably a hedge against the hotter future, but the really meaningful thing is that it’s good today. As long as you have something to love, you have something to hope for.

In Santa Cruz, where I live, there’s an organization called the Homeless Garden Project. On a small working farm at the west end of town, it offers employment, training, support, and a sense of community to members of the city’s homeless population. It can’t “solve” the problem of homelessness, but it’s been changing lives, one at a time, for nearly thirty years. Supporting itself in part by selling organic produce, it contributes more broadly to a revolution in how we think about people in need, the land we depend on, and the natural world around us. In the summer, as a member of its C.S.A. program, I enjoy its kale and strawberries, and in the fall, because the soil is alive and uncontaminated, small migratory birds find sustenance in its furrows.

There may come a time, sooner than any of us likes to think, when the systems of industrial agriculture and global trade break down and homeless people outnumber people with homes. At that point, traditional local farming and strong communities will no longer just be liberal buzzwords. Kindness to neighbors and respect for the land—nurturing healthy soil, wisely managing water, caring for pollinators—will be essential in a crisis and in whatever society survives it. A project like the Homeless Garden offers me the hope that the future, while undoubtedly worse than the present, might also, in some ways, be better. Most of all, though, it gives me hope for today.

The star striker showed off her dance moves as the best women’s team in the world partied hard following their triumph

The U.S. women’s national team has celebrated their World Cup final win over the Netherlands in style with joint-captain Alex Morgan’s dance moves stealing the show. 

As the players partied in the locker room following the 2-0 victory, Morgan was filmed holding a beer and twerking with all of her teammates cheering on wildly. 

Several videos of the celebrations emerged on social media with backup goalkeeper Ashlyn Harris posting an incredible series of stories on her Instagram page.

The vision included singing, dancing, spraying of drinks and messages to family, friends and followers as the USWNT celebrated the honor of being the best women’s team in the world. 

It was the USWNT’s fourth World Cup title and second in succession after winning the 2015 edition in Canada. 

The 26 goals they scored in the tournament was a competition record, beating a mark set by themselves and Germany in 1991 and 2003, respectively as they bulldozed their way to the final. 

They failed to concede a goal in an incredible group stage performance, which included the record 13-0 win over Thailand in their first match, before winning all three of the knockout games 2-1 against Spain, France and England to earn their spot in the decider versus the Dutch. 

Despite being strong favorites in the final, the USWNT didn’t have it all their own way against a dangerous Netherlands outfit until Golden Ball winner Megan Rapinoe opened the scoring after 61 minutes from the spot, after the referee agreed a penalty was warranted following VAR intervention. 

The result was sealed eight minutes later as a low-drive from Rose Lavelle gave the USWNT an advantage that the Dutch were unable to overcome. 

In addition to winning the tournament’s best player ahead of England’s Lucy Bronze and teammate Lavelle, Rapinoe also claimed the Golden Boot award with her six goals coming in only 428 minutes compared to the 490 minutes it took Morgan to score her six strikes. 

The Netherlands didn’t go home from the final empty-handed with goalkeeper Sari van Veenendaal claiming the Golden Glove award with three clean sheets against New Zealand, Sweden and Italy. 

Click Here: Crystal Palace Shop

Some NWSL players are paid just $16,538 a season compared to the $56,250 wages of MLS rookies, which Dorrance says is a threat to the USA’s dominance

The USWNT will lose its status as the best team in the world if the “starvation wages” in their domestic league are not addressed, according to former Women’s World Cup-winning coach Anson Dorrance. 

USA won a fourth Women’s World Cup title in Lyon on Sunday, retaining the trophy with a 2-0 victory over Netherlands after knocking out European heavyweights France and England in the previous two rounds.

Megan Rapinoe, the tournament’s Golden Boot and Golden Ball winner, once again spoke about the disparity in prize money between the women’s and men’s finals afterwards, with the USWNT players taking home $4 million (£3.2m) compared to the $38m (£30.4m) France accrued for winning the men’s World Cup in Russia last year.

There is also a huge gap between the top domestic leagues in America, where the minimum and maximum salaries for this NWSL season are $16,538 (£13,240) and $46,200 (£36,989) respectively, compared to the minimum in MLS of $56,250 (£45,036) and the maximum, which will be paid to LA Galaxy star Zlatan Ibrahimovic, of $7.2m (£5.8m).

Each of the 23 players in Jill Ellis’ World Cup-winning squad ply their trade in NWSL – though their salaries are subsidised by the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) and include payments for their international feats – and former USWNT coach Dorrance wants greater investment at the professional level.

Dorrance, who led the USWNT to their maiden World Cup triumph in 1991 and coached the likes of Crystal Dunn and Tobin Heath at the collegiate level in his current role at North Carolina, told Omnisport: “An entry-level professional is paid $16,500 a year in the NWSL. That’s starvation wages. 

“I would love to see more and more women start to make the sort of money we’re seeing on the men’s side.”

While the USWNT were able to see off the challenge of the Europeans this time, the other seven World Cup quarter-finalists all came from the continent and the balance of power may have shifted by 2023.

There has been increased investment in the women’s game in Europe in recent years, major clubs like Lyon, Barcelona, Juventus and Manchester City all significantly backing their women’s teams.

“We’re going to be in trouble if we don’t create a league that competes with what the Europeans are doing now,” added Shannon Higgins-Cirovski, who was a key member of the World Cup-winning team in 1991.

“Hats off to us at this point, [but] I’m hoping we can create something from this momentum and make it so we don’t have to worry about that.”

Rapinoe said after USWNT’s win on Sunday that FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who had revealed plans to double the prize money for the next Women’s World Cup, wants to speak to her about the financial matters after fans chanted “equal pay” at the final.

There will also be conversations between USSF and Ellis’ players over the pay gap between USA’s men’s and women’s teams, with the newly crowned World Cup winners having instigated legal action against the federation earlier this year for alleged gender discrimination over earnings and working conditions.

Dorrance wants to see equality, but also greater transparency over the revenue generated by the two teams given reports suggest the women bring in more than their male counterparts.

“[The USFF should] have a very transparent set of accounting books to show exactly what happens,” Dorrance added.

“This is how many people watched this Women’s World Cup game in the United States, here were the sponsorship dollars and here’s how we’re going to reward our women that have just won the event. I would love for that to become clearer.

“In terms of per diem, there should be no difference, those should be the same, then your rewards should be based on what you make.

“I don’t think all of a sudden these women should be paid the amount of money Christian Pulisic is paid [by Chelsea] because of the crowd he’s played in front of at Borussia Dortmund and what he will play in front of at Chelsea.

“But I would love for it to be transparent and for them to be paid what they’re worth.”

Click Here: IQOS White

The new format will also see two Concacaf sides face off for the region’s intercontinental playoff spot

Concacaf is going to get straight to the good stuff for 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. 

The Hexagonal, previously the final round of a longer qualification process, will begin in September 2020, with the six highest-ranked Concacaf teams in the post-June 2020 FIFA rankings taking part. The top three teams from round-robin play will qualify for Qatar. 

Simultaneously, competition between the 7-35 ranked members of Concacaf will begin with a group stage (comprised of five groups of four teams and three groups of three). The eight group winners will move into a knockout stage. Those teams will play two-legged contests in the quarterfinals, semifinals and final with the winner of that tournament taking on the fourth-place finisher from the Hex for the right to take part in the intercontinential playoff for Concacaf’s potential fourth World Cup slot. 

The qualifiers will begin in the September 2020 FIFA window with more matches taking place in October 2020, November 2020, March 2021 and September 2021. The playoff between the fourth-place Hex finisher and the winner of the tournament involving lower-ranked teams will be in the October 2021 FIFA window.  

Currently, Mexico, the United States, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Honduras and El Salvador make up the top six Concacaf teams in the FIFA rankings, meaning 2018 World Cup participant Panama is among the teams that would need to qualify through the second portion of the competition. So too would Haiti after its run to the Gold Cup semifinals. However, those rankings were last updated in the middle of June rather than after Concacaf’s most important tournament. 

The changes are intended to place more importance and a bigger sense of occasion on each match. It also will give teams more matches overall. Previously, teams in the lower rungs of the confederation would play a few matches in World Cup qualification each cycle and then sit idle for four years.

Click Here: habitat tord boontje

Now, with the Nations League set to begin in September and the qualification format modified, the lower-ranked teams will be playing more frequent official matches. They’ll also, however, face a long road to earn a single slot to potentially qualify for the World Cup with a group stage plus winning five home-and-away ties if they’re going to make the sport’s biggest stage.

“The love for the game in this region is growing rapidly and our diverse and dynamic communities want a clear pathway to world-class football. Through our freshly designed formats — across FIFA World Cup Qualifiers, Concacaf Nations League and Concacaf Gold Cup — we are staging more competitive international matches than ever before to help these communities fulfill their potential,” Concacaf president Victor Montagliani said in a news release.  
  
“This new FIFA World Cup qualifying format, based on the FIFA rankings, makes every competitive match count. Alongside the Concacaf Nations League, and our expanded Gold Cup, it will raise standards of play to unprecedented levels and develop the sport across the region, making the leading Concacaf nations stronger on the global stage, while giving our emerging footballing nations the chance to pursue their dreams of playing at a World Cup. 

After a four-window qualification process, the Nations League proper begins in September, one year before the start of the World Cup qualification cycle. The timing and site for the World Cup qualification draw will be announced later this year. 

The Spaniard put pen to paper on a new two-year deal at Old Trafford last month and insists he always “wanted to commit” his future to the club

Juan Mata says he decided to sign a contract extension at Manchester United because it is a “special club” and he already has his sights on winning major trophies next season.

The Spain international’s future was the subject of much speculation over the last few months, amid reports of an impasse in negotiations over a new deal.

The 31-year-old was due to become a free agent on July 1, but despite rumours of a possible switch to Barcelona, he agreed to fresh terms at the Theatre of Dreams last month and will now remain at the club until 2021.

Mata joined United from Chelsea in 2013 and has since managed to rack up over 200 appearances for the club, scoring 45 goals across all competitions.

The midfielder has picked up FA Cup, Carabao Cup and Europa League winners’ medals during his time at Old Trafford, standing out in a team which has faced a great deal of criticism.

Click Here: Putters

Ahead of the Red Devils’ pre-season tour of Australia, Mata explained his reasons for staying in Manchester, despite facing “difficult moments” in recent years.

“There were many things, the first thing is the feeling of belonging to this club, it’s something special, unique,” he told MUTV.

“We know there are three or four big clubs in Europe and United is one of them. Despite it not being the best moment in our history, even though we have won trophies, that feeling of waking up every day and feeling like a Red Devil is unbelievable so I wanted to keep feeling that.

“I wanted to stay, I wanted to keep giving my best to bring United where it belongs. I’ve been here more than five years and I realise how amazing the supporters are even in the tough moments.

“So I cannot imagine if we win a big trophy how it would be, how the town will change red. I imagine myself in that situation so that is another reason why I wanted to stay.

“I’ve lived difficult moments but I am really looking forward to living great moments with this club.

“Despite all that I wanted to stay. I wanted to commit to the club and keep enjoying wearing this shirt and keep trying my best.”

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s side finished sixth in the Premier League last term, missing out on Champions League qualification and silverware after securing only two wins from their final 12 matches.

United have opted to chase young, homegrown talent in the transfer window in order to strengthen, with Welsh winger Daniel James and England defender Aaron Wan-Bissaka drafted in from Swansea and Crystal Palace, respectively.

Solskjaer is expecting to add one or two extra players to his ranks before the market closes and Southampton’s Mario Lemina is among United’s potential targets after expressing his desire to leave St Mary’s.

The club’s technical director claims that their interest has never gone any further than admiration.

Paolo Maldini insists AC Milan did not make an offer for Luka Modric this close season, although he admits the Real Madrid man would be “perfect” at San Siro.

Modric is expected to stay at Madrid, where he has been since 2012, but the 33-year-old was linked with moves to Inter last year and rivals Milan in recent months.

Click Here: pinko shop cheap

Maldini, acknowledging the midfielder’s blend of experience and talent, says there was never any negotiation for the 2018 Ballon d’Or winner.

“We never negotiated for Modric, but we’ve said to [coach Marco] Giampaolo this club are looking for good young players and some experienced ones,” Rossoneri technical director Maldini told a news conference.

“The growth of young players takes place through the presence of experienced players. Modric would be perfect here, but we’ve never negotiated for him.”

Maldini was speaking alongside Rade Krunic and Theo Hernandez as they were presented as Milan players on Friday.

Hernandez, a left-back just as Maldini was in his playing days, was delighted to have joined Milan.

“It is a real honour to be sitting next to [Maldini],” Hernandez said. “He will always be the best full-back in the world.

“We met in Ibiza, where he had some very beautiful and sincere words for me. Since then, I have had the desire to join Milan. I trained hard to succeed and in the end I did it.”

Krunic, a Bosnia and Herzegovina international midfielder, joined after spending four seasons with Empoli.