[ad_1]
ad
[ad_2]
Source link
td-cloud-library domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/releande/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170 [ad_1]

Clettis Kermit Meeks obituary
Find-A-Grave: Clettis Kermit Meeks
Murder suspect being held without bond
Murder suspect pleads innocent
Mental test granted murder suspect
Man pleads guilty in death of vacationer
Smith receives life term for tourist’s murder

[ad_2]
Source link
[ad_1]
EXCLUSIVE: The BBC is developing a drama series about the Piper Alpha disaster, one of the most catastrophic offshore oil incidents of all time and the worst in terms of lives lost.
The drama comes around 35 years after the disaster, which took place off the coast of Scotland on a North Sea oil rig that at the time accounted for around 10% of the North Sea’s oil and gas production.
The BBC, Scottish producer STV Studios and writer James Wood (Trying, The Great) are in the research phase, we are told, and the show is yet to go into production or be given the green light. It is being developed in consultation with Piper Alpha survivors and relatives, and would be based on these new interviews, ongoing research, the 1990 Cullen report into the tragedy and the book Fire in the Night by Stephen McGinty.
Piper Alpha began production in 1976 around 120 miles north east of Aberdeen, a Scottish city known as one of the oil capitals of Europe. Twelve years after it opened, the rig collapsed following jet fires, which killed 165 men on board and two rescuers. Many of the bodies were never recovered and the disaster’s ripple effects are still felt today. There were 61 survivors.
Piper Alpha remains one of the most expensive man-made catastrophes of all time and is equal to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in terms of its impact on the oil industry. The inquiry took place two years after the disaster and made a wealth of preventative recommendations for the future, although no charges were brought against operator Occidental Petroleum.

Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales meet members of the rescue team after the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster. Image: Mirrorpix via Getty
Factual drama
STV Studios made a BAFTA-winning documentary about the disaster, Piper Alpha: Fire In The Night, around a decade ago, and we understand the company is taking extreme caution during the research process in order to respect the survivors and their relatives.
Factual dramas are popular at present and recent BBC offerings include the likes of The Sixth Commandment and Jimmy Savile series The Reckoning, while the corporation is currently in the process of making a show about the Grenfell tower disaster penned by Peter Kosminsky. ITV, meanwhile, was responsible for the biggest factual drama of the year, Mr Bates vs the Post Office, while Netflix is making Toxic Town about the tragic Corby poisonings, written by Jack Thorne.
The BBC and STV Studios declined comment on the Piper Alpha series.
[ad_2]
Source link
[ad_1]
Jamie Golombek: New case examples help clarify which investments meet the ‘earning income’ test

Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.
Earlier this month, the Canada Revenue Agency updated its comprehensive folio on the topic of interest deductibility, and while most of the changes aren’t of interest to the average taxpayer, the folio has been revised to add a reference to more recent case law on the meaning of the phrase, “for the purpose of earning income from a business or property.”
As a refresher, under the Income Tax Act, interest expense is considered to be a capital expense, and is not deductible unless it meets specific requirements. First, it must be an amount paid or payable under a legal obligation to pay interest, and the amount must be reasonable. In addition, when funds are borrowed, the money must have been acquired for the purpose of earning income from a business or earning income from property (i.e. investment income.)
Advertisement 2
Article content
The updated folio confirmed that the phrase “for the purpose of earning income from a business or property” does not include a reasonable expectation of capital gains, referencing a 2017 Tax Court decision. This concept has caused some confusion among investors who regularly ask about writing off interest expense to buy investments that don’t generate income, and are primarily held to earn a capital gain over time.
Article content
Fortunately, the CRA takes a lenient approach, depending on the facts. For example, where funds are borrowed to make an investment that carries a stated interest or dividend rate, the income-earning test will be met and interest will generally be deductible “absent a sham or window dressing or similar vitiating circumstance.” It’s important to note that the rate or amount of interest or income earned on the investment need not be higher than the interest expense to entitle you to write off the entire expense, nor does it restrict the interest deduction to the amount of income earned.
For example, if you borrow at five per cent to purchase an investment that only yields three per cent, you can still deduct the entire five per cent interest expense, and aren’t capped by the three per cent income on the investment (absent a sham, etc.)
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
Where an investment doesn’t carry a stated interest or dividend rate, such as is the case with most common shares, the CRA generally considers interest costs on funds borrowed to purchase common shares to be tax deductible on the basis that at the time the shares are acquired, “there is a reasonable expectation that the common shareholder will receive dividends.”
But, the CRA notes, it is conceivable that in certain situations, this reasonable expectation may not be present. For example, if a corporation has stated that it does not pay dividends and that dividends are not expected to be paid in the foreseeable future such that shareholders are required to sell their shares in order to realize their value, the purpose test will not be met and interest won’t be tax deductible if you borrowed to purchase those shares.
Fortunately, however, the CRA’s administrative position, as detailed in the folio, is that if a corporation is silent with respect to its dividend policy, or its policy is that dividends will be paid “when operational circumstances permit,” the purpose test will be met and interest would generally be deductible on funds borrowed to make those investments. The CRA takes the same position with respect to mutual fund investments.
Advertisement 4
Article content
In the folio, the CRA provides two examples of common share investments. In the first, X Corp. is an investment vehicle designed to provide only a capital return to the investors in its common shares. Its corporate policy is that dividends will not be paid, that corporate earnings will be reinvested to increase the value of the shares, and that shareholders are required to sell their shares to a third-party in a fixed number of years in order to realize their value. In this situation, since it’s not reasonable to expect any income from such an investment, any interest expense on money borrowed to acquire X Corp. shares would not be deductible.
By contrast, Y Corp. is raising capital by issuing common shares. Its business plans indicate that its cash flow will be required to be reinvested for the foreseeable future, but it discloses to its shareholders that dividends will only be paid when operational circumstances permit or when it believes that shareholders could make better use of the cash. In this situation, according to the CRA, the income-earning purpose test will be met and any interest on money borrowed to purchase Y Corp. shares would be deductible.
Advertisement 5
Article content
The folio also reviews a variety of other interest deductibility scenarios that investors may find useful, specifically related to the “use” of borrowed funds. Over the years, the Supreme Court of Canada, through its various decisions, has made it clear that when it comes to interest deductibility, it’s the current use of the funds, and not the original use that’s relevant, meaning that taxpayers must establish a link between the money that was borrowed and its current use, for the interest paid on those borrowed funds to be tax deductible.
In a simple situation, where one investment is simply replaced with another, linking the original borrowing with its current use is straightforward. As a result, where one investment is sold and the proceeds are used to acquire another investment, interest on the borrowed money that was used to acquire the first investment will continue to be deductible to the extent that the borrowing is reflected in the cost of the new investment.
For example, let’s say you borrowed funds to buy stock of ABC Corp. You decide to sell those shares and you subsequently use all of the proceeds of the sale to acquire shares of XYZ Inc. In this case, the interest would generally continue to be tax deductible.
Advertisement 6
Article content
Now, what if the shares of XYZ ultimately become worthless? Would the interest payable on the outstanding loan still be deductible, even in an extreme case where XYZ Inc. has filed for bankruptcy and eventually no longer exists?
Recommended from Editorial

CRA denies disability claim to woman who is allergic to perfume

If the CRA misspells your name, be prepared for lots of red tape

CRA wins in court as woman fails to justify RRSP overcontribution
You may be surprised to learn that the answer is yes. Under the “disappearing source” rules, also discussed in the folio, where borrowed money was originally used for the purpose of earning income but it can no longer be traced to any income earning use, under the tax act, the borrowed money is nonetheless deemed to be used for the purpose of earning income which enables interest on this amount to continue to be tax deductible.
Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Private Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.
If you liked this story, sign up for more in the FP Investor newsletter.
Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.
Article content
[ad_2]
Source link
[ad_1]


This cheesy Taco Pasta is cooked in one pot and packed with macaroni, ground beef, taco seasoning, delicious sauce, corn, and black beans. A family favorite done in 30 minutes!
Prevent your screen from going dark
In a deep 10″ skillet, heat up olive oil over medium heat.
1 tablespoon olive oil
Add onion and garlic and saute for 3 to 4 minutes, stirring often.
1 medium yellow onion, 3 garlic cloves
Add beef and cook until no longer pink.
1 lb ground beef
Season meat with salt, pepper and taco seasoning. Stir well.
½ teaspoon salt, ¼ teaspoon black pepper, 2 tablespoons taco seasoning
Add a splash of broth and deglaze the pan (scrape all the cooked on bits from the bottom of the pan).
2 cups vegetable broth
Add remaining broth and tomato sauce. Stir in.
4 oz tomato sauce
Add pasta and stir in. Brint the mixture to a boil, then lower the heat and simmer until the pasta is cooked. Cover the pan but stir once every few minutes, to preven the pasta from sticking to the pan.
1 ½ cups macaroni pasta
Add crushed tomatoes when pasta is almost done. Stir in.
1 ½ cups crushed tomatoes
Add corn and black beans. Stir in and simmer for 4 to 5 minutes.
15 oz can of whole-kernel corn, 15 oz can of black beans
Remove the pot from the heat.
Sprinkle cheese on top of pasta and cover. Let it sit for 5 to 10 minutes.
¾ cup shredded pepper Jack cheese, ¾ cup shredded cheddar cheese
Serve with salsa, sour cream, chopped cilantro or parsley.
Calories: 745kcal | Carbohydrates: 73g | Protein: 40g | Fat: 34g | Saturated Fat: 14g | Polyunsaturated Fat: 2g | Monounsaturated Fat: 13g | Trans Fat: 1g | Cholesterol: 96mg | Sodium: 1171mg | Potassium: 1150mg | Fiber: 13g | Sugar: 11g | Vitamin A: 1078IU | Vitamin C: 16mg | Calcium: 332mg | Iron: 6mg
[ad_2]
Source link
[ad_1]
Eric is a time capsule of just about every newsworthy topic of the mid-1980s. And the show’s setting in New York, specifically in 1985, is important. I should know—I watch ’80s years like a hawk. The blatant use of 1985 stung because it meant I couldn’t use Eric for my upcoming comparison of 1984 to this year (like last year’s comparison to 1983 here).
But I was galvanized to write this article because Eric is just too significant and provides important reflections for us now. We’ll focus on how parenting, the aforementioned list of newsworthy societal issues, and the date and setting are combined to produce an engaging narrative which speaks to our culture today.
Minor spoilers ensue.
The trailer for Eric roughs out the plot: A father builds a puppet named Eric hoping to bring his missing son, Edgar, home. There’s no helping the audience’s probable confusion from having two main characters’ names start with an “E,” but a little context can aid the seemingly bizarre premise.
“Fathers, do not aggravate your children, or they will become discouraged” (Col. 3:21).
Vincent (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) co-created a public network show called Good Day Sunshine, which his son, Edgar (Ivan Morris Howe) loves. The show’s tagline: “Be kind. Be brave. Be good. Be different,” is a testimony to Vincent’s desire to shine a light in the darkness. However, good intentions don’t always provide healthy solutions. Vincent attempts to provide happiness to children because of his unhappy childhood’s unresolved generational trauma. He offers permission and acceptance to kids who feel different in order to cover up his own idiosyncrasies. So, despite an attempt to encourage others, due to his unresolved psychological symptoms, Vincent is often cruel and selfish.
Within five minutes of the first episode (each is simply titled “episode” with a consecutive number as a meta take on a show within a show) we learn Eric’s core premise: Edgar is designing the puppet Eric to cope with his father, it is 1985 city election season, and all of Vincent’s relationships are strained. As Eric winds through its six episodes, we’re given snippets of the past: fights between Vincent and his wife (Gaby Hoffman), Edgar being lonely as an only child, and moments where Vincent was mean to Edgar with the intent to toughen and encourage him.
There is a biblical adage that has come back to bite me many a time since becoming a parent. “Fathers, do not aggravate your children, or they will become discouraged” (Col. 3:21). Since my son first heard this verse (around three or four years old) he has consistently recited it when he feels I’m disobeying its intent. The problem is that he’s usually right.
As Edgar’s disappearance drags from hours into days, Vincent is reminded of his parental missteps. Most of the time it is Vincent’s wife or friends, like producing partner Lennie (Dan Fogler) or apartment handyman George (Clarke Peters), who point out Vincent’s habit of “aggravating his child.” And for as many statements as Eric makes, one of the central storylines is that sometimes a father must hit rock bottom to look himself in the mirror and change.
Plumbing the depths of parent/child relationships is impossible, but reviewing an actual New York Times article from 1985 reveals an interesting lesson: relationships are a web of seemingly unrelated issues. Margot Slade’s “Relationships; A Father’s Warmth for a Son,” cites a Cornell study where most dads were “hellbent on proving they are men” so their behavior toward sons reinforced a “toughness.” This led Slade to summarize: “Most of the experts interviewed mentioned fathers’ fears of homosexuality, in themselves or their sons, as a factor.”
Homosexuality is addressed in Eric through the AIDS epidemic, the club scene, and lead detective Ledroit’s closeted sexuality. As the Head of Missing Persons, McKinley Belcher III is the embodiment of seething professionalism. Belcher’s riveting portrayal of Ledroit becomes the face of Eric’s honest history lesson of ’80s homophobia, seen through a 2020’s lens of complexity and dignity.
When listing out the limited series’ newsworthy topics—like kidnapping, racism, homophobia, homelessness, and public sanitation—one might assume the storytelling is disjointed or bloated. It’s not. But 2024 culture is certainly comparable.
Vincent’s fixation is the same one popularized by the story of Doctor Frankenstein. When a physical monstrosity is created, society is exposed for being the real monster.
Consider jaded views of political candidates and corruption, a humanitarian heart for the unhoused, acceptance for the bullied, and empathy for mental illness. The writer’s empathy for societal issues, while also depicting filth and greed, is layered by characters attempting to do the same: bringing truth and light into darkness. A beautiful example lies at the center of the narrative. The colorful kids’ puppet show is counterbalanced by a gruff but caring seven-foot-tall monster. Quite rightly, that literally walking contradiction is the hub that keeps Eric’s wildly spinning storytelling spokes from flying apart.
Vincent convinces himself the only way to get Edgar back is to build Eric. Because Vincent believes that if Edgar is still alive then he’ll watch Good Day Sunshine, and if Edgar sees Eric on TV, then he’ll find a way to come home. Vincent pitches the idea to his co-creator Lennie, explaining, “He’s the monster that every child wants when they are lost and need to be found.”
The idea sounds crazy (and maybe it is), but in desperation, Vincent latches on to the one thing he can control: building a monster. Reminiscent of Sully from Monsters, Inc., Eric is a believable creation from a kid growing up in a bad part of town. Not cute and cuddly, but harsh and different and lonely.
Vincent’s fixation is the same one popularized by the story of Doctor Frankenstein. When a physical monstrosity is created, society is exposed for being the real monster. Because society fears “the other,” they view issues and controversies as faceless groups instead of realizing there are human souls tied to those causes. As Christians, this should be easy for us to interpret as souls to be approached with empathy, patience, and love, regardless of how different they are from us. Unfortunately, we often don’t have a tender heart of compassion for the other—those different from us in belief or color or creed. This is especially obvious with the politicians in Eric.
As he works frantically, Vincent is irritated to find that he must attend a party. Clearly spiraling, he hardly hides his disdain when approached by some officials from City Hall. Attempting to pay a compliment, one of the powerful tycoons references the tagline of Good Day Sunshine, asking, “What is it they say? ‘Be good. Be kind. Be brave. Be brilliant.’” Before departing in disgust, Vincent corrects him, “‘Different.’ It’s ‘Be different.’”
What may seem like an inconsequential tête-à-tête speaks volumes. Our memories reflect our values. Have we idolized and substituted “brilliance” over God’s sacred calling for us to be “different” (John 17:14-15; Romans 12:2) and love those “different” from us (Matthew 22:34-40; Luke 6:24-38; 2 Corinthians 5:14)? Christians should be different from others because they reflect God’s unique love while living out Jesus’s countercultural commands, such as His sexual ethics, reversal of power definitions, and prioritizing the poor.
The cast and crew of Good Day Sunshine are doing their best to bring light to the darkness, but it’s tough. And it’s here, in Eric’s incredibly accurate account of 1985 New York, that Edgar, a child, bridges the gap. He enjoys the positivity of his dad’s show, but any time he leaves their apartment he faces a dirty, dangerous, and debauched city.
Again, this is why Edgar invented Eric, someone who could try to be good and still handle a toxic home life and the mean streets. Someone who could be different. But for the audience to buy it, they needed to believe that New York is rough, and that when Edgar disappears, he’s truly in danger. Not just from one threat but on multiple fronts.
And Eric shines at making 1985 and New York into characters in the show. There are at least three areas where the show’s year and location are pivotal.
In an article titled, “When Does Netflix’s Eric Take Place,” Bill Dubiel says, “The 1985 setting is important to Edgar’s disappearance; the lack of technology compared to modern times makes his vanishing a realistic, plausible problem. In the age of Ring cameras on every doorbell and Find My Phone apps, a child disappearing in New York City would at least have some semblance of a trail to pursue.”
That lack of constant surveillance is a major reason the investigation takes as long as it does. However, there are a few traffic cameras where Detective Ledroit can review VHS copies of footage. This helps the modern audience relate to the precursor of the digital age, while being frustrated by the limitations of poor quality and quantity of technology.
“Easy to do evil, hard to do good” applies to all people, in all locations, through all of time.
Additionally, as previously mentioned, the sanitation strike, widespread homelessness, political corruption, racism, and homophobia, are a dark and sometimes forgotten blot on the city’s history. These societal issues aren’t just paid homage or ticked off a list, but are deeply integrated and given presence in the show. Although only using picture and sound, the audience smells the trash lined streets, recoils from the weathered face of a crackhead, and feels the tension when dirty cops covertly threaten Ledroit because of his sexuality.
Lastly, the type and function of children’s programming characterizes the show. Dubiel says, “Furthermore, the prevalence of puppets in the story makes a lot more sense given the 1985 setting. Vincent’s hit TV show Good Day Sunshine is a very overt stand-in for similar popular kids shows of the 1980s like Sesame Street, Fraggle Rock and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.” More than a tribute, Good Day Sunshine is disarming.
And Eric’s writers subvert that charming nature by interjecting the Eric puppet’s darker perspective on reality. This takes the expectation of light—both in goodness and simplistic messages—and contrasts it with darkness and weight.
Speaking on the secondary trauma of sin in the world, bishop and theologian Kallistos Ware reminds us, “The doctrine of original sin means…that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good…”¹ Because this is “ancestral sin” passed to all of us through Adam and Eve, the truth of Bishop Ware’s words are not specific to 1985 New York. “Easy to do evil, hard to do good” applies to all people, in all locations, through all of time.
This doesn’t initially give us a lot of hope, but it does help us understand the root of our problems. If we know the root, we can talk about how to realistically overcome the darkness. Christians believe Jesus is the light, that acceptance of Him is the only way to be healed of our personal and societal issues. This certainly gives us hope, but we’re also given responsibility. Our transformed life resulting from our conversion is significant, the matter of practicing the way of Jesus. It’s a mentality that seems so basic, that it’s often overlooked. Constantly reminding ourselves to do righteous things that don’t come naturally: “Be kind. Be brave. Be good. Be different.”
It is our responsibility to be good, kind, brave and different, and to bring light to the darkness, but we shouldn’t become monsters doing so.
Individual and societal lessons emerge from Eric’s topics of parenting, newsworthy issues, and use of date and setting as a character. One lesson we can learn as individuals is to seek ways to keep from passing along our mistakes or generational trauma. We may have grown up with a toxic homelife, or a father’s fears of his own and/or his son’s homosexuality, or any other number of pressures, but that doesn’t mean we’re doomed to repeat it.
Like Vincent, we may find our attempts at being good and building confidence in others ultimately results in us unfairly pressuring them and acting cruelly. Maybe we’ve had to hit rock bottom in order to see ourselves in the mirror truthfully.
And regarding social issues, we may be horrified to find we’ve created or perpetuated a monster, while being one ourselves. Regardless of the motive, Vincent’s blinded ambition and impatience of busily making a monster can be a reflection of the modern Christian. Our current culture doesn’t respond well to the deafness many “Christians” show to their causes, and they rage as we belittle them and bring out the worst in them. No wonder the lost, individual souls don’t believe that version of Jesus can heal them from their pain.
But hope is not lost. Without spoiling Eric’s finale, Vincent realizes he cannot change things himself—he must ask for outside help. We too must find that the only sustainable way our baggage and ancestral sin can be transformed into light is by God’s power. It is our responsibility to be good, kind, brave and different, and to bring light to the darkness, but we shouldn’t become monsters doing so.
[ad_2]
Source link
[ad_1]

Have you ever heard of Tom Mix? He was a famous Hollywood stuntman in the 1920s and 30s. I wrote about him for AJ a few issues back. He suffered an astronomical amount of injuries in his work, but what really stuck with me was how he died: He was in a single car accident and a strongbox of money and jewels flew from the back and hit him in the head, killing him instantly. Ever since, I have not been able to drive with stuff in the back of my car and feel safe. Now, strapping down your junk is overlanding 101, but how many people actually do it? It’s a bit of a pain and then it’s a bit of a pain accessing your stuff. But what’s also a pain is getting your neck broken by a flying French press.
After an extended bike trip with my SUV loaded to the gills, I decided I needed a rooftop cargo box, so I contacted my friend Justin, who’s owned a few, and asked him what he thought. He loved his boxes and his only advice was to get as big as I could.
It was solid advice. I chose the Yakima CBX 18 ($1,099), the second-largest cargo box Yakima makes. The “18” refers to 18 cubic feet. On my first trip with it, I stored two giant camp chairs, firewood, two sleeping bags, a four-inch Exped sleeping mat, water, shovel, axe, my bike duffel, kitchen kit…I didn’t keep a full accounting, but it was a lot. The only things I kept inside were food and a cooler (which, yes, was strapped down).

There are lots of great cargo boxes on the market, and I’ve owned both Thule and Yakima models. I picked the Yakima for four reasons: It’s easy to attach to the crossbars, you can open it from either side, it has a reasonably sleek profile for the size, and I was happy with my last box, which also was a Yakima.

Mounting took me the same amount of time whether I had a helper or did it solo, about 15 minutes. The box weighs 65 pounds empty, so I got it on the roof by placing a thick moving blanket over the tailgate end of the roof and sliding it atop at an angle.


Is there a roof box in your future? If so, the Yakima is worth a look. But so are boxes from any of the major brands, and I would ignore any reviews that claim there’s one best box. More important is that you are clear about your needs and uses. Will it stay on all the time? Do you only need it in the winter for skis and boards? How tall is your vehicle? Do you need to get into a garage with it? Unless you’re brand loyal, matching your needs to a specific box more than a specific brand is the best way to go.

[ad_2]
Source link
[ad_1]
Swivel Gallery is delighted to unveil Transmogrification NOW!, an evocative exhibition by Amy Bravo featuring a series of new sculptural works, paintings, and installation. Bravo’s latest collection merges cabinets, curios, and furniture with eerie elements such as animal parts, offering a unique exploration of Cuban mythology and personal narrative.
Central to the exhibition is Bravo’s sculpture series “Automaton,” including the standout piece “Automaton 3.0 (Bull),” which embodies Cuban mythology and Bravo’s distinctive artistic vision. Inspired by the concept of transmogrification—the magical process of transformation—Bravo’s sculptures merge cultural artifacts with contemporary materials. Each piece undergoes a metamorphosis, blending elements of Cuban folklore with Bravo’s personal narrative, creating a mesmerizing fusion that bridges traditional mythological symbolism with modern artistic expression. In “Automaton 3.0 (Bull),” cow bones, candles, and wood are transformed into a symbolic representation of strength and spiritual power in Cuban culture. This transmogrification of materials reflects Bravo’s exploration of identity and heritage, invoking ancient mythological themes while reinterpreting them through a contemporary lens.
In addition to these sculptural innovations, Bravo presents a series of paintings that provide an intimate exploration of her thematic explorations. Among them is “Silk Tosser,” a striking artwork featuring a woman depicted as a spider web, with a fly dangling provocatively in front of it. This piece is notable for its unique presentation, suspended 10 inches off the wall on nails, enhancing its surreal and interactive quality. Each painting portrays Bravo’s enigmatic figures—long-haired, blank-eyed beings adorned in costumes reminiscent of feisty psychopomps, boxers, and medusas—transcending traditional boundaries between human and animal realms. These artworks embody a cyclical narrative, reflecting Bravo’s profound reflections on resilience and disintegration within her own personal journey. Despite their stoic presence resembling icons in religious architecture, Bravo infuses them with a mischievous and primal aura, compelling viewers to engage with their stories of loss and victory.
In Latin cultures, spider webs hold symbolic meaning as intricate traps and homes crafted by spiders, often representing creativity, interconnectedness, and the delicate balance between creation and destruction. Bravo’s depiction of a woman as a spider web in “Silk Tosser” resonates with these cultural interpretations, exploring themes of entrapment and allure. Animals also play a significant role in Cuban mythology, often symbolizing spiritual guides, guardians, or embodiments of ancestral spirits. Bravo’s incorporation of animal parts in her sculptures not only pays homage to these traditions but also invites viewers to contemplate the complex relationship between humans and animals in cultural narratives.
In parallel to her sculptural and painted works, Bravo’s exhibition deciphers chimerical identities, unraveling the essence of a fragmented ancestral home while envisioning a future fraught with destiny and danger. “Transmogrification NOW!” not only showcases Bravo’s evolution as an artist but also invites audiences to immerse themselves in her expanding artistic universe.
[ad_2]
Source link
[ad_1]
Even if a person does not directly commit a crime, they can still be sent to prison for it.
Every state in the U.S. has a version of “accomplice liability” — laws that allow someone to be punished for assisting or supporting another person who commits a crime, in some cases, even if that participation is under the threat of violence.
A recent Marshall Project investigation found survivors of domestic and sexualized violence are particularly vulnerable to prosecution under these laws because of the control their abusers hold over them.
Reviewing court documents, we found nearly 100 cases where prosecutors charged a person (almost always a woman) for supporting, taking part in or failing to stop a crime by their alleged abuser. The cases include a woman who is in prison because her boyfriend severely beat her child, even though she wasn’t home at the time. In another instance, a woman helped her abuser sell stolen goods after a murder because, she said, she was afraid he would kill her.
Here are five takeaways from our investigation into how these laws can punish survivors of domestic and gendered violence.
A study of 72 women serving life in Michigan prisons found 60% were there for a murder they didn’t commit. Most of those crimes were connected to a man they had a relationship with. In a different survey of people serving time for murder or manslaughter in women’s prisons, 13% of the respondents said they had been convicted for a crime committed with their abuser.
Reviewing court documents, The Marshall Project identified nearly 100 cases where a person was punished in connection with an abuser’s crime. This is likely just a small sample of the cases that exist.
In some states, it does not legally matter if a person helped with a murder because they were threatened with death or feared physical violence. As a result, evidence of domestic abuse may not be considered relevant.
In other cases, a survivor’s history of abuse may be used to justify their punishment. For example, prosecutors in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, pointed to evidence that a woman’s boyfriend had choked her before, arguing that she should have known better than to allow him near an infant. After he severely beat her baby, she pleaded guilty to failing to protect her child. Now she is serving a 20-year sentence.
Rachel White-Domain, an Illinois lawyer who represents incarcerated survivors, estimates about a quarter of her current caseload consists of people who were charged using accomplice liability or similar laws. She thinks the cases get less attention because they are harder to explain to the public.
For example, in 2015, Illinois passed a law to allow people in prison to apply for resentencing if their crime was directly related to domestic violence. The state does not track how many people have been released from prison early under the Illinois law, but the number has been much smaller than many advocates for domestic violence victims hoped. One reason is that the law doesn’t say whether judges can diverge from mandatory minimums.
So even if a person presents evidence they were involved in a crime because they were coerced by an abusive partner, if they are serving a mandatory minimum sentence, a judge has ruled the law can do nothing to help them.
In one instance, a girl with developmental delays was sex trafficked when she was 17 years old by a man who “savagely beat her,” according to a sentencing memo. But because she had helped store a gun and drugs for him, federal prosecutors in Washington state charged her as his co-defendant in his trafficking ring. She agreed to a plea deal at age 19 and was released with time served in 2009, but had to serve a year of supervised release.
In another case, Ajela Banks was convicted in federal court for conspiracy to sex traffic a minor in Alaska, despite being 19 years old and being trafficked by the same man who was her co-defendant. According to court documents, he had recently shot her in the stomach while she was pregnant with his child. Although she was sentenced to time served, she had to register as a sex offender, and her home address was made public, which she said makes her vulnerable to further harassment and threats.
Lawmakers and advocates for survivors say there are two ways to tackle the problem. The first would be to limit accomplice liability so fewer people can be charged using those laws. Last year, a bill that would have done that failed to gain traction in the Illinois legislature, but activists with groups like Restore Justice say they are continuing to push for changes.
Another approach some states have taken is to rethink how domestic violence victims are sentenced. New York’s Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, passed in 2019, allows judges to depart from mandatory minimums when sentencing (or resentencing) survivors. According to the Survivors Justice Project, which works to free victims of domestic violence from prison, 64 people have been resentenced in New York after filing applications.
[ad_2]
Source link