Latest news with #Contra
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
AfroCannes 2025 To Explore Afro-Futurism & African Innovation In Film
AfroCannes is leaning into Afro Futurism with its 2025 lineup. Since launching in 2022, AfroCannes and its AfroBerlin sibling have become spaces to discuss and celebrate narratives from Africa and the African diaspora against the backdrop of a major film festival. More from Deadline Cannes Chief Thierry Frémaux Addresses Trump's Tariffs: "Cinema Always Finds A Way Of Existing & Reinventing Itself" Wolfe Video Announces LGBTQ Streaming Strategy, Promotes Evan Schwartz To Head Of Content Kal Penn, Booboo Stewart & Nicole Elizabeth Berger To Lead Underground Chess Thriller 'Contra' Its organizer, the not-for-profit Yanibes Foundation, said this year's theme 'underscores the transformative power of Afro-Futurism' and will focus on African storytelling and culture and as well as identity and innovation. The event spans panels, screenings, networking, and showcases on specific countries. The 2025 edition includes 'In Conversation' sessions with filmmakers including: Aaron Rashaan Thomas, Camille Pitanga, Gordon Bobb, Frédéric Chau, Syrinthia Studer and Luis Lomenha. There will be panels homing in on topics including the new Nigerian film industry, the connections between Africa and Asia with Dr. Pushpinder Chowdhry and others, inclusion, a focus on Afro-German filmmakers, and a fireside chat with producer and explorer Ernest White II. 'Beyond the glitz and glam of the Cannes Film Festival, AfroCannes highlights the importance of representation— it isn't just about who's on the stage, it's about who's in the room,' the organizers said ahead of this year's event. 'Whether you're attending for professional growth or artistic inspiration, AfroCannes offers a front-row seat to the future of film, and the beauty and depth that is Black creatives and industry professionals within the industry.' The crowd at AfroCannes comprises filmmakers, producers, actors, casting directors, and financiers. It's free to attend (but requires pre-registration). This year it will be held at the Villa des Ministres in Cannes. The event runs May 15 through 19. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'Nobody Wants This' Season 2 So Far List Of Hollywood & Media Layoffs From Paramount To Warner Bros Discovery To CNN & More A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media
Buzz Feed
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
Remember These? 25+ Throwback Memories That Defined Us
If you remember a time when the internet made that sound, phones flipped instead of scrolled, and your biggest flex was customising your Bluetooth name, congratulations, you're officially part of the 25+ club. This is your gentle (and slightly chaotic) reminder that you're now the person who says, 'Back in my day…' unironically. So buckle up and prepare for a wild ride through memory lane, because these core memories are about to hit harder than a breakup status on Facebook in 2009. 1. Blowing into a video game cartridge like you were performing CPR Because somehow, aggressively exhaling into a plastic rectangle magically fixed it. It didn't matter if it was Mario, Contra, or Duck Hunt; that puff of air was your miracle cure. Doctors could never. Scientists were baffled. You? A certified tech genius at age 9. 2. When your phone had actual buttons and you could text with your eyes closed T9 predictive text was an art form. You could type 'Where r u?' without looking, while hiding your phone under the desk during math class. Now you have a full keyboard and still can't text without autocorrect changing 'bro' to 'bronchitis.' 3. Burning CDs and naming them something like 'MIXXX VIBES VOL. 2 🔥💔' You'd spend hours carefully curating a playlist that went from Enrique Iglesias to Evanescence, because emotional whiplash was your brand. Then you'd decorate the CD with a Sharpie like it was a Grammy-worthy album. Peak creativity. 4. The trauma of accidentally hitting 'Back' after typing a long Orkut testimonial You just poured your heart out telling Priya what a 'sweet n caring soul' she is, and one wrong click took you straight back to square one. No autosave. Just heartbreak and the decision to never love again. 5. Snake on the Nokia 3310 Nothing hit quite like getting the snake to take a full lap around the screen. That little pixelated serpent taught us more about patience, strategy, and commitment than most adult relationships. Also, the 3310? Indestructible. If you threw it, the wall broke. 6. Passing notes in class like a black-market transaction A piece of paper folded 12 times, slipped like contraband from desk to desk. The message? Something critical like 'I hate maths' or 'He's looking at you again 😳.' If a teacher caught you, you acted like it was a national secret. 7. Carrying around a USB drive like it was a crown jewel Everything lived in that one pen drive—school projects, pirated movies, a folder suspiciously called 'New Folder (2)', and at least one PowerPoint with 15 transitions. Losing it was like losing your identity. 8. The iPod click wheel sound living rent-free in your brain Just the tik-tik-tik of scrolling through 173 songs you downloaded from questionable sources. That wheel had no business being that satisfying. You'd scroll for 10 minutes just to play the same Linkin Park song again. 9. Recording your favourite song from the radio and praying the RJ wouldn't speak over it You had your finger on the record button, heart racing, praying they wouldn't yell '93.5 REDDDD FM!' right as the chorus hit. They always did. And yet, you never gave up. That's called grit. 10. Bluetooth file transfers taking longer than most modern relationships Sending one 3MB song via Bluetooth meant you were now bound to that person for the next 17 minutes. If they walked away mid-transfer? That was betrayal. You never spoke again. 11. Changing your Facebook status every 4 minutes to something emotional 'Feeling lost.' 'Trust no one.' 'You'll miss me when I'm gone.' If heartbreak had a currency, we were billionaires. And don't forget the cryptic updates like 'You know what you did.' No context. Just vibes. 12. When your phone had a torch and that made you the MVP of every power cut No inverter? No problem. You pulled out your Nokia with that single, blinding LED light and instantly became the hero your family didn't deserve. Bonus points if you used it to look for the remote. 13. Saving your crush's number as something completely unrelated Because if someone saw your phone and noticed 'Airtel Recharge Bhaiya' had 87 would be asked. And you weren't ready. 14. Using MS Paint like it was Photoshop Making masterpieces out of the spray paint tool, the curved line, and that one colour gradient. You'd spend hours drawing stick figures fighting dragons, only to accidentally close the file without saving. Tragedy. 15. The original YouTube buffering wheel becoming your nemesis You waited 12 minutes for a 3-minute video of Charlie bit my finger to load, and still felt fulfilled. Today, if Netflix buffers for 5 seconds, you threaten to cancel your subscription. 16. When you had to delete songs from your phone to take a new picture 'Phone storage full' meant tough decisions. Are you willing to delete or will this blurry photo of your best friend be sacrificed instead? Priorities. 17. Getting excited about Caller Tunes You paid actual money so that people calling you could hear Hips Don't Lie instead of a regular ring. And you judged your friends based on theirs. 'He still has Dard-e-Disco? Red flag.' 18. Playing Roadrash and Midtown Madness like your life depended on it Who needed a driver's license when you were already crashing into virtual trees and pedestrians with zero consequences? These games raised a generation of chaotic drivers. 19. Waiting all week for Sunday morning cartoons No OTT, no binge. Just Popeye, Dexter's Lab, and the cruel fate of missing an episode because your mom made you go for tuition. Made it to the end? Thought so. There's something about being 25+, you've lived through tech that didn't always work, feelings that spilled into Facebook statuses, and romances powered by Bluetooth transfers. Quietly weird, oddly formative, and now, strangely comforting.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How the Iran-Contra Scandal Impacts American Politics Today
Patrons at a pub watching TV to see Lt. Col. Oliver L. North's testimony before the joint Congressional hearing into Iran-Contra affair. Credit - Steve Liss—Getty Images President Donald Trump's actions, including denying election results, ignoring court decisions, and attacking civic institutions, have left many concerned that American democracy is imperiled. Historians have chronicled how precedents from the past have helped make these dangerous behaviors possible. They've cited the long history of conservative backlash against liberal reforms since the 1960s, the coarsening of political discourse in the 1990s, and the denial of voting rights and election results in the 21st century, for instance. But this narrative of democratic decline leaves out a pivotal episode: the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. This opaque foreign policy mess has receded from history, a minor speedbump at the triumphant end of the Cold War. In a 2023 episode of Only Murders in the Building, Steve Martin's character explains to a bored millennial that Iran-Contra was 'worse than Watergate, just not as interesting.' Yet, understanding Iran-Contra's assault on democracy makes it interesting—and relevant—once more. The Iran-Contra scandal highlights how little respect Reagan Administration officials harbored for the guardrails of democracy yet suffered few penalties for their misdeeds. The rule-breaking and impunity during Iran-Contra may have set the stage for Trump. Americans have a muddled memory of Iran-Contra, in part because of its complexity. The scandal had two separate branches, each stemming from an attempt to achieve one of President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy goals. The first part transpired between 1984 and 1986, as Reagan's administration worked to free hostages held by allies of Ruhollah Khomeini's anti-American Iranian government. Believing that the Iranians could secure the release of the hostages, Reagan's aides sold them thousands of missiles to use in their war against Iraq. Doing so violated American law, and it broke Reagan's own promise never to negotiate with terrorists. These efforts proved, at best, ineffective and, at worst, counterproductive: they freed three hostages but got three more taken, and they failed to moderate the regime in Tehran. In late 1986, word of the secret sales leaked. Trump Calls for Judge in Deportations Case to Be Impeached, Drawing Rare Rebuke From Roberts Simultaneously, the other part of the scandal—the 'Contra' component—was taking place in a very different region of the world. In late 1984, Congress banned any U.S. intelligence organization from giving military funds or advice to the Contra rebels fighting Nicaragua's socialist government. Despite the clear ban, however, Reagan ordered subordinates to keep the Contras alive 'body and soul.' Trying to satisfy this directive, the CIA handed its mission to the National Security Council (NSC). More specifically, the mission fell to the NSC's deputy director of political-military affairs, Lt. Col. Oliver North. He took over a secret—and again, illegal—war with the help of private Americans and foreign governments. When a so-called private plane came crashing down in Nicaragua just weeks before news of the arms sales to Iran broke, the U.S. government's stealth effort in Central America emerged in broad daylight. The two were tied together because North diverted millions in unexpected profits from the arm sales to the Contras. While many in the government participated in at least one of two separate schemes, for instance by helping the Contras or shipping arms, only a scant few knew of this connection. Like the other elements of the scandal, it, too, was illegal, as the funds from the weapons sale should have gone to the U.S. Treasury by law. When the scandal engulfed the administration, Reagan did transfer North back to the Marine Corps and fired his national security advisor, John Poindexter. But, incredibly, he at first denied that he had sold weapons to Iran. His subordinates lied to congressional committees. And his attorney general, Ed Meese, ran a 'fact-finding' operation so careless that it seemed meant to protect the President while allowing North and his secretary to shred documents. This was not the behavior of an administration accepting responsibility or displaying transparency. In fact, in an interview with TIME, Reagan blamed the press for his troubles, and Republicans blamed Congress. Even when Reagan finally fessed up to having falsely denied an obvious arms for hostages operation, he told the American people, 'My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.' The revelation of the intertwined scandals captivated Americans. Between the fall of 1986 and the fall of 1987, more than seven out of 10 Americans watched some of the televised congressional hearings about Iran-Contra. But once it became clear that Democrats would not impeach Reagan, public interest waned. Unlike Watergate, when a smoking gun tape implicated President Richard Nixon, to many, the 1980s scandal seemed a blur of byzantine Cold War diplomacy, opaque Swiss bank accounts, and a large cast of forgettable middlemen. The country boxed up the ugly affair and stored it in the attic of its memory. It did so even as the scandal persisted and investigators indicted dozens of administration officials. In 1988, Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush, won the presidency, and throughout his entire administration, those responsible for Iran-Contra dodged the political and legal consequences of their actions. Defendants in Iran-Contra cases benefited from a Bush Administration that refused to make many documents available to the courts, thus forcing prosecutors to pare back their charges. This allowed most to escape justice in criminal court. On, Christmas Eve 1992, after Bush had lost his reelection race, the lame duck president pardoned all of those still facing legal jeopardy from Iran-Contra. That conclusion—as well as the Reagan administration's lack of concern with legality—confirmed the erosion of core democratic norms, including separation of powers, rule of law, judicial independence, consent of the governed, and trust. In its final report, the Democratic-led congressional investigation committee sounded the alarm about the impact of Reagan officials' widespread disdain for democracy: 'Constitutional process is the essence of our democracy and our democratic form of Government is the basis of our strength.' A privatized war was 'a prescription for anarchy in a democratic society' they argued and the diversion of funds was 'the path to dictatorship.' But, crucially, unlike during Watergate, these conclusions weren't bipartisan. In fact, Republicans dismissed them. One conservative lawyer cynically called the criminal charges against North—lying to Congress, obstructing inquiries, and accepting an illegal gratuity—'nothing you couldn't charge a hundred other people with in this town.' Some congressional Republicans came away from the hearings convinced that their own institution should further encourage a 'unitary executive' that bullied not only Congress but also all executive departments. 'There was no constitutional crisis, no systematic disrespect for 'the rule of law,' no grand conspiracy, and no Administration-wide dishonesty or coverup,' concluded Republican Congressmen and Senators in the now-famed "Minority Report." Instead, many Republicans in Congress were frustrated by their own institution's legal right to restrain the power of the executive. Read More: What to Know About Trump's Order on Birthright Citizenship and the Legal Battle Around It They could freely dismiss the scandal in part because the GOP paid little political price for it. Voters elected Bush in 1988. In 1994, North came within a hair of winning a Senate race in Virginia. That same year, reflecting how Iran-Contra became a partisan Rorschach test more so than a badge of shame, the New York Times reported that, among those charged, convicted, or pardoned, 'almost all are unrepentant.' Poindexter reflected, 'If I had it to do over again, I would probably do things just about exactly the same way I did then.' The GOP's dismissal of the scandal has shaped politics in the decades since Iran-Contra. Dick Cheney, who served on the House Iran-Contra committee in 1987, later became vice president and recalled his and his colleagues' 'robust view of the president's prerogatives.' Elliott Abrams, Bill Barr, and John Bolton, who all figured in the scandal, served in the first Trump Administration. Additionally, echoes of Iran-Contra can be seen today. From the Trump Administration's refusal to obey congressional subpoenas to the mishandling of classified documents officials have ignored democratic norms and practices. Trump has also tried to shutter government agencies without congressional approval, refused to spend congressionally appropriated funds, and chipped away at the trust that cements relationships in a democracy. These behaviors represent the full flowering of the "unitary executive concept,"—an attitude that first reared its head during Iran-Contra. Alan McPherson is professor of history at Temple University and the author of The Breach: Iran-Contra and the Assault on American Democracy. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@
Time Magazine
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
How the Iran-Contra Scandal Impacts American Politics Today
President Donald Trump's actions, including denying election results, ignoring court decisions, and attacking civic institutions, have left many concerned that American democracy is imperiled. Historians have chronicled how precedents from the past have helped make these dangerous behaviors possible. They've cited the long history of conservative backlash against liberal reforms since the 1960s, the coarsening of political discourse in the 1990s, and the denial of voting rights and election results in the 21st century, for instance. But this narrative of democratic decline leaves out a pivotal episode: the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. This opaque foreign policy mess has receded from history, a minor speedbump at the triumphant end of the Cold War. In a 2023 episode of Only Murders in the Building, Steve Martin's character explains to a bored millennial that Iran-Contra was 'worse than Watergate, just not as interesting.' Yet, understanding Iran-Contra's assault on democracy makes it interesting—and relevant—once more. The Iran-Contra scandal highlights how little respect Reagan Administration officials harbored for the guardrails of democracy yet suffered few penalties for their misdeeds. The rule-breaking and impunity during Iran-Contra may have set the stage for Trump. Americans have a muddled memory of Iran-Contra, in part because of its complexity. The scandal had two separate branches, each stemming from an attempt to achieve one of President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy goals. The first part transpired between 1984 and 1986, as Reagan's administration worked to free hostages held by allies of Ruhollah Khomeini's anti-American Iranian government. Believing that the Iranians could secure the release of the hostages, Reagan's aides sold them thousands of missiles to use in their war against Iraq. Doing so violated American law, and it broke Reagan's own promise never to negotiate with terrorists. These efforts proved, at best, ineffective and, at worst, counterproductive: they freed three hostages but got three more taken, and they failed to moderate the regime in Tehran. In late 1986, word of the secret sales leaked. Simultaneously, the other part of the scandal—the 'Contra' component—was taking place in a very different region of the world. In late 1984, Congress banned any U.S. intelligence organization from giving military funds or advice to the Contra rebels fighting Nicaragua's socialist government. Despite the clear ban, however, Reagan ordered subordinates to keep the Contras alive ' body and soul.' Trying to satisfy this directive, the CIA handed its mission to the National Security Council (NSC). More specifically, the mission fell to the NSC's deputy director of political-military affairs, Lt. Col. Oliver North. He took over a secret—and again, illegal—war with the help of private Americans and foreign governments. When a so-called private plane came crashing down in Nicaragua just weeks before news of the arms sales to Iran broke, the U.S. government's stealth effort in Central America emerged in broad daylight. The two were tied together because North diverted millions in unexpected profits from the arm sales to the Contras. While many in the government participated in at least one of two separate schemes, for instance by helping the Contras or shipping arms, only a scant few knew of this connection. Like the other elements of the scandal, it, too, was illegal, as the funds from the weapons sale should have gone to the U.S. Treasury by law. When the scandal engulfed the administration, Reagan did transfer North back to the Marine Corps and fired his national security advisor, John Poindexter. But, incredibly, he at first denied that he had sold weapons to Iran. His subordinates lied to congressional committees. And his attorney general, Ed Meese, ran a 'fact-finding' operation so careless that it seemed meant to protect the President while allowing North and his secretary to shred documents. This was not the behavior of an administration accepting responsibility or displaying transparency. In fact, in an interview with TIME, Reagan blamed the press for his troubles, and Republicans blamed Congress. Even when Reagan finally fessed up to having falsely denied an obvious arms for hostages operation, he told the American people, 'My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.' The revelation of the intertwined scandals captivated Americans. Between the fall of 1986 and the fall of 1987, more than seven out of 10 Americans watched some of the televised congressional hearings about Iran-Contra. But once it became clear that Democrats would not impeach Reagan, public interest waned. Unlike Watergate, when a smoking gun tape implicated President Richard Nixon, to many, the 1980s scandal seemed a blur of byzantine Cold War diplomacy, opaque Swiss bank accounts, and a large cast of forgettable middlemen. The country boxed up the ugly affair and stored it in the attic of its memory. It did so even as the scandal persisted and investigators indicted dozens of administration officials. In 1988, Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush, won the presidency, and throughout his entire administration, those responsible for Iran-Contra dodged the political and legal consequences of their actions. Defendants in Iran-Contra cases benefited from a Bush Administration that refused to make many documents available to the courts, thus forcing prosecutors to pare back their charges. This allowed most to escape justice in criminal court. On, Christmas Eve 1992, after Bush had lost his reelection race, the lame duck president pardoned all of those still facing legal jeopardy from Iran-Contra. That conclusion—as well as the Reagan administration's lack of concern with legality—confirmed the erosion of core democratic norms, including separation of powers, rule of law, judicial independence, consent of the governed, and trust. In its final report, the Democratic-led congressional investigation committee sounded the alarm about the impact of Reagan officials' widespread disdain for democracy: 'Constitutional process is the essence of our democracy and our democratic form of Government is the basis of our strength.' A privatized war was 'a prescription for anarchy in a democratic society' they argued and the diversion of funds was 'the path to dictatorship.' But, crucially, unlike during Watergate, these conclusions weren't bipartisan. In fact, Republicans dismissed them. One conservative lawyer cynically called the criminal charges against North—lying to Congress, obstructing inquiries, and accepting an illegal gratuity—'nothing you couldn't charge a hundred other people with in this town.' Some congressional Republicans came away from the hearings convinced that their own institution should further encourage a 'unitary executive' that bullied not only Congress but also all executive departments. 'There was no constitutional crisis, no systematic disrespect for 'the rule of law,' no grand conspiracy, and no Administration-wide dishonesty or coverup,' concluded Republican Congressmen and Senators in the now-famed "Minority Report." Instead, many Republicans in Congress were frustrated by their own institution's legal right to restrain the power of the executive. They could freely dismiss the scandal in part because the GOP paid little political price for it. Voters elected Bush in 1988. In 1994, North came within a hair of winning a Senate race in Virginia. That same year, reflecting how Iran-Contra became a partisan Rorschach test more so than a badge of shame, the New York Times reported that, among those charged, convicted, or pardoned, 'almost all are unrepentant.' Poindexter reflected, 'If I had it to do over again, I would probably do things just about exactly the same way I did then.' The GOP's dismissal of the scandal has shaped politics in the decades since Iran-Contra. Dick Cheney, who served on the House Iran-Contra committee in 1987, later became vice president and recalled his and his colleagues' ' robust view of the president's prerogatives.' Elliott Abrams, Bill Barr, and John Bolton, who all figured in the scandal, served in the first Trump Administration. Additionally, echoes of Iran-Contra can be seen today. From the Trump Administration's refusal to obey congressional subpoenas to the mishandling of classified documents officials have ignored democratic norms and practices. Trump has also tried to shutter government agencies without congressional approval, refused to spend congressionally appropriated funds, and chipped away at the trust that cements relationships in a democracy. These behaviors represent the full flowering of the " unitary executive concept,"—an attitude that first reared its head during Iran-Contra. Alan McPherson is professor of history at Temple University and the author of The Breach: Iran-Contra and the Assault on American Democracy.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Cannes Chief Thierry Frémaux Addresses Trump's Tariffs: 'Cinema Always Finds A Way Of Existing & Reinventing Itself'
When it comes to this year's hot potato topic of Donald Trump's tariffs on movie imports, Cannes Film Festival director Thierry Fremaux would like to table the discussion. For at least a year. More from Deadline Wolfe Video Announces LGBTQ Streaming Strategy, Promotes Evan Schwartz To Head Of Content Donald Trump Touts Reduction In China Tariffs For At Least 90 Days: "I Take Them At Their Word" Kal Penn, Booboo Stewart & Nicole Elizabeth Berger To Lead Underground Chess Thriller 'Contra' Of Trump's declarations over the last three months, Fremaux says: 'He started off by saying one thing, then contradicts himself.' 'I can't answer your question at this stage,' the festival head asserted to a journalist about their U.S. tariff impact question on global cinema. 'The idea that American Cinema would be penalized by foreign countries, I think that is an idea worth discussing,' said Fremaux. 'There's something we noticed the year and months after Covid: There were fewer American films in the world; therefore local production –national production–became more successful.' 'Cinema always finds a way of existing and reinventing itself,' was essentially Fremaux's verdict as of right now on the whole brouhaha of Trump tariffs. 'If I say one thing, I would say here at the Cannes Film Festival, we wouldn't want the American cinema to cease to be strong, that's what really counts.' 'I can't talk about these custom duties, it's too early in the game,' Fremaux continued to assert. Earlier today, a group of more than 100 global film and TV bodies signed an open letter appealing to governments to 'safeguard the systems that support independent film and audiovisual creation.' The letter clearly targeted Trump, but also challenged 'algorithm-driven platforms, and the growing dominance of global entertainment conglomerates,' along the rise of AI in production. In the wake of declaring tariffs on film imports on May 4, Trump and the White House cooled on the idea of them by May 5. 'I'm not looking to hurt the industry; I want to help the industry,' Trump told reporters at the White House. 'We're going to meet with the industry. I want to make sure they're happy with it, because we're all about jobs.' Jon Voight's pitch to POTUS to make 'Hollywood Great Again' and to spike U.S. production stateside included a clause for a 120% tariff on film and TV offshore shoots receiving foreign tax credits. Outside of tariffs, ironically, there aren't any mega controversies heading into this year's 78th edition à la last year's rumored #MeTooWave Mediapart expose that was set to name several filmmakers with films in the festival. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
