One might argue the system gives redress against poor leaders but…. Does it? I suppose it gives alternatives to the general population staging work stoppages or withholding taxes or causing riots or uprisings, but while mitigating those things does have benefit to the average person daily life- really they benefit the people who own and control the most industry and assets who- surprise- are usually the people in positions of power. Monarchy tends to closely associate with concepts of feudalism or casually similar concepts.
These concepts can be summed up as “trickle down economics.”
A ruler owns and controls everything. To those closest to them they essentially “lend” power and resources like land or wealth or military might etc. which ultimately belong to the monarch.

Of course you can’t vote for a monarch. They either inherit the title without exception or perhaps a small group of elites gets to pick. Except… isn’t that basically how most democracies work? At this point regardless of right or left politics- the numbers say that the last American president lost the peoples vote. It was a small group of elites that decided they be president. If you lean right- many believe that Obama or Biden were “cheated” into power. So regardless, if you believe that any of those presidents were placed there then you have to agree by your own admission that would make your vote a formality- a placation. One might argue the democratic representative government compels “lords” to act on behalf of their “serfs” but is that how most people feel about their government officials?

Put simply, Saudi Arabia is like a vampire that drinks a little blood here and there from many people to keep its strength. It had a castle and riches and is content to live there in opulence and in exchange provide its gifts to those who facilitate this. Russia is a vampire that sucks every victim dry or turns them into powerless thralls and wants to conquer the world with these puppet husks. Its hunger can never be filled. And that’s a problem because America is a Lazy warlock that sits in its fortress of solitude with wine and da ding women crafting new illusions and clockwork machines to amuse itself. Content to do so as long as all the surrounding peoples let it do whatever it feels like and provide the tribute to sustain its lazy opulent lifestyle. If the vampires take over the world the warlock won’t have people to provide the tributes of food and materials or needs to craft its spells and fill its belly.

The Royal elite that control the resources we want in that region are largely content to stay in their backyard and reap the benefits of their wealth and resources. They mostly limit their meddling in global affairs to manipulations to maximize their profitability and safeguard their continued ability to exploit the resources in the area to live it up. If they keep fuel flowing and prices to where our economy can bear them, there isn’t a threat to American ambition. China and Russia do not want to stay in their backyard and they are not able or content to rely primarily on economic manipulation to safeguard them against foreign aggression or see their will done. They want to set standards and guide the global culture. They want to actively expand and they want to gain the advantage economically to leverage it against the USA and others. That is counter to American ambitions and so of course there is a problem there.

When I put it like that it seems a bit too obvious doesn’t it? “Duh” you might say. Well yeah. Duh. This isn’t really a foreign concept or something you need to be an international diplomat or poli-sci major to grasp. Most people are more likely to forgive things from people who benefit them more than people who benefit them less or are actively working against their interests. You speed and it’s ok. Maybe your friend speeds and it’s ok. A stranger speeds and they are a menace. You can hate XYZ behaviors but when a friend or someone you rely on for support is guilty you’ll justify why they are different or how what they are doing isn’t the same or is ok circumstantially. Russia and China have expressed the same global ambitions as the US and Saudi Arabia has not.

$500 can be a lot of money to a lot of people but it is an amount that most people could probably save up to have at least once a year of not every couple years. Not everyone- but probably most people. So you probably can travel. To Paris or Fiji or Tokyo? Maybe not on your budget. Then again- maybe. It depends in part on how well you plan and prepare. The local college used to offer Japanese students a 10 day trip to Japan for $1200. This was a few years ago but not decades back and it was a steal as at the time a plane ticket to Japan was more than that on average retail cost.
Like I said though- it doesn’t have to be exotic or even out of the country. There’s more to see in driving distance of most places than a person can see in a lifetime and you don’t need to go somewhere new every time you travel. It can take many trips to one place to get a real feel for it or to even get a loose feeling.
So do you and don’t let people travel shame you, but know that most people can travel.

You can go to places in your area where historical events or industries were big, there are places all over where famous shows or movies were filmed, the town from Dukes of Hazard in Georgia, obviously places all over California and the west coast, New York City, New England… there are “tourist towns” all over, Reno/Tahoe, Atlantic City, New Orleans, Miami, Austin, Chicago, Amish towns and Quaker towns. Beach towns and mountain towns. Deserts and forests. Motels shaped like tee pees, lakes and old mines…. There are often places to travel to within a few hours or on a weekend trip and it can be done for a few hundred dollars or less all included. Go to the snow, buy an inner tube for $10. Go to the lake. Buy an inner tube for $10. Go tour ghost towns. Pioneer towns. Just drive backroads and see where they go. Hoover dam, the Mississippi, Colorado, Columbia river. The Great Lakes. The dist bowl.

So do you. Also- more pragmatically- you can travel for relatively reasonable sums of money and not live like a vagrant. There are hostels, exchange programs, colleges and commerce centers and clubs do trips and host people. You may have skills that are wanted in a work abroad program. You don’t need go to Paris to travel to France, there are lots of places around the world that aren’t as prominent in postcards and media but have culture and history or fun and beautifully things or amazing food etc.
you don’t have to travel abroad- Miami is very different from Pensacola, upstate New York isn’t NYC. Drive to Yosemite or the Everglades or the Catskills.

There are also life experiences you just won’t get if you are always traveling. Without disrespect to either- the bonds formed by travelers and by those who have roots aren’t the same. I’m not saying either is better but I am saying they are almost mutually exclusive. You can’t see places and people change in real time when you are bouncing around. You can’t grow the sorts of connections that come from close familiarity with places and people for decades or more. Of course there is balance, you can travel and have roots, but one will always be a greater part of your life than the other.

To be clear I am not a travel snob. I do not think everyone “needs to travel” or that those who aren’t well traveled are automatically somehow lacking perspective or intellect. A good amount of people I see who “travel” and talk about high minded things like cultural exposure just do tourist shit or the same things everyone else does except the natives, or they do some kiddie gloves nonsense for a few weeks to a year and declare themselves a real local who’s lived in another's shoes. Travel can be great and it can expand your views and understanding. You can get those same benefits without traversing the globe or paying huge sums for exotic vacations. Many so called travelers have never even experienced all their own country offer or even a good chunk.

How much are you willing to give up for this thing? That’s a question of life. People with wealth often don’t have to give up as much to have the things they want and since they have more they can give up more before it causes them problems. They often have jobs that allow the flexibility to do things that less well to do jobs or more physical work don’t. For most people there are no big rewards without big risks or big work and when it comes to work, you will almost always have to work harder for something than it is objectively worth. So you have to choose the life you want to live and prioritize the things you think are most important.

So it is and isn’t true. In theory if you want something bad enough and are willing to prioritize it above all, there are few things that aren’t possible. Having money and wealth and other advantages makes it easier to do most things and opens more possibilities much easier or certainly. It gives you a safety net if things go wrong or you change your mind and it can allow you to have more than one priority. If you have wealth and such you can travel AND build your home AND save for a rainy day AND have other hobbies and relationships and a job and a family. If you don’t, you may have to pick only a couple or only one.

Buuut…. Is that reasonable and should you? It could be fun at times and horrible st others. Unless you had resources or a support system as a “safety net” there are no guarantees, and a life like that can be horrible at times. It can be dangerous. You can be robber, hurt, killed, taken advantage of, stranded, arrested. You wouldn’t be doing much most likely to put done stable roots and grow your future beyond any useful skills and experiences or connections you happened to stumble on. It’s hard to get a degree while panhandling across a country or the globe. There isn’t a paycheck or 401 and it doesn’t pay into social security. It’s hard to have physical possessions except what you can carry and you would almost certainly be always living on the resources at hand without much or any security net or nest egg.

There are lots of ways from $0 to a little money to see great big chunks of the world you haven’t seen. You may not always know you’ll have a place to sleep every night or food to eat. You may have to take odd jobs and scavenge and use outdoors skills or beg and panhandle or even commit crimes. You may not be able to control where you go or afford to do all the things you might want to do- but there are plenty of ways to travel if you have the courage and or faith in your abilities and or determination to just get out and see the world.

But to be clear I don’t begrudge these communities and individuals their right to represent their identities nor do my artistic opinions have bearing here. These are complicated and nuanced matters and so long as people have a meaningful symbol and the benefits that go along with that, great.

The circle represents intersex people, it is free from traditionally gendered colors like blue and pink. The circle has meaning too. The intersex flag is yellow with that purple circle in the middle.
For how busy this design is you can breathe deeply knowing that many sexualities and identities have their own flags which are not independently represented on this flag. The brown and black stripes are there to specifically represent people of color in the communities represented by the flag.
These two features are good illustrations of where individuals don’t feel represented or seen in the community or by the traditional labels or groupings of older flag versions.
Visually I find it very busy and suspect that as time goes on more additions and changes will be made.

I just won’t go into comparisons with the Holocaust. You can’t compare mass tragedies like that and honestly, there is a lot about it and the specifics of western cultures and peoples perceptions and biases and context concerning the Nazis and the events of the 20th century at the time and what had the most direct and tangible impact on the western world.
My heart goes out to those who suffered in the famine or the aftermath and echoes. Hopefully more people can be aware and sensitive to the issues facing each other in the world historically and currently. WW2 had a lot of death and horror. At the very least let us hope our history is enough to help us not repeat those mistakes.

Right or wrong- when you kill some own with purpose there is at least some argument there is a reason. When you kill on accident, someone is dead not because of even a possibility of wrong doing or “justice” but because you are not competent. She failed to be competent and we know that because people she didn’t intend to get hurt were hurt the same as if she hadn’t meant to poison anyone and accidentally put a household chemical in their food. She knew she was handling deadly substances around people and didn’t take proper precautions to avoid unintentional harm. If she truly feels no remorse for it that would be heinous.
Imagine if you made a salad with bad (poisonous) mushrooms and then carelessly left it out and someone ate it and died. Regardless of the fact you never told them they could or abound eat it and it was an accident- wouldn’t you feel bad about it?

Was she right to poison the husband? Inmaterial to me. I’m willing to leave that between them. Where I see an issue is what happened next.
Many rules and such exist because there are statistically or reasonably foreseeable accidents that can occur. This is the main reason “vigilante justice” generally isn’t legal. Mistakes happen. Accidents and misunderstandings. People get her and die who aren’t involved directly in things and you can undo that or fix a death. So even if the husband deserved to die, if she’d Intended to kill the whole family because they deserved it- wether that was true or not, there would be intent and the law or peers can decide if she was justified. The fact they died on accident shows negligence and lack of care to me. Indiscriminate killing. That can’t be justified.

It’s complicated. Do you, and if you don’t trust your shrink get another one if you are there voluntarily.