CheshireCat

I realize I'm late to the party, but I just watched a YouTube video on the history of pecan pie and they had some interesting information that I then googled and thought I'd share 🙂 Apparently, the name "pecan" is Algonquian and pecans originated in central and eastern North America as well as the valleys of Mexico, whatever "originated" means exactly. (As in popularized? Used for food? etc🤷‍♀️) https://www.caneriverpecan.com/pecan-history

That's an interesting point of view and one I never considered. I think that makes a lot of sense, however, I also wonder if that may apply to girls only and not extend into adulthood. From where I'm sitting, I'd say that once a girl becomes a woman, the majority of society still expects her to be "sufficiently feminine" and fill the role reserved for her by social norms. As far as boys are concerned, I'd say it depends on one's environment. My experience has been that it's okay for girls to be tomboyish but there's still prejudice against boys liking things associated with girls. This is an extreme example, but a teacher at the school my mom works at was of the opinion that a child couldn't be transgender because his favorite color was pink. I share that sentiment. The immigration process takes time, money and a certain amount of luck. I've put the details into spoilers for anyone who wants to skip them. 🙂 I was lucky because Obama had made some changes to streamline the process and by the time I went through the process, those changes took effect for my visa category and reduced my wait time to five years. There's also a chance that I benefited from Trump as I heard that a lot of applications had been withdrawn during his tenure but I never bothered to look into it and confirm it. I found the wait time stressful mentally as I felt like I had one foot in and one foot out and wasn't really here nor there. Additionally, Trump was talking about abolishing family reunification visas and I didn't know if that would mean that anyone who was waiting to be able to apply would automatically be denied. Still, I consider myself privileged because I could afford to go through the process. I had the time, I had the money, I had a passport, a visa category I qualified for and I either had all the records I needed or could get them easily. Many of the undocumented immigrants who cross the border at an unauthorized location don't have the luxury. They walk through several countries on foot and/or pay coyotes to smuggle them across the border even though they know the risks involved. I've asked myself many times just how afraid or desperate you must be if you think taking all of those risks is worth it. Overstaying a visa is easy. But once you overstay, you're at constant risk of deportation. I'm sure that it's not something you think about every day and you probably tell yourself that the odds are low and with time, I'm assuming, the fear will drift to the back of your mind. Still, there's that knowledge and there's that risk. For any undocumented immigrants, life is restricted to what the person is comfortable doing and their unlawful status allows them to do. (For example, for those who could afford it, no travel out of the country, limited work options etc). So, as draining as the process was and as expensive as the process was, I wouldn't want to trade places with an undocumented immigrant for the world. Because the fact that I was able to go through the process means I don't have any of the fears, desperation, living conditions, life circumstances and restrictions that they have. And for that, I'm grateful! I'm not sure I agree. It's possible. But Trump has shown a disregard for the Constitution and talked about the things he's doing now long before Musk got involved. I think it's also short-sighted. Currently, children of undocumented immigrants are enrolled in schools. That means, they'll get a proper education that will allow them to get as good a paying job as they can and that means revenue for the government, both state and federal. Children who go to school have friends and do activities with them after school. If they play sports, they need equipment. Parents will accompany those children and possibly buy things like food and drinks. The more children there are in schools, the more teachers are needed. Undocumented immigrants contribute to the economy. If we push them into hiding, they won't do that anymore. Slightly different but related: friends of parents at the school my mom works at were denied entry over the weekend. They're dual citizens, Columbian and Swiss. Their visa is sponsored by the World Bank. But because the visa is in their Columbian passport, CBP denied them entry. The Latino cleaning lady was harrassed by a grandmother, to the point that she was so afraid the next day that she waited for the principal to arrive before she entered the building. She's legal. On a general note, only 52% of the ICE arrests are reportedly so-called "criminal arrests". The rest had either non-violent offenses on their record or their only offense was to be in the country illegally and that's not a crime but a civil violation. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-immigration-raids-citizens-profiling-accusations-native-american-rcna189203 If the end result is that RFK Jr isn't confirmed, I'm good with it. Can a federal agency just ignore federal holidays?

Considering how he's inserting himself into the German election now, I have my doubts. I believe that Musk likes power and part of me also wonders if he might be bored. People with high potential (and I believe Musk's might be very high) need challenges. So, it's possible, he's now looking for the next challenge and that's why he's set his sights on Germany. I think he enjoys the power and the feeling of being able to outsmart everyone. The problem that I see is that it's dangerous to believe you're the smartest person in the room and act like it, too. I hope I don't come across as if I'm schooling because that's not what I want but what makes the US a republic isn't the EC but that they're a representative form of government. In the US, people vote for politicians who are supposed to represent them and their interests. It's the representatives who vote for and make laws and policies. In a democracy, it's the people who do that. In other words, the minority doesn't have any representation in a democracy. In a republic, a head of state can be elected directly or indirectly. (In Austria and France the president is elected directly by the people and much like in the US, the president of France isn't just a figurehead or ceremonial but holds actual power. In Germany, the president is elected by parliament, so indirectly). In German, republic and democracy are defined as "Staatsform" and "Regierungsform" but they're translated as the same word. "Staatsform" means how the government of the country is organized as, so, as a republic. But said republic is governed by the rules of democracy, so according to a majority vote.

Quoting myself because there's one other difference that affects public perception. Article 1 of German Basic Law is "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." The 2nd paragraph reads: "The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world." It is followed by Article 2: "Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law." You find this phrasing throughout, so, we're learning from an early age on that our personal freedom ends when it threatens someone else's/someone else's right to exist. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees and/or complies. But I think the fact that it's the law of the land and there's something that's considered more important than an individual's right of expression changes the dynamic and awareness. Additionally, Germany has an institution that's called "Verfassungsschutz". Translated: protectors of the constitution. They classified the whole AfD as being suspected of being far-right extremists (meaning, their party platform is suspected to be a threat to Germany's constitution) and the Youth AfD (all major parties have youth wings) as well as AfD wings in certain states have been declared as far-right extremist (so, one step above being under suspicion). I think that, too, contributes to a different public awareness because these are things that are reported in the media, so, even if it's not directly about Nazi Germany, there's conversation around the threat to democracy that originates with a political party.

I've meant to add about Musk that I find it appaling that some people in his orbit try to explain it with his autism. I understand if they want to argue that it wasn't a Nazi salute. (Not understand understand it, just that it's their right to do that). I don't know why he would turn around, look at the audience and only then make the exact same gesture again because of what he was saying when he didn't address the people who were behind him at any other point in the speech. But that's a matter of a difference in opinion. Blaming it on a disability, though, is feeding, breeding and encouraging biases as a result and I find it wrong on so many levels. Given that Trump mocked a disabled reporter back in 2015 or 2016 and is said to have mused if the disabled child of a family member may be better off dead, I shouldn't be surprised that people in his orbit would go that far. Still, it's just so unscrupulous and all for their own, personal gain. I have a friend who has Asperger's and I feel like apologizing to her.

Yes, that's more or less it. I may be confusing it with information I got from my family but if memory serves, WWII was mentioned for the first time in elementary school, 5th or 6th grade. Then it was covered twice in high school and since I had a class that I'd translate to political education, it was covered there, too. History was one of my final exam subjects and the written exam was actually about WWII. The class also went to Ausschwitz as part of a larger class trip to Poland, although, I didn't go for personal reasons. We also went to Sachsenhausen in high school but I can't remember which grade. Outside of school, we're also confronted with it in every day life. The movie "Schindler's List" used to be shown every year on TV around Easter. On days like Holocaust Remembrance Day and May 8th, there are TV and radio specials to mark the occasion. They often include testimonials from Holocaust survivors. There also used to be a lot of documentaries about not just the Holocaust but the rise of Hitler as well. (I say "used to" beccause I left Germany a few years ago and don't have access to a TV anymore when I visit). The documentaries explore different aspects and there are those which focus on the rhetoric Hitler used as he rose to power and how skillfully he used the media that was available at the time to broadcast his message. (It's common to say "beware of the beginnigs" because Hitler didn't talk about wars, genocide and oppression in his rallies any more than other autocrats do and when he came into power, Germany didn't become what it ended up being overnight. While there was discrimination and the opposition in parliament was eliminated, it happened slowly. Even the Nuremberg Laws weren't enacted until 1935, two years after Hitler's election. But it was there between the lines and the documentaries serve as a teacher to recognize the "between the lines"). I think what also makes a difference in how history is taught in Germany is that there are personal connections not just to the war but the Nazi regime itself. For exmaple, one of my grandfather's is in possession of an Aryan passport from the paternal side of his family. My great-grandfather on the other side of the family worked for the government before and after the war, so, one of the things we happen to be in possession of is the document relieving him of his duties for refusing to join the NSDAP. (He'd read Mein Kampf, so he knew what was coming, not the extent of it but in principle). There are also some real estate papers that were issued during the Nazi regime. I didn't know we had them and came across them accidentally a few years ago. Seeing the swatsika stamp on them actually made me feel lightheaded for a moment. There's something really surreal to it. My family also owns two sets of books (three and two respectively) with holes in them that were caused by bomb splinters. As a West Berlin native, history was probably even closer for me than it was for West Germans because I grew up in a city that had a wall built around it and that was a direct consequence of WWII and my family had lived through the air lift. I don't think that's entirely fair. There were Republicans who endorsed Harris who had voted for Trump the first time around and said they had realized what kind of a person he was.

I don't know if videos of all of the stills are circulating. I haven't seen any but one from Harris. (Even without the video, I think the difference is clear because there's a very different tension in Musk's arm and it's not the gesture itself but the sharpness with which it was executed that leaves no doubt in my mind as to what it was meant to be). https://x.com/tify330/status/1881512417387040998 I may have missed it but I don't think it has been mentioned yet but Musk did it twice. Both times with the same tension and deliberation. https://x.com/NewsHour/status/1881445540031857115 I know I'm sensitive when it comes to that. During her acceptance speech, Harris moved her arm from one side to the other in an encompassing gesture. Her arm was raised at this unfortunate angle and even though the context made it very clear what kind of gesture it was, it still made me squirm. Still, I'm fairly sure that an investigation would have been launched into Musk had this been Germany. (There's one ongoing (at least, I think it still is since I didn't find anything about a conclusion) against an AfD politician for a campaign poster. (The poster was removed for suspicion of violating the Constitution). The text on the campaign poster reads "We protect your children" https://www.rbb24.de/politik/wahl/Landtagswahl/2024/afd-wahlplakat-frankfurt-oder-bild-agentur.html ).

Considering that the Roman salute was used in Italy in the 1920s and 1930s and adopted by the Fascist movement and that slavery, gladiator fights, brutal wars, oppression of women and persecutions of Jews as well as Christians are part of the Roman empire's history, I don't think that's more favorable. I think it's simply seen as more acceptable because the Roman Empire is a lot more abstract and a lot less present in our minds than the 3rd Reich. In my experience, these gestures are no accident but dog whistles. They're deliberately murky so that, as Ancaster said (even if in a different context) anyone who doesn't want to see it doesn't have to see it but those who it's intended for understand. I believe that any politician should avoid any gesture that could be seen as any Fascist salute that exists and I'd also say that any politician who doesn't want to make such a gesture does. Otherwise, I would think we'd see a lot more do it and from a broader political spectrum. But I'm only aware of far-right politicians/advisors who get caught up in controversies over fascist gestures or rhetoric.

Four states (Virginia, Louisiana, New Jersey and Mississippi) vote for governor and the legislature in off-year elections, so they have elections every year. According to Google, Kentucky only votes for governor in an off-year election but votes for the legislature in the federal election cycle. As a resident of one of those states and a somewhat competitive district (less now than it used to be), I can tell you, it's really fun. 😉 (Even more so, because all elections have primaries. Even Special Elections do. Although, I like the concept of primaries. Even if the preferred candidate doesn't win the primary, at least, voters get a choice and don't have to accept who the party decides should run (as is the case in Germany)). In Germany, campaigning is limited to 6 weeks before an election. Campaigns usually consist of TV ads, posters and rallies but it's nowhere close to what's happening in the US. Part of me had secretly hoped that if Harris won, it might have made parties realize that it's not necessary to campaign as excessively. No such luck, I guess.

I don't think statues or insignias are necessary to learn about, remember and learn from history. In Germany, for example, there aren't any Nazi insignia or symbols on display and it's prohibited by law to own any. (Freedoms of speech, expression etc end where it infringes on the right of anyone else to exist). There aren't any statues of Nazi leaders anywhere (I don't know if there ever were any) and the gravesites of Nazi leaders are unknown. I learned that that was done so that there aren't any pilgrimage sites for sympathizers. (I was surprised to learn that Hitler's former vacation home was accessible to tourists when former Rep Cawthorn's visit was reported a few years ago. But I guess, the guided tour provides some control over the number of visitors and those who celebrate Hitler publicly would draw the attention of law enforcement). There isn't even one memorial for all of the German soldiers who died in WWII. Those who received proper burials were buried in 195 different cemeteries and others were buried in shallow graves in bombed front yards, for example. However, several concentration camps were preserved and I think it's more important to preserve those and set up memorials to the victims as that serves as a reminder of what the leaders did and the reason we shouldn't want it to happen ever again. I think the same is true for the US. I believe it's more important to preserve the slave quarters at plantations and everything connected to what slaves endured than statues of the leaders. Overall, though, I think what's most important is the teaching itself. Any statue, any concentration camp, any slave quarter is meaningless if we don't share the stories that go along with it and if we stop talking about it, if we stop telling the stories, we'll start to forget. ETA: The article I read made it sound like it wasn't his decision. Either way, I think this is a good decision. Having people stand outside in windchills in the teens for hours sounds just as irresponsible as having people stand outside in extreme heat for hours. Trump was (rightly, I think) criticized for the latter as well as leaving his supporters stranded in the cold at night years ago. So, I believe this is something he, or the organizers of the Inauguration, at least, should be given credit for. And it's not just the guests or his supporters. I might be wrong but I think moving it indoors also reduces the number of law enforcement officers and other first responders who have to be exposed to the cold for prolonged periods of time.

Considering that Hitler's party won with "only" a third of the vote and Germany suffered a lot of casualties during the war, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the journalist didn't meet anyone who voted for Hitler. But I don't think that not having voted for Hitler should be equated to having been part of the resistance. Many Germans may not have liked Hitler's policies but the economy did start to recover and, just like during Trump's first term many Americans weren't personally affected by his policies, many Germans weren't personally affected by Hitler's policies. So, they were just living their lives. Until they weren't. Figuratively and also, literally. I think the majority of Germans didn't support Hitler but didn't resist either. Additionally, Hitler had gamed the system so that there was election after election until his party got enough votes to nominate the chancellor. There were four elections in four years and a certain percentage of people likely voted for him out of exasperation. (I don't consider it an excuse, though, just an explanation). But there was a lot of shame in the years after the war in Germany. Even in the 1970s, it wasn't yet a mandatory to be taught in schools. It took a while before Germany actually started talking and educating about its history. Where I'm conflicted with Trump is that if it's not going to be as bad as feared and America actually makes it to another election, I think the wrong conclusions will be drawn and the threat of what Trump embodies won't go away. The opposite, I think, as I believe it paves the way for another Trump-like figure and one day, America won't make it to another election. But if it's going to be as bad as predicted then many of us who didn't support Trump and don't deserve to be suffering the consequences of Trump's presidency (if we can still call it that then) will suffer it the consequences as well. I feel like this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. ETA: I don't think so. But I think that's an interesting dynamic. I believe that Musk considers himself to be the smartest person in the room and I also believe that Musk is, in fact, smart. He always reminds me of the German saying, genuis and insanity are really close together (it loses something in translation but it's basically meant to say that the potential that you have when you're really smart can easily go to your head). Because of that, though, I don't think that Musk is conscious of the fact that Trump doesn't like sharing the spotlight, or rather, what that means exactly. I think Trump will let himself be manipulated under the right circumstances (meaning, flattering will get you anywhere) but I don't think he'll share the spotlight and once Musk starts to be called shadow-president regularly or anything like that and will get shadow-credit, then I think he might be gone quicker than he realizes. I think Musk needs to be very careful with how he plays his cards if he wants to stay in power and I'm not sure how aware he is of that.

Agreed. As much as I would have loved to have Erin and Jack actually make the announcement, I think it made sense from a story-telling point of view. Even if Eddie and Jamie have been married for a few years now, I think there's still a certain excitment around certain things, like announcing they're expecting their first baby. I would imagine, they still have the feeling that they can't wait to share things like that with everyone. Whereas for Erin and Jack, I think it's a more private relationship. There's a news-worthy aspect to it because they've rediscovered their feelings for each other but I feel like they're at a point where they want to share it with their family but don't have that feeling that they can't wait until they can tell everyone anymore. I also think that Erin and Jack couldn't have just made the announcement, everyone would have congratulated them and that would have been that. Even though I think everyone, except probably Joe and maybe the other Jack (and Nicki who, I hope, as the daughter, was aware of the full picture) knew that Erin and Jack are in a (committed) relationship to some degree or another, I expect they still would have been stunned/surprised by their announcement. Erin and Jack probably had an idea about that, hence the decision not to make the announcement. Although, I think they could have made the announcement first and that Eddie and Jamie are expecting their first baby could have served as a means to change the subject. But the show would have needed at least an extra minute for that. Personally, I think they could have taken that time from the funeral, however, if they had included the announcement, the writers would also have needed to make a decision as to what exactly it was going to be. Erin said "tell everyone after the fact", so that they were going to make an announcement suggests they have gotten married already. But there was a lot going on, so, the question is, would they have gotten married with all that was going on? (They would have needed to get a marriage license, correct? And provide proof of divorce for that? I'm guessing, couples getting remarried does happen but probably not as often, so, them taking care of the paperwork and the clerk's reaction could have made for an interesting scene). ETA: Come to think of it, I'm not sure if it would work for Erin and Jack to say something along the lines of "we've decided to get married but won't tell you when and where". There may be couples out there for who that works and for who it fits but in this situation, I think it's a little bit like saying we're getting married but you're not invited/we don't want you there and I don't think I can see Erin and Jack do that. So, that, too, would suggest they've gotten married already. But not having Erin and Jack made the announcement meant TPTB didn't have to settle on either or. Overall, I think the episode was one of the examples why I miss the extra 10-ish minutes shows used to have in the 70s and 80s (when there were fewer commercials and episodes were around 50 minutes long). I think even 5 more minutes could have made a big difference. I don't think Blue Bloods did finales well in general. I often felt underwhelmed by their finales and I think it's because they often seemed to be trying so hard to make the finale something special and they wanted every character to be a part of it so that the finale ended up a big story with very little time to tell it all. I don't know if there was enough material for a two-hour finale but maybe they should have considered it. (Although, maybe doing it this way was a conscious decision? Kind of like letting the characters be in a good place but at the same time, it felt like they weren't making that big of a deal out of the finale and that seems in line with the show's character. I guess, the question is if it's fair to the fans and if they shouldn't have prioritized fans over show character).

I always felt like the reconciliation happened throughout the show, starting in S4 when Erin and Jack were held hostage in the courtroom. He tells her afterwards that he could have lost her and he shouldn't have let her go. Yes, they split up again but in a way, that was understandable as it felt that they both went back into a sort-of-relationship without taking the time to think about what it was that they wanted. (While I always thought Erin was a bit unfair, although, that, too, was understandable, I'm guessing the problem was Peter Hermann's availability). I think next was the S7 episode when Jack was dating someone just a few years older than Nicki and at the end of the episode, he made a comment about something that he's only ever done or thought about or something along those lines with Erin. Then we get the S8 opener where I think it was obvious how much Erin still cares for him based on her reaction. Later in the season they talk about why he still keeps the wedding picture in his wallet and even later in the season, they go on a date and in the season finale, Erin is about to tell her late boss that, she has been seeing her ex as well when her late boss gets shot. From the S9 episode that Jack's in, I've deduced that they had been seeing each other but were not in a defined relationship. At the same time, I think they made it clear that Jack was still in love with Erin. I always took the S10 episode to mean that this was the moment Erin was willing to admit her ongoing feelings for Jack. She tells him he hurt her which, I think, is something that needed to be said, but also, at the end, she says that "this" (she, Nicky and Jack having dinner) feels right. In S11, they both make a deliberate choice regarding their relationship when she chooses to go away with him for the weekend even though he said she didn't have to and he then chooses to attend family dinner even though he knows there wouldn't be a warm welcome. I'm assuming Peter Hermann wasn't available in S12 but in the S13 opener he says something along the lines of they're going at a pace she's comfortable with and he asked her to move in with him. While they split up (again), she mentions in a later episode that he agreed to stay away until after the election. I took that to mean that they were laying low rather than splitting up. ETA (again): I think that she wasn't pleased that Eddie asked Jack to get involved might also have suggested that she wasn't really happy with the split as it can be difficult to see someone regularly when you want to be with someone and can't be. (But I'm not sure if that's something the show did on purpose). Jack was also making respectful choices throughout the season which I think shows that he's changed and was truly committed to making it work. In the season finale, when they leave the courthouse, Jack says to her, she's full of surprises today to which she replies, you have seen nothing yet. Between how their relationship was portrayed throughout the season, the fact that her run was over and the look she gave him, I interpreted that as meaning they'd probably go home together after getting that drink. It would have been really nice if we had gotten confirmation in S14. I think a couple of sentences between Erin and someone would have been enough, they wouldn't have needed Jack for that. Or they could have given an indication that while he was helping Erin with the legal stuff, he had a more permanent presence in her apartment in ep11. But I don't think the show was the greatest when it came to developing personal relationships (given that they had four ETA: five (obviously, I can't count 😉) characters to juggle in each episode, it probably makes sense that that had to take a backseat), and since I liked Erin and Jack as a couple, I'm happy with what we got. 🙂

State Senator Ileana Garcia has an interesting way of saying climate change is real, we need environmental protection and let's take climate action... Genuine question: How many undocumented immigrants do you know? (edited) Genuine again: Do you think the person who committed the crime would have acted differently (meaning, either not committed the crime or shown remorse) had they been a legal immigrant or a native-born citizen? (If so, what makes you believe that?) Would you feel differently about the crime itself (for example, would you consider it less (or more) horrific or less (or more) condemnable or less (or more) impactful) if the person who committed the crime had been a legal immigrant or native-born citizen? With that said, I’m truly sorry this happened to you as a mother, your daughter and your family. It’s not something anyone should have to experience.

Are you referring to the piping? As far as I know, these kind of cakes are currently seeing a revival, of sorts. Some of the colors are actually impossible to recreate. I needed a color that can be described as a bright magenta-fuchsia mix in summer. So, a pink-ish one with a bit of blue added in but whenever I mixed in blue or purple, the color got closer in shade but lost its brightness. In hindsight, it made sense because blue is added to red and pink food colors to tone it down. I googled and the result was that magenta is a shade of red (as is fuchsia) and red is a primary color, therefore, it can't be mixed. (That would also explain why the food coloring that's called fuchsia looks nothing like the color). I think perwinkle is also an impossible color to mix. With that said, the majority of cakes looked beautiful (although, look-wise, I thought the winning cake was one of the weakest ones) and many of the slices looked incredibly neat. Overall, I feel like the works of the contestants of this season are neater than in previous seasons. I'm quite enjoying it. I've also enjoyed the judging so far. It may be the editing but I like that it's less subjective, like one or the other judge expressing their personal dislike/like for something and that there's more substance to it, like a filling flavor being too heavy for the light cake and things like that. It's constructive and criticism that gives the bakers something they can improve on and that helps them become better bakers.