CheshireCat

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? How many undocumented immigrants do you know 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.

I don’t think it’s an either-or situation. I think you and everyone else in your generation earned their benefits. I think seniors are struggling with a crumbling social welfare system and deserve recognition of the years they worked and helped grow the economy in, for example, the form of an increase in social benefits. I think students and young adults are struggling with ever-increasing student loans and deserve some form of assistance because I don't think they should pay for higher education in the first place. I also don’t approve of the dismissal of what senior citizens (and the older population in general) contribute to society and I think it’s greatly underestimated. (And I’m not just talking about financial contributions because I think seniors contribute far beyond that). I also don’t think we should let the struggle of one group prevent us from doing something about the struggle of another. I don't think there's anything to gain from that but that it would keep us from moving forward as a society. (To give a couple of specific examples, vaccines or treatments may come too late for some/not work for some, or an immigration reform would benefit only those who go through the process after said reform. But I don't think we should let that prevent us from continuing medical research or pushing for an immigration reform. I believe we need to continue to push for change because we'll be better for it as a society. We can make lives better and in some way or another, I think it'll benefit us all). What I think matters most is that while we do something about the struggle of one group, we don't ignore the struggles of the others. We need to acknowledge those other struggles, too, and do something about them as well or push for something to be done about them, so that the other group or groups doesn’t/don’t feel like they get left behind. (Weren’t changes/an increase to social benefits floated at some point either during the Biden campaign or early in his administration? I feel like I remember something about that). We need a system, society and an economy that sees everyone and works for everyone, so that we can have medical research, immigration reform, student loan forgiveness, increase in social benefits, tax cuts for the middle class and everyone below, and everything else a healthy economy needs, at the same time. (I think Biden was taking us on that path but one of the biggest challenges that we’re facing is that the economy’s response time is sloooow. I believe that was reflected in the election results because many of the people who needed to feel the improved economy the most hadn’t felt it yet).

It's not fair. However, humans are inventors by nature. They also strive to move society forward and improve lives. If we look back, that's what we've done for centuries, even millennia. As we always have to start somewhere, it meant there always was a generation that didn't have what the next generation had, just like there was always a generation where only a select few had something. But we did it anyway because we knew it would improve lives and once we had introduced whatever it was into the lives of people, society worked or fought towards making whatever it was accessible or affordable for as many people as possible. Additionally, I think borrowers who managed to pay off their loans still benefit from student loan forgiveness. Student loan forgiveness means these young people have more money to buy things with. That generates revenue, generated revenue is good for the economy. They also may be more likely to have children which benefits society and the economy as well as social welfare. On the surface, and in the short-term, I think it looks and is unfair. In the medium- and long-term, though, it benefits the country as a whole since a strong middle class is the source of economic growth.

I understand the sentiment but I think it's more complex than that. I'm pretty certain there are a lot of Trump supporters who embody what I think is the definition of the American spirit, like they’re helpful, positive, welcoming and I believe that for many of them race wouldn't make a difference. I believe it's true when Trump supporters say not all Trump voters are racists, sexists, homophobes, antisemites etc. But, as we just saw, it's also true that none of that is a deal-breaker for them. Yes, it says something about the people, but it also says something about the erosion of social norms and values. It tells us that where society draws the line in the sand has changed. I mostly blame social media for that. That doesn't change that the insults and division at Trump rallies weren't a deal-breaker for his voters, I just don't think we'll get anywhere by saying Trump voters aren't good people and leave it at that. I think it's the easiest way out but there's so much more to it than that and that, if we want change, we need to look deeper and, among other things, at how we can restore the values we lost. It's what has been so difficult for me about this election. What does it say for the future of society if voters choose division and insults based on empty promises and feelings over unity, decency, hope and compassion based on facts? I think that if we manage to hold meaningful elections again, campaigns needs to invest heavily in experts in combating mis-and disinformation. Because I don't think that unless we start with the same basis of facts, we can’t have any meaningful conversations. I haven't been able to watch either speech.

Was NOLA filmed in LA? I know they filmed on location but I don't remember if the whole show was shot in New Orleans or if they split time between LA and New Orleans. As far as I know, they deconstruct sets and also sell them once they're done but the staircase and gallery definitely look like they could be using the same set up/set pieces. Maybe they don't sell them all the time? Or maybe, they have the same set designer?

Did he say why? How would that work with the marathon? Are they really not going to have the Olympic sport conclude the Olympic Games? (Although, I can't imagine that running a marathon in July is much fun in the LA area in general).

It might be a recent development but it wasn't when I was doing translations for an international competition held in my hometown several years ago. I'd argue it's a bit more than that. 🙂 Of course, the basis is ballet, but all of the flexibility on display is a requirement, for example. Getting there is a painful process (and most likely unhealthy, too). The jumping skills are acquired by jumping with weights on your feet. (Here's a video of what training looks like for kids in Russia (as all gymnasts have similar flexibility, I don't imagine that it looks much different in other countries. The difference might be in the coaches and their tone (I should probably add a trigger warning as you can hear some kids crying)). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR6z4YUlpIM This video gives an impression of what a Canadian gymnast's training looks like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkUVM5MVvlY ) Growing up dancing, I've done several of these excercises and they're the kind where you think your tighs are burning up and/or your back's going to break. When it comes to the competition, the apparatus needs to be in movement at all times throughout the 1:30 minute routine. Additionally, the apparatus needs to be handled with both hands equally and also with other body parts than the hands. Except for hoop, each apparatus has a focus. That means that 50% of the routine need to consist of those elements. Balance elements for clubs, flexibility for ball, jumps for rope and turns for ribbon. For hoop, it's at the gymnast's discretion. Judging is similar to gymnastics. For example, gymnasts hand in their planned routine, there's a difficulty score and an execution score, splits have to be at least 180°, feet have to touch heads, turns have to be fully rotated, the gymnast and the apparatus have to stay in bounds when performing, when a gymnast loses the apparatus there's a bigger deduction when the apparatus goes out of bounds than when they just don't catch it etc. Top gymnasts train up to 8 hours a day.

At the end of season 3, Neal fled the country, though, before the committee had made a decision to release him. I don't think the show ever clued us in on what that would have meant with regards to a prison term but it would've been his third strike (first was the initial arrest, second was his prison break). When added to what he was suspected of having done, I don't know how kind a prosecutor or judge would've been. Didn't Peter also mention something about how he'd convinced someone to get Neal his deal back? I think the show also left it up in the air just how much the FBI knew about the stolen treasure. I don't think they knew it was Neal, however, there probably were quite a few clues so that it wouldn't have been too hard to find out. He also committed a couple of crimes after that weren't sanctioned by the FBI. I'm not sure in how much trouble he could have gotten in for those.