The Russians are still obsessed with Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina".

On the surface at least, Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" would seem to be a simple rip-off of Gustave Flaubert's brilliant and incredibly popular portrait of an adulterous married woman, and, her inevitable downfall in still extremely patriarchal nineteenth century Europe, written over twenty years earlier. However, there's actually more to it than that. This is a very Russian novel, about Russian society, morals, culture and social changes in the 1870's. And, this period was critical, as all Russians now know, to subsequent developments in Russian history -- the assassination of Alexander II, the accession of Alexander III and Nicholas II, and their movements to greater authoritarianism in Russia, the Russo-Japanese War, the Revolution of 1905, WWI, the Revolution of 1917, and three quarters of a century of communism. In this recent adaptation of Anna Karenina, there is a very unusual twist to the perspective on the novel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuaxy4YQzAA We see, in this particular version, the events of the novel, interspersed with observations of a period thirty years in the future, in Manchuria China, during the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904. And, the general in charge of the station of Russians fighting the Japanese in China, is none other than Prince Vronsky, the anti-hero and lover of Anna Karenina! And, the plot thickens. The actor playing Count Vronsky is an older man, not the actor playing Count Vronsky in the action occurring in the novel, in this particular production. Instead -- believe it or not! -- the actor playing Count Vronsky in the action from Anna Karenina here, is now playing the station doctor, who is mostly performing amputations, in the action ocurring in 1904! So, what exactly is going on here, do you think? I think, Anna Karenina is being used as a symbol for Russia as a whole here, something that Leo Tolstoy himself may have had in mind. And, I think Vronsky is being used as a symbol for the forces attacking and destroying Russia from within. But, the producers of this particular production are extending the analogy thirty years into the future, to increase its power. And, thirty years into the future, Vronsky has become Russia/Anna Karenina, and the station doctor has become Vronsky, the destroyer of Anna/Russia. An interesting sub-plot here is the rather charming and intimate relationship that develops in 1904 between the older Count/General Vronsky and an adolescent Chinese girl who seeks shelter from the war in the Russian station. This is very typical of all Chinese and Russian historical films these days -- Russians and Chinese are presented as being natural allies and lovers, throughout all of history.

Technically correct term

What's the technically correct term for the precise interior decorating style used by Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa in their fabulous 13 million dollar house, just before they died under unusual circumstances? "Terminal clutter".

Trump political advisor Stephen Miller's stunning resemblance to Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_M%C3%BCller_(Gestapo) I'm becoming rather concerned about something. We've all noticed how much power young Stephen Miller is acquiring in the White House, largely subsuming both the functions of POTUS and the Attorney General. Now, obviously Mr. Miller's politics are extremely far right, even for MAGA and the Republicans, involving the suspension of all civil liberties, including habeas corpus, and giving the President absolute dictatorial power to do whatever he wants, anytime he wants to. Indeed, he sounds very much like a Nazi, perhaps even the head of the Gestapo. However, what many people do not realize is that Mr. Miller actually bears a genuinely stunning resemblance to the actual Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller. I don't know if this is actually cultivated, or, whether it's just a sign of a truly profound spiritual and personality resemblance, that manifests itself in a physical resemblance. However, I do believe it is something everyone should bear in mind!

Message to "Elon"

Hi: This is Myname 271, and, I have to admit, although I still don’t think you’re Elon Musk, you are putting on a very good Elon Musk act, so, I thought you might be at least a bright graduate student in engineering and worth talking to. I can understand you would be less than enthusiastic about me ridiculing the Starship in public, that’s fair enough. I guess, at the very least, it might be a kind of reducto ad absurdam to the whole massive liquid fueled rocket concept, so, even if it never works, the mere fact that it never works is a kind of experiment in itself, and proves the need to move on to other more advanced technologies, and, that in itself might prove useful. I think what looks most promising to me are variations on the Project Orion concept, from the early 1960's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) The Cuban Missile Crisis largely sidetracked this research, because people became frightened of the real possibility of a thermonuclear war, and tight controls were put on all future use of nuclear "weapons", even for peacetime purposes. Conventional controlled nuclear fusion research appears to be something of a dead end. Sure, it's pretty safe. It's also totally useless! Billions of dollars to, at best, produce enough power to light a few light bulbs for a few minutes, if that. There are small A-bombs in the American nuclear arsenal that only produce conventional levels of explosive yield, but, they're still very expensive to produce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54 If the price could be brought down considerably, and radiation yields could be reduced, then there might be some potential to use these for space propulsion. There are other more exotic possibilities that have been explored: https://defence.pk/threads/nuclear-bullets-the-most-dangerous-soviet-project.526352/ Soviet nuclear bullets! Yes indeed, actual nuclear bombs the size of a bullet, made out of Californium, believe it or not. It's unclear exactly how far the Soviets got with this, but, it might have some interesting applications. Could a nuclear bullet be used to trigger a very small H-bomb, and could the nuclear material be dispersed sufficiently to render the "bomb" less explosive, and more of a drawn out nuclear reaction, something between a conventional nuclear reaction, and a "bomb", something that could actually power a well-reinforced rocket? How cheaply could this be produced, and how efficient a source of energy might it be? https://www.quora.com/profile/ (https://www.quora.com/profile/)Myname-271

What if Napoleon had been defeated at the battle of Marengo?

Napoleon only managed to win the battle of Marengo, in 1800, out of incredible luck. He had been outgeneraled, outfought, outstrategized and basically ambushed, and was on the verge of total defeat. Then, a close general friend of his got himself killed rushing in reinforcements, and, almost simultaneously, the Austrian forces were thrown into confusion by the explosion of their ammunition wagons in the middle of their forces. This combination of events was sufficient to turn the tide of the battle. What if Napoleon had, really, lost the battle of Marengo? Would he have been captured, or perhaps killed? Would that have been the end of Napoleon's career? How would that have affected the future course of European, and of world history?

What does Donald Trump teach us about the nature of existence, and epistemology, in general?

Many people love Donald Trump, and many people hate him. However, even the people who are indifferent to Donald Trump -- like myself -- are very aware of him, and the important role he is currently playing world affairs. Donald Trump is a disrupter, a challenger, a social non-conformist. He often does much more harm than good, at least in the short term. Nevertheless, people tolerate him, at least up to a point, because he is perceived to be interesting and useful, at least, at times. He rather perfectly matches Elon Musk's silicon valley ideal of "moving fast, and breaking some things." That's exactly what Donald Trump does, all the time. In a broader historical, and philosophical sense, Trump may be seen as a kind of personal example of the dialectical method, as described by Hegel -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Present a strong position, provoke other contrary positions, achieve a meaningful, useful practical reality between them. This is a very confrontational, competitive approach to life, but, certainly a very common one. And, at least at times, anyway, it seems to be somewhat effective. Are there other, better, approaches to life, that are less competitive, and confrontational? Well, supposedly scientists have their "scientific method", which generates systematic progress through controlled experimentation and public discussion. However, when we look closely, we find that progress of a meaningful, practical type is rather thin on the ground in professional science, despite the frantic claims of scientists to the contrary. Many if not all world religions claim wisdom and progress are possible through worshipping their own particular divinities, whatever those might be. However, all major religions disagree on what those particular divinities are, exactly. So, we have Donald Trump, playing the fool, babbling incoherently and getting attention, and people scratching their heads over it all, and trying to figure out what it all means, after all. By this stage, just a few months into a term he may, or may not, be allowed to finish, Trump appears to have largely given up trying to do anything at all, and is mostly just babbling. Almost all his executive orders have proven so totally impractical and illegal, that they have been completely rejected by the courts, and his Republican Congress may be unable to pass any legislation at all, it is so totally confused, and out to lunch. Likely, taxes will go up massively in the US this year, precisely the opposite of what most Trump voters were hoping for. If Trump is sent to prison -- as seems quite possible -- what will we have learned from him?

Nazi militarist Donald Trump attacks Mexican President for not allowing American troops to invade her country

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-blasts-mexicos-sheinbaum-rejecting-003341709.html

What if Louisiana governor and Federal Senator Huey Long hadn't been assassinated in 1935?

Huey Long was a somewhat unique character in American history. A socialist populist with broad appeal, but, also, a man with violent and dictatorial tendencies. He died young, shot to death by a political opponent at the age of just 42 years. What would have happened if he had survived? Huey Long was seriously running for President in 1935, as a both governor of Luisiana, and federal senator from Luisiana, a unique combination, and qualification. He was systematically attacking Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal as not being hard enough on the rich, and good enough for the poor. He was acquiring broad support, because, by 1936, it was looking like the New Deal wasn't working very well, at all. But, Huey Long did not let anyone stand in his way. He was indifferent to the Constitution, or to the Legislature. If they opposed him, he threatened them, bribed them, or used his own legal machine to crush them. He did help the poor, and the poor people loved him. But, the rich hated him, and the middle class was ambivalent about him. He may have had the potential to be a dictator. Or, he might have been an enlightened, if somewhat ruthless politician, who would have helped the United States. Would Huey Long have defeated FDR in 1936? What would the United States have been like, if Huey Long had become President in 1936?

What if Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become President of the United States?

Red baiting, hate mongering demagogue Joseph McCarthy was remarkably popular for a time, in the US. He played into the fear of the US population of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong, and the fear of communism, and a thermonuclear world war in which the entire world would be destroyed, forever. As a brilliant, ruthless and amoral social manipulator, McCarthy showed an ability to manipulate the fear and xenophobia of the American people to acquire political power, to the point that even President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself was probably somewhat frightened of him, for a time, anyway. He attacked anyone and everyone as communists, or potential communists, or fellow travelers, and, for a time, this strategy proved highly effective in persuading the American people to support him. They were that angry, and, they were that frightened. Paranoia is a very powerful motivator. Eventually, particularly in attacking the military, McCarthy overplayed his hand politically, he was publicly censured, and died a few years later, of hepatitis. So, suppose, somehow, McCarthy himself had managed to become President of the United States? How would that have worked out? What would he have done, exactly? I could see attempts at using his paranoid attacks to acquire dictatorial power. To terrorize the judiciary, and the population as a whole, as was the case anyway, to some degree, during this "red scare". I could see deportations of suspected communists to prisons in fascist strongholds like Franco's Spain, with whom McCarthy, no doubt, would have established very close diplomatic relations, and be on the best of terms. Fascist Francisco Franco would, no doubt, have been a regular and honored guest at the President McCarthy White House. There would be regular threats of war, economic battles with nations who traded with the USSR, economic instability and turmoil because of these. A climate of extremism and fear would be created. At some point, the opposing Party would take over Congress, and they would impeach and remove him from office. Any thoughts?

What if there had been no Berlin Airlift in 1948?

In 1948, Josef Stalin decided he'd had enough of the power sharing arrangement in Berlin, and that he'd use his control of surrounding Eastern Germany to assert direct Soviet control over the former German capitol. This would make it much more difficult for the allies to influence and potentially destabilize East Germany from Berlin itself, and would give the Soviet Union a much better base for potential further advances into Western Europe. So, all Western aid and support into Western Berlin was shut down, the highways and railways closed, using Soviet military might, and electric power and gas were shut off. Two million West Berliners were at risk for starvation, in the dark. US President Harry Truman -- who is still worshipped as a God in Germany for this, actually -- decided he'd use Western air power to supply the Berliners, and demonstrate the air power of the Western allies, at the same time. He mounted an unprecedented show of air power, supplying comfortably all the inhabitants of West Berlin exclusively from the air, with Western air power. And, in so doing, he saved the inhabitants of Berlin from submission to Stalin and the USSR. What if old Harry Truman hadn't done this? Clearly, West Berlin would have fallen, and all Berlin would have been securely in the Soviet block. This would have made all of East Germany much more secure from Western influence -- no need for a Berlin Wall, at all. And, as such, the USSR would have been on a much firmer footing in Western Europe, as a whole. Remember, it was the fall of the Berlin Wall that led to the collapse of the USSR. No need for a Berlin Wall, how much longer does the USSR last, and how much farther does the USSR get, to total world domination?