This should be an SNL skit on what menopausal women should not do

Today I heard the funniest NPR documentary I've ever heard. I was quite literally on the floor with hysterics. The narrator introduced it as a very moving, and important story, that they put a lot of heart into. It's about "what do you do, when the worst thing possible happens?" The story starts with her family hearing that Jen Angel, the owner of a local bakery has been injured in a car accident. They visit the scene, and, oddly, it's in the parking lot of a bank, and her car is still there, and relatively intact. What happened? She was robbed, the robbers broke her window, took her things, she ran after the car, got caught in the door, was dragged for fifty feet, and was grievously injured. Sad, ed? And, it gets worse. She ends up being declared brain dead after a couple of weeks. Really sad, eh? Especially for her withdrawn, sensitive highly intelligent boyfriend, Ishmael. It was his intelligence that attracted Jen to him, and his sensitivity. He's really broken up. And, he gets even more broken up over the next few weeks. Until, they arrest Ishmael for Jen's murder. It seems he was the car's driver, and he wanted to rob his own girlfriend. Weird, eh? Well, maybe not that all weird. You see, about halfway through his hour documentary we find out that Ishmael is only 18 years old. And, Jen Angel was 48 years old. No law against that of course, but, particularly with an "intelligent and withdrawn" -- i.e. mentally unstable -- young man in an intimate relationship with a much older woman, the probability of violence gets rather high, doesn't it? And, I would hazard a guess, it wasn't his intelligence that attracted Jan Angel to Ishmael, but having a little stud-muffin to be her little boyfriend, who she could "mother", or, something like that, anyway. And, Ishmael wanted a sugar momma. And, he got one. But, he wanted more money. And, that didn't work out too well, did it? So, what can we learn from this story? Older women should not get involved with much younger men, barely legal men, particularly if they're mentally unstable. It won't work out. It might get them killed. It probably will get them hurt. What's really hysterically funny is that NPR tries to turn this into a profound story about social justice, and why people shouldn't be sent to prison, but reintegrated into society. As it turns out, eventually, the prosecutor offers Ishmael a plea bargain, and he gets just seven years in prison -- he could have gotten life in prison -- and the judge agrees. Of course, the reason they do this, is that the judge and the prosecutor are well aware that Jen Angel was the effective instigator of this incredibly sordid story by her stupidity the menopausal lust! And, that Ishmael was just a kid being manipulated by her. However, NPR seem to think it was their arguments for the evils of incarceration that got Ishmeal the light sentence! Don't think so, folks.

Neanderthals didn't go extinct because they were inferior to humans. Neanderthals went extinct because they were superior to humans.

I've always been rather puzzled about exactly why the Neanderthals went extinct. When they were first discovered, some two centuries ago, the assumption was that Neanderthals represented an inferior branch of humanity, more brutish than modern man, that inevitably was superseded by the superior traits of modern human beings. Various explanations were provided for why this might have occurred. There might have been wars between the two groups, resulting in the ultimate extermination of Neanderthals by armed force. Our own human ancestors would obviously have been in direct competition with the Neanderthals for food and resources of various types. Perhaps modern human beings were simply better at hunting and gathering than the Neanderthals were, and consumed all available resources, leaving the Neanderthals to die from starvation, or perhaps from exposure to the elements for lack of proper clothing and shelter. Various explanations were presented for this possibility. Possibly human beings were better at communicating verbally than Neanderthals were, for anatomical reasons related the structure of their brains, throats or tongues. This might have allowed them to work better with each other in hunting and gathering activities, and made them more effective than the Neanderthals. It might have also made them better at making tools useful in hunting and gathering. However, none of these explanations seemed to be particularly compelling. The Neanderthals appeared to have brains as large, or even larger than those of human beings. Neanderthals were at least as intelligent, or more intelligent than modern human beings. Neanderthals were as big and strong, or stronger, than modern human beings. So, why would human beings have been able to defeat Neanderthals in war, had superior communication skills, or been able to out-compete Neanderthals, in any way whatsoever? In recent decades, with the development of sophisticated DNA technologies for the analysis of human, and non-human remains, it's become quite clear that Neanderthals and modern humans certainly did interbreed, and that perhaps as much as 5% of modern human genetics is derived directly from this inter-species mating between Neanderthals and humans. This interbreeding, perhaps on a rather massive scale, may provide a rather interesting and simple explanation for the apparent "extinction" of Neanderthals. Neanderthals were a highly specialized species, localized in Northern Europe during the Ice Age, and specialized in dealing with the climatic difficulties of surviving in this region, at that period of time. They were never particularly numerous, because of the extreme challenges of survival in this region, at that particular time. This, of course, meant they were left alone, and hadn't any competition. However, modern human beings spread out of Africa throughout Eurasia, they lived in Africa, India, China, Southeast Asia, and, ultimately, some of them braved the challenges of Ice Age northern Europe, where they encountered the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were the masters of this region, so, really, our ancestors probably had no choice but to get along with them, to survive. And, that inevitably led to interbreeding. Far from exterminating the Neanderthals, or even competing for scarce resources with them, our ancestors might well have been little more than slaves to the Neanderthals. And, of course, slaves make perfectly legitimate breeding stock. And, with large numbers of modern humans infiltrating their territories from around the world, and working as slaves for them, and being used as limitless breeding stock, eventually, of course, the master Neanderthals would come to resemble modern man, more and more. Until, they became modern men, more or less, anyway.

Russia's Tsar Nicholas II problem

Since his execution -- or, if you like, his martyrdom -- by the Bolsheviks at Yekaterinburg in 1918, Tsar Nicholas II has been a somewhat problematic character historically for the world as a whole, and for Russia particularly. During the Soviet Era, in Russia, and in the world as a whole, Nicholas II was presented as a totally incompetent leader, out of touch with reality, and a repressive authoritarian who failed to provide for the needs of the Russian people, while embarking on futile and self-destructive military ventures like the Russo-Japanese War, and, of course, World War One. In Russia, since the fall of communism in the early 1990's, and particularly under the regime of Vladimir Putin, this image has been turned around 180 degrees, and Tsar Nicholas II is now presented as a great and noble hero, a martyr and actual canonized Saint of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Tsarist Russian Empire is idealized, and presented as the best of all possible worlds, a mixture of elegant nobility and happy, productive peasants. In contrast, the world as a whole hasn't actually departed too much from the Soviet picture of Nicholas II -- a totally incompetent leader, out of touch with reality, embarking on futile and destructive military ventures, and not providing for the needs of the Russian people! So, what's going on here, exactly? I think the problem is, that liberal democracy didn't work too well at all, when it was tried under Boris Yeltsin, in Russia. The economy collapsed, life expectancy dropped spectacularly, and, rather than becoming a highly successful liberal democracy like Germany or Britain, Russia simply was reduced to a kind of semi-colonial status with respect to the West, and the US, in particular. While this was, of course, perfectly acceptable to the West, and the US in particular, it was by no means satisfactory to the Russian people, or their leaders. Thus, the rise of a "strongman", Vladimir Putin, to rectify the situation, and return Russia to its rightful place in the world. How could this be done? How could Russia become a great, and successful nation once more? They'd tried the communist model, and had decided to reject that completely. It was, it seemed, impractical, and too authoritarian, and repressive. They'd tried liberal democracy, and, that had failed for them as well, the Russians were not Germans or Britons. So, what to do? It would seem that the only option they really had, was to look back at Russian history, and see the comparative success of Tsarist Russia, a great power for many centuries in the world. So, Vladimir Putin is attempting to make himself the new Russian Tsar, of the new Russian Empire. Now, the problem here, is that the rest of the world really doesn't want a new Russian empire, at all. In particular, the nations that broke away from the USSR when it collapsed in the early 1990's, haven't the slightest interest in being forced back into this union, as we are seeing currently in Ukraine. And, they are willing to fight very hard to avoid this fate, as we are seeing, and much of the world will support them, with arms and economic assistance, so that they can remain independent of Russia, no matter how much Mother Russia wants them back. So, is it possible, that Russia can possibly get beyond seeing Tsar Nicholas II as their quintessential ideal, because, if they do not, they are going to keep repeating Nicholas II's disastrous errors, over, and over again?

What can we learn from the 2025 elections?

The Democrats did even better than expected in the 2025 elections, winning by wider margins, and in more elections than either side predicted. It was a total wipeout for the Republicans. And not just in blue states either. The Democrats took seats and positions in Mississippi and Georgia. Virginia is a purple state, and the Democrats won the governorship and Attorney General's positions there, despite a vicious attack campaign against them by Trump and the Republicans, and took a super-majority in the Virginia Senate, effectively giving them total control of the Virginia government. They took a Supreme Court position in Pennsylvania, and of course the Democrats defeated the Trump endorsed candidate for governor of New Jersey, giving the Democrats control of the New Jersey governorship three elections in a row, for the first time since 1961. And, last but not least, the Democrats elected a socialist Muslim in New York City, to the absolute horror of Donald Trump and his MAGA backers, in what was a clear slap in the face to them. Why was this, exactly? What do these elections tell us? Obviously, the American electorate are deeply unhappy with Donald Trump's authoritarian tendencies. Donald Trump thinks he is the anointed King of America, and Americans disagree. The assaults on and kidnappings of productive, hard-working immigrants by racist ICE agents, supported by racist Donald Trump and the racist MAGA movement are driving most Americans to a frenzy of anger against the federal government, and most elements of federal law enforcement. The murders of sailors on the high seas who Trump presumes to be drug traffickers by the US military are an horrific affront to all international law, and a war crime, for which everyone involved must be held accountable. Trump's intentions to take direct military action against Panama, Greenland Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico and Nigeria suggest imperialistic tendencies that we haven't seen since Adolf Hitler quite literally tried to take over the world in 1939. Trump's gleeful use of the military to intimidate and control the populations of any state or city he doesn't like in the US, have antagonized virtually everyone who isn't MAGA, and that's the vast majority of Americans. His performance on the economy has been mediocre. The economy is being hobbled by Trump's ridiculous obsession with tariffs, and now by his inability to function with the Congress, leading to the longest government shutdown in American history. The economy is starting to collapse even as we speak from Trump's total economic incompetence. The entire US air space of the US is about to become unworkable for lack of qualified air traffic controllers, they can't be paid. The entire US military is about to go without paychecks for the first time since the American Revolutionary War, 250 years ago, before America was even a nation. The full implications of these events is unclear, this has never happened before, but, they are massive. In any case, the massive disparities of wealth are making it impossible for the vast majority of Americans to fully participate in the economy, as the nation is strangled by the super-rich, and their petty whims. Obviously, we need higher taxes on the rich, and Donald Trump will never tolerate this, being one of their members. In particular, what was notable in the 2025 elections, was that the Democrats, for the first time in a dozen years or more, actually substantially outperformed the polls. This may be because attempts to compensate for errors in the recent past have gone too far, and, now, Democratic support is being substantially underestimated by the pollsters. That would be very, very bad news for the Republicans, suggesting a massive Democratic wave, that could sweep the Democratics to a great victory in the mid-terms next year, and lead to Trump's impeachment, removal, and imprisonment.