KEY TO THE WORLD
I stand in front of the mirror,
trying to place everything
correctly: tip of tongue against
upper teeth, right hand checking
vibrations of the larynx –
“This is your key to the world,”
states my English for Today,
a book of secrets where Tom and Jane
carry on their cracked romance:
Tom, is this a girl?
No, this is a lamp.
*
I rehearse the sacred chant:
Thelma threw thistles
through the thick of her thumb.
Thistle while you work!
A tooth for a truth,
a thigh for an eye!
“They lisp,” the teacher
explains. “Maybe because
of cold wind.”
“Your r’s are too guttural,”
teacher warns. Guttural,
that’s me. What’s the meaning
of the, I ask. Where’s the tip
of your foreign tongue?
Between Thelma’s teeth.
Tom, is this a mouth?
No, this is a hoof.
Today the the;
tomorrow I unlock the world.
~ Oriana
For the scholars among you: the "th" sound is classified as an interdental fricative.
*
WHY FRENCH IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER ROMANCE LANGUAGES
Because Northern France, where it arose, lies on the periphery of the Romance area.
When a language breaks up into several daughter languages, the peripheral ones are generally “outliers”, less “typical” than those near the center. They evolve from dialects far away from the typical central variety, and thus are less influenced by it. And they are more subject to external influences (Frankish in the case of French).
Another example is Romanian, also peripheral within the Romance world, and also very different from its sister languages. (I would say even more outlying than French, but as a French speaker I’m biased.) This is partly due to the enormous Slavic influence on Romanian, apparently much heavier than the Frankish influence on French.
But (AFAIK) there are also features unique to Romanian which are of Latin origin, and simply reflect its century-long isolation from the Western Mediterranean Romance world, compounded by the religious divide between the Orthodox Romanians and the Catholic French, Italians, etc.
Portuguese, spoken on the most remote part of a peninsula at the other end of Romance Europe, also has some unique features.
English and Icelandic are peripheral in the Germanic area, and they are the odd men out in the Germanic family — despite being almost polar opposites, one highly innovative and open to influences, one extremely conservative and relying on itself for its development.
Bulgarian and its close relative Macedonian are outliers among Slavic languages.
So are Moroccan and (to a lesser extent) Iraqi within “Arabic dialects” which some linguists propose to call neo-Arabic languages.
*
WHEN WITTGENSTEIN WAS GOD
Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1929
After first meeting Ludwig Wittgenstein in Cambridge, John Maynard Keynes wrote in a letter (1912):
“Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5.15 train.”
He was referring to Wittgenstein’s arrival at Cambridge, expressing the sense among his contemporaries that Wittgenstein was a near-divine intellect in philosophy.
"Wittgenstein has been a great event in my life — whatever may come of it."
"I love him and feel he will solve the problems I am too old to solve — all kinds of problems that are raised by my work, but want a fresh mind and the vigor of youth. He is the young man one hopes for.” ~ Bertrand Russell, as quoted in 'Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius' by Ray Monk
"Wittgenstein is very excitable: he has more passion about philosophy than I have; his avalanches make mine seem mere snowballs. He has the pure intellectual passion in the highest degree; it makes me love him.”
~ Bertrand Russell, as quoted in Young Ludwig: Wittgenstein's life, 1889-1921 (1988) by Brian McGuinness, p. 100
*
RESISTANCE IN SOBIBOR EXTERMINATION CAMP
Sobibor was an extermination camp where 250,000 people were killed.
Towards the end of 1943, the prisoners in the camp realized that prisoners from Belżec (another extermination camp) were being sent to Sobibor and killed after their own camp was dismantled and closed.
The prisoners, fearing they would be killed immediately once Sobibor was closed, devised a plan.
A resistance group was formed from among them. They were brainstorming ideas when, fortunately, Soviet prisoners of war arrived at the camp as laborers, and among them was Alexander "Sasha" Pechersky.
Sasha made a good impression on everyone. His first job was cutting wood outside the camp, and when SS officers began whipping Jewish workers because they were cutting too slowly, Sasha stepped in to protect them.
The SS officer, amused by this, challenged Sasha. If Sasha could cut down the tree in five minutes, he would receive a pack of cigarettes. If not, he would receive 25 lashes. Sasha accepted, and four and a half minutes later, he had cut down the tree. When the SS officer offered him a cigarette, Sasha replied, "Thank you, but I don't smoke." Later, when the SS officer returned with bread and butter, Sasha replied, "No thank you. I am perfectly happy with this ration."
This rebellious act became the voice of uprisings within the camp. Sasha soon became one of the leaders of the resistance.
The plan to escape the camp through a tunnel failed, leading to a full-scale rebellion instead.
What happened then was remarkable.
On October 14, 1943, the time came. The camp commander, who had a keen ability to uncover conspiracies, left the camp with his close associates. It was time for the prisoners to strike.
The prisoners formed combat teams in each barracks. These combat teams consisted of the strongest men, armed with crude weapons.
The prisoners lured SS guards to various locations, saying things like, "We have some new coats that were confiscated; why don't you come and choose one?" The SS officers were then lured into buildings where combat teams were stationed, such as tailors' shops, warehouses, and shoe shiners.
First, Johann Niemann, the commander of the camp and an SS Untersturmhucher, had his head split open with an axe. Then, for the next hour, one SS officer was killed every six minutes.
Up to this point, everything had gone smoothly, with no alarms sounding. However, there was one problem. Karl Frenzel, the most feared member of the SS, was late for his scheduled time, meaning he was still alive. Moreover, many murders had been committed far too openly.
At this point, Sasha was convinced that the conspiracy would be exposed as soon as the numerous bodies were discovered.
So Sasha gave a speech to the assembled prisoners.
"Our day has come. Most of the Germans are dead. Let us die with honor. Remember, if anyone survives, they must tell the world what happened here!"
The prisoners charged using stolen pistols and rifles. They climbed over the gates and nearby fences, swarming and causing utter chaos.
The remaining SS guards sensed the situation and opened fire. A battle ensued between the guards and the prisoners. Hundreds of prisoners were massacred, but many guards were shot dead in the prisoners' counterattack.
Hundreds of people climbed over the fence and headed into the forest. Many died from landmines, and others were shot.
In total, 150 people died during their escape, over 100 died from landmines in the forest, and another 107 died in the following days after being cornered.
208 people barely escaped with their lives, and 58 survived until the end of the war and testified about what happened at Sobibor.
Sasha cared for a group of 50 Jews in the woods before abandoning them and joining the Red Army. He survived the war and died in 1990 at the age of 80.
These 58 people were the only survivors of Sobibor.
A similar rebellion and escape occurred at Treblinka prison. The prisoners looted the armory, used grenades to destroy the camp, and dashed towards the gate. Almost everyone was killed there, but 70 survived.
1.8 million Jews were sent to Treblinka, Belzek, and Sobibor. Of those 1.8 million, only 178 survived. 50 escaped from Belżec during the operation, 58 from Sobibor during the uprising, and 70 from Treblinka during the uprising.
In other words, 99.992% of the people sent to these camps died. It's truly horrifying.
*
STALIN THOUGHT DOCTORS WERE PLOTTING TO KILL HIM
Stalin had spent all his life fighting real and perceived enemies, and it is likely that he suffered from a case of paranoia, which would became more and more severe with age. Despite this, his campaigns of terror also had a rational ground, serving to solidify the dictator’s personal power. It is important to understand that Stalin’s issues following the end of WW2 were caused not only by his mental state, but also by his political situation. According to contemporary witnesses, despite the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, the outcome of the war was perceived by Stalin to be a total failure, as his plans to reach European and later global domination remained unfulfilled.
Instead of subduing the weakened Europe to its rule with the help of local Communists and other collaborators, Stalin’s Soviet regime could only establish control over the eastern half of the continent, and even there it was conditional on the agreement of Western powers such as Great Britain and the United States, whose support had been essential for the Soviet war effort.
Another concession made by Stalin to his Western allies was the 1943 dissolution of the Communist International (Comintern), which buried the perspective of global revolution that had been the raison d’être of the Soviet Union. Instead of global domination, after 1945 Stalin had to suffice himself with the role of second man on the global arena behind the back of the US president. As a result, he was desperate to prevent his opponents from making his failure obvious.
The Second World War de-facto signified the end of Soviet revolutionary project not only on the global stage, but also inside of the USSR itself. The catastrophic failures of the Red Army during the first years of war made it obvious that Communist ideology couldn’t provide enough motivation for Stalin’s subjects to fight for his regime. As a result, Soviet state propaganda got rid of much of the previous internationalist ideology and instead appealed to the nationalistic feelings of the peoples of the Soviet Union.
With Russians being the biggest ethnicity of the USSR, elements of Russian nationalism were adopted by Soviet authorities to mobilize the war effort, and the Russian Orthodox Church was de-facto reinstated as the state church subjected to the central government. National heroes of several other nations, for example Bohdan Khmelnytskyi in Ukraine, were also rehabilitated in order to boost the popularity of the Soviet regime and prevent the Germans from exploiting nationalist sympathies in occupied territories.
After the war those local nationalisms were once again put in line through a repression campaign led by Stalin’s ideology secretary Andrey Zhdanov. Meanwhile Russian nationalism became de-facto state ideology. In a turn unthinkable during the pre-Stalinist era, several ethnic minorities, such as Ingush, Chechens, Ingrians and Crimean Tatars, were declared “traitors”, and their whole populations were deported to remote areas in Siberia and Central Asia. The first post-WW2 years also saw a rise in Russification, with teaching in Russian being introduced in schools in many Soviet republics instead of local languages. This policy was sanctioned by Stalin himself, who after the end of the war famously offered a toast to the “Great Russian people”, omitting the mention of other ethnicities’ contribution to the Soviet effort.
Another event which contributed to the rise of nationalism as an element of Stalin’s policies was the proclamation of the State of Israel in 1948. The Soviet Union had initially supported Jewish Zionists in their desire to establish their own state in the Middle East, as they considered the Arab governments in the region to be agents of Western capital, and sympathized with the Socialist and collectivist ideas of many Jewish settlers.
However, after proclaiming its independence Israel refused to fully subject its policies to Moscow’s interests. Even more dangerously, many ethnic Jews in the Soviet Union enthusiastically supported the new state, which led Stalin to suspect them of disloyalty. As a result, soon after Israel’s proclamation of independence, the Soviet regime initiated a campaign of repression, which officially targeted what Soviet propaganda called “rootless cosmopolitanism”, but in reality became associated with Jews and their sympathizers.
Starting from 1948, numerous Antisemitic caricatures appeared in the Soviet press, depicting Jews, especially those working in the sphere of culture, medicine and science, as agents of Western imperialism and accusing them of fraud, dishonesty and general disloyalty to the Soviet Union. As a result of this campaign, many Soviet citizens of Jewish ethnicity were fired from their jobs, arrested and executed, and those who could retain their freedom were subjected to various limitations, such as the Jewish quota, which established a maximum percentage of Jews allowed to study at a particular high school or university. Combined with the promotion of Russian nationalism, these measures signified the return of Stalin’s regime to practices employed during the times of Tsarism.
The peak of anti-Jewish repression in the Soviet Union was the so-called “Doctors’ plot”, which was initiated in 1952 following fabricated accusations against a number of prominent doctors of Jewish ethnicity. The accused were blamed of employing “false methods of treatment” with the aim of disabling and killing a number of important Soviet officials, among them Stalin’s loyal servant Zhdanov and Bulgarian Communist Georgi Dimitrov, who had died several years earlier.
The prosecution also claimed that the doctors had allegedly planned to eliminate Stalin by using the same method. The “uncovering” of the alleged plot led to numerous arrests among doctors serving the Soviet leadership, a large part of whom were Jewish by ethnicity. During the same period, a number of prominent Soviet Jewish poets and writers, who had formed the cultural elite of Jews in the USSR, were executed on accusations of spying for the West.
In the following months, hysteria against supposed “wreckers” and “rootless cosmopolitans” of Jewish ethnicity in the Soviet press acquired bigger and bigger dimensions, and by early 1953 rumors had emerged, that Stalin was planning a “final solution”, which would result in the deportation of all remaining Soviet Jews to Siberia.
However, the dictator’s death on 5 March 1953 stalled the proceedings, and in the following months the new Soviet leadership acquitted most of the accused during the “Doctors’ plot”, freeing those who had survived arrest and torture in Soviet prisons. Many Jews saw this sudden stop of repressions in religious terms, as Stalin’s death took place during a Jewish feast of Purim, dedicated to the salvation of Jews in antique times.
Nevertheless, discrimination of people belonging to Jewish ethnicity remained a part of Soviet Union’s official policies after Stalin’s death, and until the fall of the Communist regime Jews were limited in their choice of education and employment, banned from establishing religious congregations and subjected to cultural oppression, which resulted in most of them becoming Russified and assimilated. ~ Symon Jemčenko, Quora
*
WHY KHRUSHCHEV WASN’T GIVEN A STATE FUNERAL
Khrushchev was not simply ousted.
He was erased.
This was the actual conclusion. Not the heart attack. Not the funeral. The true conclusion was, the Soviet system decided that one of its own giants had become a problem and problems had to go away.
Khrushchev was vacationing by the Black Sea in 1964. After that, his own people attacked him. Fast. Quiet. No big public show. They accused him of causing food shortages, political turmoil and conflict with the West. Then they pushed him out before the rest of the world knew what was going on.
From then on he was a living ghost.
The state didn't just oust him from office. It attempted to erase him from its memory. His name was erased from books, schools and encyclopedias. He was described as a “pensioner of special importance”, meaning: live, don't talk, don't show yourself.
However Khrushchev, did not completely disappear.
He secretly recorded his recollections on tape, often dictating while on a walk to escape the attention of the KGB (his residence was of course bugged). Those tapes were smuggled to the West by his son Sergei, and were published in a book, Khrushchev Remembers. It was not liked by the Kremlin. Their buried man was still talking.
Then in 1971 he died.
Even his death was classified as a secret. No national mourning. No grand announcement. A small advertisement in the paper.
They would not bury him at the Kremlin Wall. They took him to a local cemetery. The soldiers closed the gates and announced it was a “cleaning day.”
This was the last message.
He was not to be allowed to return to history even after his death.~ Akhmet Tercen, Quora
*
“Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you don't think. Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.” ~ Nikita Khrushchev
"Freedom" in capitalist countries exists only for those who possess money and who consequently hold power.
If you live among wolves you have to act like a wolf.
My arms are up to the elbows in blood. That is the most terrible thing that lies in my soul.
The main difference for the history of the world if I had been shot rather than Kennedy is that Onassis probably wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev.
No one is born a Communist... in the Soviet Union farmers keep on looking in the barn for their horses even after they have given them to the collective.
(source: the Internet)
*
PRESSURE: THE ONLY MOVIE EVER TO STAR A METEOROLOGIST
Andrew Scott as James Stagg
Operation Overlord, the code name for the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, has long been an Anglo-American film event of epic proportions, from the 1962 CinemaScope extravaganza The Longest Day to Steven Spielberg's 1998 Saving Private Ryan. The new movie Pressure, Anthony Maras' screen adaptation of David Haig's acclaimed 2014 play, comes to the big screen in time for the 82nd anniversary of D-Day, carving out a place in the pantheon of films about the World War II liberation of Western Europe away from the action on the beaches.
The film is a closely wound chamber drama charting stormy weather both meteorological and emotional, of the film's main protagonists. The Irish actor Andrew Scott deftly embodies James Stagg, the punctilious Scottish chief meteorologist. Stagg works opposite his military superior General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces, played by a bullish and baronial Brendan Fraser somewhat at a remove from the pinched steely-eyed Ike seen on the newsreels of the time.
Maras' film places these protagonists squarely at odds as they are introduced to one another a mere 72 hours from a proposed landing on the beaches of Normandy. Eisenhower's own weatherman, Irving Krick, played at an unnerving extroverted pitch by Chris Messina, is dead sure that the weather will be fine. The academic Stagg is altogether more dour and skeptical, sensing a storm brewing for the planned date of the invasion. Where Krick is busy grandstanding, the darling of his men and superiors, the ever unpopular Stagg urges caution. He wants more data, more detail and more observation of the forces that turn the winds and drive the storms on the distant seas.
The tension between the two boils over into a confrontation which only Eisenhower can adjudicate, a task complicated by his own arrogant British subordinate, a wiry and dislikable General Bernard Montgomery — played with a villainous verve bordering on the pantomime by Damian Lewis.
The film manages a frenetic pace within closed rooms to match the tension of a battlefield. The pressures and the politics are inescapable. But Pressure is less a war story, rapt with the hysteria of battlefield deeds, than an intense exposition on the human capacity to tolerate uncertainty at a time when decisiveness is an imperative for action.
The airy confines of the stately home where Allied commanders are gathered provide both the grandeur and the contrast to the minutiae inked out on vast maps in the small hours of the night. Maras is able to make the bucolic well-appointed rooms seethe with frustration. The weathermen are in a black box, fed data as it arrives from distant weather balloons from Newfoundland to the African coast. Using these juxtapositions to full effect, the film builds a picture of simultaneous fragility and enormity to match the colossal task of judging the right conditions to commit to the largest sea invasion in recorded history.
The four-handed conflicts between the weathermen and the generals, however, seem a little too contrived at times. The presence of Eisenhower's secretary Kay Summersby (Kerry Condon) is used as a dramatic foil a little too often, notably as a means to salve seemingly irreconcilable clashes between the personalities of her impatient and demonstrative boss and Stagg's soft-spoken yet obstinate martinet. Her character deserved more depth than a short backstory in a monologue.
When Krick and Stagg enter the command boardroom to present their opposing cases mere hours before a decision must be made, the film slips into a type of courtroom drama of stormy exchanges from the benches, with both Stagg and Krick pulling out all the stops to get their forecasts approved.
Yet, as a matter of historical record, it must be said the film makes no mention of Sverre Petterssen, the Norwegian meteorologist who accurately predicted the storms that delayed the mission and pointed out the 36-hour lull between them which cleared the way for the subsequent go-ahead for attacks. His name is perhaps an omission for the sake of dramatic license, but a glaring one even so.
The famous and fateful decision to postpone the invasion opens what is perhaps the more dramatically interesting phase of the film. The storm Stagg predicted arrives with full force and hammers the vast windows, and Krick, a broken man, must come to terms with his hubris and concede his error so he and Stagg can work urgently on setting the next available window for D-Day. Pressure succeeds most when it explores the themes of ego and anxiety in the face of mortal decisions about the lives of others and becomes a drama about this staggering weight of responsibility.
When Pressure finally offers glimpses of the horrors of the Normandy landings, they serve as a visual contrast to the switchboard staff and generals waiting in a cramped radio room, listening to panicked audio from the beaches through headphones pressed against their ears. All ranks are reduced to helpless witnesses, anxiously standing in the eye of a man-made storm that must now run its course.
Perhaps it is these psychological battles that need retelling and make Maras' film all the more prescient. Pressure is about a war of uncertainty and of faith. For all the prior cinematic depictions of storming bunkers and camaraderie under fire, Pressure offers us the quiet heroism of rational restraint in the figure of James Stagg, who weathered his inner storms and bore the courage to be disliked.
https://www.npr.org/2026/05/29/nx-s1-5834960/pressure-movie-review-brendan-fraser-andrew-scott
From the Rogerebert.com
In “Pressure,” a tense, sober, powerful WWII drama, the leaders of the Allied military forces gather at a huge, map-covered table with small pieces representing planes and boats, trying to plan the largest and most complex invasion in history. Their previous effort, called Exercise Tiger, was designed to be a rehearsal. But it was a catastrophe, with failures of strategy and communication that led to more than 700 fatalities. Rattled but undaunted, US General (and future US President) Dwight D. Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser), British General Bernard Montgomery (Damien Lewis), and Royal Navy Admiral Bertram Ramsay (Robert Portal) are determined that this time they will be in control of every detail, from decoys used to deceive the enemy to the optimal tides and phase of the moon for the troop landings on Omaha Beach in France’s Normandy region.
But there are always, as two-time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called them, “known unknowns,” and the biggest known unknown was the weather. Clear weather was fundamental to the success of what the military leaders hoped would be a decisive turning point in the war, and Eisenhower was asking for certainty. It was not just a matter of the military getting wet. The ships and planes would be unable to reach the shore if the waves were too high and visibility was too limited. But meteorological forecasting was primitive in the 1940s in a way that is hard to grasp for those of us who can simply check our phones and get a detailed, reliable reading.
The American head meteorologist assured Eisenhower that he would have clear skies on the scheduled date. But the newly arrived British meteorologist was predicting storms and was willing to say only that they were likely, not certain. The title, “Pressure,” refers to the unimaginable difficulty faced by everyone involved in planning what would come to be known as D-Day, but also to the barometric indicators being tracked by both meteorologists and leading them to opposite conclusions.
Director Anthony Maras co-wrote the first-rate screenplay with David Haig, the playwright who created the theatrical version, and they make the story so urgent that we almost forget that we know what happened. The stakes are starkly clear from the first moment. There’s no “inspired by” or “based on” equivocation about the basis for what we are about to see, just “This is a true story.” And then we see the face of a heartbreakingly young soldier dying in blood-drenched water during Exercise Tiger. The camera pulls back, revealing the devastating aftermath of the battle. And then, a scene of comfortable domesticity as James Stagg (Andrew Scott) makes breakfast for his very pregnant wife, Liz (Tamsin Topolski), before an understated but tender goodbye. Stagg is leaving for an important new job. Winston Churchill told Eisenhower that Stagg is a genius at forecasting the weather, so he has been sent to the Allied headquarters for this crucial forecast.
The American officer who had been handling the forecasts is not happy. He is Irving Krick (Chris Messina), cocky and protective of his territory. He had developed an innovative system for predicting the weather by identifying close analogs from the past. Krick is happy to be playing that role and happy to provide a prediction that makes the top brass confident that they have picked the right day. He brags that, back home, he was brought in by MGM producer David O. Selznick to predict the weather for the filming of the burning-of-Atlanta scene in “Gone With the Wind,” and points out that he accurately predicted the weather for previous battles.
Stagg quietly points out that those predictions for previous battles were for North Africa, where the climate is more stable and predictable than in Northern Europe. The analog system is based on historical data, looking at the factors most similar in the past and then the weather that followed. Stagg collects data from observation posts around the world to track the direction of storms that are currently active, and he has his eye on two that are likely (but not certain) to be headed their way.
Eisenhower wants Krick to be right, but he also wants to know what will happen. Stagg is honest enough to admit that there is no way to be certain. Outside their window, the sun is shining, so it is hard to imagine the weather changing so quickly. A delay would mean weeks before the tides would give them what they need, and it would be close to impossible to keep the plans secret for that long. The tension is agonizing. Stagg is also faced with terrible worry about his wife as England is still being bombed. The reserved and stubborn Stagg could easily have come across as remote or rigid.
Scott, who often specializes in quiet characters, makes us see Stagg as everything we would hope for from a man in that job: dedicated, supremely competent, and utterly decent. Fraser’s expressive eyes give humanity to Eisenhower’s military-trained focus and decisiveness. Kerry Condon brings warmth and intelligence to Eisenhower’s aide Kay Sommersby (though there is no indication of their rumored romantic relationship).
Exceptional cinematography by Jamie Ramsay gives the film a muted hint of sepia, evoking the mid-century as we imagine or remember it. This is a serious film in the best sense of the term, a thoughtful film about people facing the direst problems with honor, intelligence, and courage that goes beyond the physical to include fearlessness about pursuing the truth.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/pressure-andrew-scott-brendan-fraser-film-review-2026
But at least one critic will always dissent:
~ It’s the kind of military drama whose OK-ness would have been good enough six decades ago or so, when such things were acceptable by the lower standards for B-movies. Now, though, the genre has fallen out of popular favor, so its revivals must be cloaked in an aura of Importance that this film doesn’t actually satisfy in either writing or execution. It’s a formulaic mediocrity that has to pretend it’s a prestigious major statement.
The basic concept is intriguing enough: D-Day, which many consider as having firmly turned WW2 in the Allies’ favor, was a gamble dependent on the vagaries of weather predictions. Col. Stagg (Andrew Scott) is a Scots meteorologist called in to determine if the timing is right for that invasion of Normandy planned by General Dwight D. Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) and his American troops, as well as various British leaders and forces gathered on a commandeered English country estate in June of 1944.
Stagg is nervous because he’s left a very pregnant wife alone while on this top-secret mission. But he’s steely in contradicting the faulty wisdoms of his US equivalent Krick (Chris Messina), a cocky braggart who predicts a calm, clear day based on historical weather patterns—which Stagg has no faith in. Alas, the warnings of impending storm conditions he must deliver are not what anyone wants to hear.
With combat footage (incorporating some archival clips) occupying only climactic minutes, Pressure has to develop tension from the clash of egos over interpreting rather dry data. But the characters are too one-dimensional for that to generate real suspense—we know from the moment we meet them that Stagg’s incredibly stiff upper lip will prevail in quiet triumph, that smug Krick will have to eat crow, and so forth. Kerry Condon has the thankless role of Captain Kay Summersby, an all-seeing, all-knowing Irish assistant to the General who, being a woman, naturally seems to intuit everyone else’s repressed emotions.
It’s a part seemingly written for Deborah Kerr or Greer Garson 75 years ago, and likely even they would have found a tad hokey. Eisenhower is meant to be terrifically forceful and imposing… but because he’s played by Fraser, he isn’t. The actor is miscast, in that peculiar way which often happens when an Oscar suddenly makes a performer hot (in this case, hot again), drawing a host of offers that are flattering but wrong for them. (That might describe the entire post-Bohemian Rhapsody career of Rami Malek.)
Adapting David Haig’s stage play, director and co-scenarist Anthony Maras is making just his second feature, following the much more urgently effective Hotel Mumbai eight years ago. He allows obvious cues and points to be hammered home repeatedly, as if weather effecting warfare would otherwise be impossible for viewers to understand. Otherwise, his workmanlike competency would have been fine for an era of big-screen “programmers” rehashing moments of then-recent WW2 history in the pre-New Hollywood era. But these days, a film like this needs to better than just adequate.
https://48hills.org/2026/05/screen-grabs-feting-a-visionary-film-noir-genius/
Brendan Fraser and Andrew Scott co-star as Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Capt. James Stagg in the new D-Day film, “Pressure.”
Our lives revolve around weather. We are beholden to the strange, unpredictable, and changeable patterns that swirl above our heads and are entirely out of our control. Humans have attempted to predict the weather for thousands of years and it’s rarely more than an approximation. We have technology now that maps, moves, and gets ahead of weather systems, but we still have to run inside if black clouds roll in during our picnic because things change in fractions of degrees that no computer can calculate fast enough.
We never think about how the weather can affect war, though. Humans have fought in every kind of weather there is, but something so precise as a seaborne invasion cannot be left to just looking up at the sky. Pressure puts the credit for the success for the landing of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Day to the meteorologists who found a lucky break in the weather.
*
As fascinating as the weather is, meteorologists are often not fascinating people. There’s a reason why when people have run out of small talk, they often remark on the weather as a last resort. Though, writers Anthony Maras and David Haig, whose play is the basis for the screenplay, do find many ways to amp up the drama. These ways are hit and miss at some points. Often it ends up with sniping, bloviating, and shouting, which feel a bit forced at times. Though, Damian Lewis’ delightfully smarmy turn as General Montgomery is all those things and the film is better for it every time he’s on screen. We lose much of the tension as we know the historical fact that this invasion was a success.
What keeps the tension from disappearing entirely is the way in which human empathy comes into the decision making. Often when war films focus on the higher ups, they lose touch with the actual fighting men or even civilians in harm’s way. Maras and Haig have built in small scenes to keep this kind of pressure on those in charge. There are interspersed scenes of the enlisted men camped at the headquarters, mixed with colorized footage of soldiers from the time of the actual invasion that bring into focus that this undertaking will cost the lives of some of these men.
That’s where the excellence of Maras’ direction comes in as well. He and cinematographer Jamie Ramsay start the film with the face of a young soldier wounded during a disastrous training exercise. Slowly, they pull back so we see the blood washing up with the surf and the dozens of bodies of dead and wounded soldiers. We never forget the faces of these men as Maras’ camera never lets us.
It even shows up in the edit as well. Editing was done by Maras and he was able to make the final scenes that depict the invasion as well as the reaction of the top brass in the bunker really resonate. That’s hard to do when history tells us what happened on June 6, 1944 and when Steven Spielberg gave us a gruesome, if realistic depiction of what it was like on the beach at D-Day.
Yet, Maras finds the faces again. A man or two we saw in camp are followed as they struggle up the beach. We see their reactions to the battle around them mixed with the hectic shouting into phones and radios at the command bunker. Then the weather breaks just as hoped and the men find their way to taking out the machine gun nests that have been killing their comrades. It’s an excellent piece of intercutting action that achieves an exciting and emotional forward momentum.
Pressure is a well acted, tense, and emotionally powerful film about one of the greatest achievements in military history. You can forgive it for being a bit slow in places and for being a bit high and mighty in others because the pros far outweigh the cons. It’s a film you know the historical ending of, but it hits far differently when the human effects of the war take center stage.
https://insessionfilm.com/movie-review-pressure/
It’s the little things that can screw up everything. The things we take for granted can whipsaw back – hard. That concept was top of mind for the Allies in 1944. They had one shot to strike a decisive blow against the Nazis, and a small detail like weather could doom them. That’s the premise of the gripping World War II drama Pressure.
We begin in April of 1944 with a dying young man. He bleeds out on the beaches of Devon, one of over 700 casualties. He’s a casualty of Exercise Tiger, a practice run for what will ultimately be known as D-Day. As General Dwight Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) walks among the carnage, he bears the weight of failure. Eisenhower understands that the catastrophe of Exercise Tiger was due to a few factors: radio frequencies that were not shared, issues with tactics, and weather. Frequencies can be changed and tactics can be altered. Weather can be planned for – to an extent.
Eisenhower, English General Bernard Montgomery (Damian Lewis), and English Admiral Bertram Ramsay (Robert Portal) have planned the upcoming D-Day down to the smallest detail. Inflatable tanks and planes have been strategically placed as decoys, and battle strategy has been adjusted. Yet the one x-factor is the weather.
As the assault is scheduled for June 5, Eisenhower brings in James Stagg (Andrew Scott) on June 3. He’s England’s Chief Meteorological Officer, and he’s very good at what he does. He’s also prickly and a bit distracted due to the extremely advanced pregnancy of his wife Liz (Tamsin Topolski).
At a meeting, Eisenhower asks Irving Krick (Chris Messina), the head American meteorologist, what the likely forecast for June 5 will be. Krick refers to past forecasts, and confidently predicts a sunny day. Stagg disagrees. He notes two storm systems traveling toward Normandy, and warns of the likelihood of poor visibility and high waves, which would spell disaster for the invasion. From there, they’re forced into an agonizing choice, either risk the assault or risk losing the war entirely.
Given that Pressure is a drama about science, ethics, and the benefits of people working together, I expect it to bomb since those are all things Americans largely don’t care about. That’s a pity since it’s a handsome film made with a high degree of skill. That’s not to say it’s in any way boring, and in fact, director Anthony Maras ratchets up the tension effectively. How effective? Consider that he creates nail-biting tension through shots of clouds and sequences of people arguing about the weather.
The irony is that, near the end of the film, Maras’ brief scenes of warfare during D-Day are considerably less exciting than the scenes of people in a command center listening to radio chatter. That’s because the screenplay by Maras and David Haig is laser-focused on character and perspectives. There are no good guys or bad guys here. Instead, there are intelligent professionals.
Consider that Stagg operates strictly on current data, and he’s aware that his collection methods are primitive and that data can change fast. Krick, however, uses historical analogues. He focuses on factors in the past and repeating cycles. On top of all that is Eisenhower, who demands certainty. That creates constant conflict with Stagg, who reminds the General that certainty doesn’t exist when it comes to weather.
With one exception, the cast lives up to the high bar created by the script. As usual, Kerry Condon does excellent work as Kay Summersby, Eisenhower’s aide-de-camp. Her performance is smart, flinty, and she’s the conscience of the film.
Initially, I wondered if the film was setting up Chris Messina’s Krick as a confidently wrong antagonist to Stagg. Not so much, and Messina shows us that while Krick may be somewhat wrong, he’s somewhat right. Andrew Scott’s Stagg is brilliant, prickly, controlled, and quietly vulnerable. He plays a man grappling with the responsibility of playing a critical role in D-Day’s success or failure, yet he also has the knowledge that he can’t guarantee clear skies for the day of the assault. It’s an outstanding performance that’s Oscar worthy.
That brings us to Brendan Fraser. I’ve always thought his versatility was underappreciated. He could do action, comedy, drama, and would always acquit himself nicely. The man has presence, and that’s part of my issue with his portrayal as Eisenhower. As played, Fraser’s Eisenhower is a robust man who takes up a lot of space in any room he walks into.
Fraser also effectively taps into Eisenhower’s deep understanding of his responsibility as the Allies’ Supreme Commander. Watch how he subtly underplays his scene with Kerry Condon. His Eisenhower informs her he’s written a letter accepting full responsibility if D-Day fails. That moment has real power, and Fraser can tap into deep wells of compassion and duty, but what I couldn’t find is a sense of command or gravitas. Actors like Ed Harris or Gene Hackman made a career of playing roles like that, and those two would have crushed this role. This doesn’t mean Fraser is a bad actor – far from it. I think he did his level best and was simply miscast.
It’s astonishing to consider that D-Day could have failed, and the Allies could have ultimately lost World War II, all due to a weather forecast. Those small moments mean everything.
Pressure understands that, and seriously engages with the idea of honorable people up against impossible problems. This is one of the best films of the year.
https://aboutboulder.com/blog/stormfront/
Oriana: SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
I wholeheartedly recommend Pressure. It’s a unique experience — a movie whose star is a meteorologist — a dour Scottish man who can nevertheless become fiery when defending his forecasts. Then he turns into a warrior, using “facts, facts, facts” to lay out his recommendations on when to start the Normandy landing. Not in pouring rain with high waves.
“The fate of the war — the fate of the world — depends on this offensive,” he’s told. Stagg refuses to be intimidated, and won’t predict fine weather just to please the commanders eager to commence action. His integrity, born of the habit of exacting hard work, is inspiring to watch. To say that he is not a people pleaser would be an outrageous understatement. This is the kind of man who, if facing God, would reach for his maps and notes and not hesitate to present the opposite view.
This is not an easy feat not only because of having to battle oversize egos, but also — and especially — because predicting the weather is based on probabilities rather than certainty. Ultimately it’s about making an educated guess.
His American counterpart — but definitely not his equal — is a cheerful people pleaser who is well liked, working on the basis of historical data — as if one could predict tomorrow’s weather based on what the weather was like on any particular day a year ago, five years ago, ten, and so forth. He looks for historical trends — which may work in areas with stable weather, such as North Africa, but is useless for predicting highly changeable weather in northern Europe. He predicts sunny weather, and all want to believe this optimistic, “think positive’ American — as contrasted with the gloomy, “facts facts facts” truth-speaking Scott.
But that unpleasant Scott has not just facts and constantly updated weather maps — what might be called “evidence” — on his side. He has something more important than charm — he has the courage to “speak truth to power.” While Kay, a nurturing feminine presence, may be right when she asks him to adopt a softer manner, Stagg has a huge advantage: professional competence. And one of the central messages of this unique movie is that ultimately professional competence is more important — especially when it comes to matters of life and death — than being a nice “jolly good fellow.”
Stagg doesn’t read Carnegie’s classic, How to Win Friends and Influence People.” He studies the most up-to-date weather data he can get. He keeps watch of wind speed and cloud cover. And it turns out that something as mundane as the weather can make the difference between victory or defeat, life or death.
By the way, I don't think that if D-Day failed, the war would be lost. The progress of the Red Army was relentless. But just imagine France "liberated" by the Soviet troops, fulfilling the dream of Russian dominance from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
*
SINGLE 20-SOMETHINGS NEED AI TO MAKE FIRST MOVE ON DATING APPS — HINGE BOSS
Single 20-somethings need AI to start conversations on dating apps because they lack the confidence of older generations, says the boss of Hinge.
Jackie Jantos told the BBC Gen Z daters "absolutely want love" but were "struggling to have the confidence to put themselves out there" as they socialize less in person.
She defended Hinge's AI feature which creates prompts to start chatting with a match as "not about writing words for you" but "helping you express who you are”.
Hinge has continued to grow its UK users despite some relationship experts warning of "dating app burnout" and a return to more organic in person meetings.
Founded in 2012 and owned by Match Group, which also owns Tinder and Match.com, Hinge has built its brand around the slogan "designed to be deleted".
Jantos dismisses accusations that this is "just a marketing line", saying it wants to help users find long-term relationships rather stay on the platform indefinitely.
Tinder is the most visited dating app, but over the past three years usage has been dropping and it's now only marginally ahead of nearest competitor Hinge. Bumble and Grindr follow Hinge in the most used dating services.
Some 1.5 million adults used Hinge in the year up to May 2025, up from 1.4 million a year earlier.
Over the same period, Tinder's audience fell from 1.9 million to 1.5 million, according to Ipsos iris data.
Speaking to the BBC's Big Boss interview podcast, Jantos says Gen Z — who account for more than half of Hinge's monthly active users — were spending around 1,000 fewer hours a year in person with other people than those of the same age group two decades ago.
Jantos says this equates to more than two hours per day "spent not in the company of another human, but most likely going deep in some sort of experience engaged in your phone".
She adds: "This prevents people from having the experience of being around others and that is quite a lonely experience."
The 47-year-old says almost half of Gen Z people in the UK now feel lonely "often or always".
She says the Covid pandemic meant many young adults missed out on formative years of social interaction.
"Those years when you're sort of experimenting with how you show up in person with another person, how you flirt, how you think about intimacy, that was interrupted for many people," she says.
Dating app burnout
Dr Carolina Bandinelli, an associate professor at the University of Warwick, who researches dating, relationships and communication agrees that the pandemic changed dating for Gen Z.
"There was the sense that dating apps are [now] the only way to meet people," she says. Now she thinks "we are past the hype" as "dating apps didn't work as they promised they would".
She says they were pitched as giving single people "access to a virtually infinite pool of strangers" and sparing them "from the possibility of rejection".
But "you're not really choosing, you're more guessing," she says. "The lack of social cues makes it very difficult."
Hinge has an AI tool which users can ask to review their profile and suggest ways to make it more engaging. Another feature offers AI-generated prompts to help users start conversations.
Jantos rejects suggestions that the tools are encouraging people to outsource dating to AI, arguing they are designed to boost confidence rather than replace authentic interactions.
Siobhan Copland is the founder of Cupid in the City, a matchmaking service for young professionals. She sees many single 20-somethings suffering from dating app burnout.
"We're just constantly bombarded with information...it's very much quality connections over quantity [now]."
She says the big difference between Gen Z and their predecessors, when it comes to dating, is that "they're not really into drinking culture".
"They'd be more likely at the gym on a Friday night than at the bar," she says.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c052397y6ygo
*
AGE GAPS AND OTHER GAPS — DO THEY REALLY PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE IN RELATIONSHIPS?
It started with the age gap. Can a 40-year-old man and a 20-year-old woman truly get along? That was once a question answered with a resounding “yes” by creepy English professors or mustached indie film-makers with a questionable grasp on the meaning of Lolita. Then came gen Z.
A cohort raised on the rigid moral boundaries of internet discourse – things are either good or bad, no in-between – decided that May-December relationships were either problematically one-sided or transactional in nature. Growing up in the fractured aftermath of #MeToo, where monstrous men were often much older than the women they victimized, probably contributed to that conclusion.
The upshot was heated posting on social media about celebrities such as Billie Eilish, Florence Pugh and Beyoncé almost certainly being “groomed” by their older partners. Vogue wondered how many years between a couple’s respective birth years was acceptable. The New York Times called older women “in demand by younger men” The age gap became a news cycle of its own.
Now, the discourse has exploded such that seemingly any difference between two dating humans can be described as a “something” gap.
Said gaps are rarely flattering. There’s the intelligence gap, when a smart person hooks up with a dumbie. The unlucky avatars of this gap are Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. She’s written 14 No 1 hit singles. He once tweeted: “I just gave a squirle a peice of bread and it straight smashed all of it!!!! I had no idea they ate bread like that!! Haha #crazy.”
Cool people in love with losers have a swag gap. Pair an AI evangelist with a luddite and that’s a Claude gap, named for Anthropic’s LLM. An executive dating a middle manager faces a wage gap. I once heard a friend describe the predicament of a “Joe Rogan gap” – her boyfriend listened to the podcast during car rides while she plugged her ears to tune it out.
Publications continue searching for new and ultra-niche gaps to cover. New York magazine reported on the rise of the Disney gap, where adults obsessed with Mickey and co fall for people who couldn’t care less about the happiest place on Earth. The New York Times documented “restaurant gaps”: a Resy-obsessed woman who wants to eat at buzzy new places, yet is dating a man who eats the same deli sandwich for lunch every day. (In most gap scenarios, ages and genders are not prescriptive.)
Single people have been able to filter their potential matches on dating apps for well over a decade; you can set “dealbreakers” on Hinge that exclude people on the basis of age, ethnicity, religion, height and politics. Gaps are what happens when, despite all our best efforts, deviation creeps in.
Few of us (I hope) would argue that no power imbalance exists when a very young woman dates a much older man. I can see how a couple with a Joe Rogan gap might come to understand that variance speaks to larger ideological differences. But does a swag, restaurant, Disney or even wage gap really seem noteworthy?
This obsession with gaps seems to reflect a larger cultural queasiness around experiencing friction in relationships. This makes sense; much of modern dating is a humiliation ritual (so much so that many women are opting out of it entirely). For those who do hold their nose and dive in, it’s tempting to bail out at the first sign of trouble.
That trouble can look like someone trying to hurt you, or cheat on you, or vote for a candidate who is actively trying to erode your civil rights. Or, it can look like a boyfriend who doesn’t know how Resy works.
It’s true that we tend to be attracted to people who are similar to us. Psychologists believe this is because we associate our interests with an inner essence of self: someone who loves the same music or movies, we assume, will share our broader views and outlook on the world. Those invested in the lexicon of gaps ascribe a naughtiness to ending up with someone who is not their carbon copy, often attaching insurmountable odds to that relationship’s chances.
But there’s one thing I know from attending a few weddings at the happiest place on Earth – that would be the New York City marriage bureau (sorry Disney gap-ers). If you watch enough people stream in and out of city hall, you will see soulmates who fell in love despite – or maybe because of – those so-called incompatibilities.
Dating needs fixing, but the solution is not seizing upon gaps. No two people are alike, and we are luckier for it. There should be more gaps, actually. They’re inventing new ones every day.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jun/05/relationship-gap-online-discourse
*
3 ‘LAZY’ HABITS THAT ACTUALLY SIGNAL INTELLIGENCE
Most of us have a rigid mental image of what an “intelligent” person looks like. They’re polished. Habitually organized. Quick on their feet. Always on top of things. The kind of person who color-codes their calendar, replies to emails instantly, and always thrives under pressure.
Yet, as compelling (and popular) as this mental image is, it’s also inaccurate.
This version of intelligence is, beyond being unrealistic, totally unsustainable. Human cognition doesn’t work like a machine that can run at full capacity indefinitely. In reality, people who are genuinely intelligent understand that their mental, physical, and emotional resources are finite. If they really want to perform well over the long term, they know that they have to protect those resources carefully.
From the outside, though, this can look a little strange; sometimes, it even looks like laziness. Below are three such “lazy” habits that are, in fact, backed by research on intelligence
1. Avoiding Hard Work
This habit seems almost contradictory. How could an intelligent person avoid hard work? Isn’t that their precise modus operandi? But as soon as we look closer, it becomes clear that this isn’t actually concerned with work ethic; it’s about avoiding unnecessary effort.
Taking shortcuts, automating tasks, or choosing the path of least resistance is often framed as cutting corners. In reality, it can reflect something much more sophisticated: efficiency.
A seminal 2009 review published in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews explored what’s known as the neural efficiency hypothesis of intelligence. This theory suggests that individuals with higher intelligence tend to show less brain activation when performing cognitive tasks. While some might misconstrue this as a sign of disengagement, it’s actually because their brains are working more efficiently than others’.
Intelligent people succeed by getting to the same answer as hard workers, only by using fewer resources. For instance, imagine two people solving the same problem at work. One painstakingly goes through every possible step, double-checking everything along the way. The other notices a pattern, skips redundant steps, and, by analyzing their own workflow, arrives at the solution in half the time.
Someone who didn’t know better might say that the second person looks like they’re not trying very hard. But in reality, they’ve simply recognized the most efficient route. This is why so-called “lazy” individuals are often the ones who come up with better systems. They automate repetitive tasks. They question inefficient workflows. They look for leverage. What gets labeled as laziness is often just a kind of systems-level thinking that prioritizes outcomes over effort for its own sake.
2. Sleeping (or Napping) a Lot
Few behaviors are more strongly associated with laziness than sleeping in or taking naps during the day. But neuroscience tells a very different story.
In a 2015 study published in Scientific Reports, researchers examined the relationship between fluid intelligence and sleep patterns—specifically, something called “sleep spindles” during an afternoon nap. These are bursts of brain activity that occur during certain stages of sleep, which are believed to contribute to memory consolidation and learning.
The researchers found a positive association between fluid intelligence and the duration of these sleep spindles. In simple terms, this means that individuals with higher intelligence showed sleep patterns linked to more effective cognitive processing, even during naps.
This challenges the long-standing cultural image of the “tireless genius” who works late into the night, sacrificing sleep in pursuit of productivity. In reality, high performers often do the opposite. They protect their sleep fiercely, and for good reason, too. They know that sleep is far from passive downtime.
Sleep is an active, essential process that supports several instrumental components of our everyday functioning: memory consolidation, emotional regulation, creative problem-solving, and complex reasoning. This is why when you’re sleep-deprived, your brain quite literally cannot function at full capacity. Your attention falters, your decision-making worsens, and your emotional responses become harder to regulate.
So, when someone goes to bed early, wakes up late, or takes regular naps, don’t immediately assume that they’re merely indulgent. For the intelligent, these habits are a deliberate investment in their cognitive performance, out of respect for their biological limits.
3. Letting Things Slide
We tend to admire people who are constantly engaged: people who speak up, push back, and have something witty to say in response to every slight or inconvenience. By contrast, someone who shrugs things off, avoids conflict, or occasionally says “I don’t care” can come across as passionless and apathetic.
However, the primary nuance that this interpretation glosses over is that, in many cases, choosing not to react is a sign of emotional intelligence, not indifference.
Emerging research, including a 2025 study published in Frontiers in Public Health, suggests that individuals with higher emotional intelligence are better at managing stress and regulating their emotions. The authors note that one of the key mechanisms behind this is something called psychological detachment: the ability to mentally disengage from stressors, especially outside of work. This ability is strongly linked to better mental health and overall well-being.
Consider, for instance, two colleagues who receive a mildly critical comment from their manager. One of them spends the rest of their day ruminating. They replay the interaction over and over again in their head, feeling frustrated, maybe even drafting a defensive response. The other acknowledges it, extracts the useful feedback, disregards what doesn’t resonate with them, and moves on.
To an outside observer, the second person might seem disengaged or overly passive. But in reality, they’ve made a calculated decision: withdrawing from something that isn’t worth their time or emotional energy.
That’s the essence of choosing your battles. Not every frustration deserves a response. Not every slight requires correction. And not every problem needs to be solved immediately. Letting things slide, in this context, is about knowing your priorities. And for intelligent people, this is a non-negotiable means of preserving their mental resources for what truly matters.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202606/3-lazy-habits-that-actually-signal-intelligence
*
BEN FRANKLIN’S RELENTLESS “SELF-IMPROVEMENT”
The man lived by a strict schedule.
Rose at five each morning and asked, “What good shall I do this day?”
Every hour had some purpose. He kept a chart of thirteen virtues, trying to master one each week — order, resolution, industry.
He believed in perfecting the self to waste no time.
But the real secret was that he became wealthy first.
He worked hard as a printer, hard enough to retire at age forty-two. That wealth bought him freedom.
Freedom to study electricity, to invent, to argue politics, to fornicate like a rabbit.
Paul Riggs:
When reading his autobiography as I did several years ago it occurred to me that one of the ways he built his wealth was through something very similar to modern franchising. He would take in an apprentice, train him in both the technique and business of printing, and finance setting him up as a printer in another town. That way he shipped his competition to somewhere else and got paid for doing so. It also resulted in a network of printers using similar equipment, many sharing similar values and able to share ideas. He didn’t just make money getting ink-stained fingers running a press, he spread affordable printing shops all around the colonies.
*
NURSING HOMES ARE DE FACTO PSYCHIATRIC WARDS BUT LACK THE STAFF, TRAINING, OR OVERSIGHT TO KEEP THEIR RESIDENTS SAFE
Maxwell Jones is in his 70s, has advanced Alzheimer’s disease, and lives in a nursing home in eastern Massachusetts. Not too long ago, he went three days without a meal because his roommate kept stealing his food, and no one stopped it from happening—either because staff didn’t notice or they didn’t have the time or training to intervene.
Nursing homes as hidden psychiatric wards
Tens of thousands of older adults spend their final days in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities in Massachusetts, where we reside. And across the United States, there are currently about 1.2 to 1.3 million people who reside in nursing homes on any given day. As the population ages, demand for nursing home services is only going to rise. One national study projects that the number of nursing home residents will triple by 2050.
Yet, unbeknown to many, these institutions have quietly become de facto psychiatric wards, given the large numbers of residents who experience depression, bipolar illness, schizophrenia, or, like Mr. Jones, Alzheimer’s disease. Because of this gradual progression, nursing homes are now second only to prisons and jails as the largest institutional care settings for adults with serious mental illness.
Providing mental health care in nursing homes is not optional; optimal mental health is central to residents’ quality of life and physical health outcomes. Depression in older adults is associated with poorer rehabilitation, and serious mental illnesses often impede patients’ ability to be discharged to their homes. Residents with mental illness are more likely to become long-stay residents, even when they don’t need the functional or clinical support that would typically lengthen stays.
Prolonged, unnecessary institutionalization erodes a person’s sense of identity and control, which in turn leads to more depression, anxiety, and behavioral dysregulation, only compounding an already bad situation. All of this translates to resource-intensive care, requiring a staff member for every five residents, especially in memory care settings. However, chronic staffing shortages make it impossible for facilities to provide that level of care.
Structural barriers that keep residents institutionalized
Researchers at the University of Michigan found that this institutionalization is due in part to limited access to community resources for these individuals, leading to unnecessarily long-term stays for residents who otherwise could be living in a lower level of care, reducing strain on facilities and promoting individual autonomy. The 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. held that unjustified segregation of individuals with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In everyday terms, this means that keeping individuals in nursing homes who could otherwise live in community settings might not just be unethical or harming their civil rights; it might also be illegal.
Regulations that ignore mental health needs
According to researchers, structural barriers to discharge, including financial strain on families, unreliable access to transportation to complete outpatient psychiatric exams, and a lack of housing options with embedded mental health support, have prevented the integration of these nursing home residents into communities and allowed nursing homes to become a “de facto destination for individuals with mental illness.”
The major obvious problem with this development is that nursing homes are not designed to serve as psychiatric institutions, but for the reasons above, they are often unable to place residents in alternative care. At the same time, staffing levels and regulatory frameworks fail to adequately treat or prevent mental illness, resulting in prolonged institutionalization and the potential for harm.
In Massachusetts, regulations narrowly focus on metrics related to physical care, including medication management and infection control, while mental health services remain inconsistently available for residents, and existing regulations overlook them. And as we consider what is happening around the country, we fear that Massachusetts might be one of the states with more protections for these residents, rather than less.
Minimum staffing standards fall short
In 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services established the first federal minimum staffing standards for nursing homes participating in Medicare and Medicaid. These rules mandate a total of 3.48 hours of nursing care per resident day. Our home state of Massachusetts requires nursing homes to provide 3.55 hours per resident per day of nursing care. Both of these mandates—Medicare’s and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts—fall well short of the 4.1 hours of nursing care per resident per day that research shows ought to be the minimum threshold for nursing homes.
Industry leaders argue that increased regulations might make it impossible to keep nursing homes open. This concern is real. Any new regulations ought not mandate higher staffing rates without addressing limitations driven by reimbursement structures and capacity for training. In response, Massachusetts should pair an increased staffing requirement with targeted rate adjustments specifically aligned with behavioral health services, acknowledging existing structural barriers that prevent residents from seeking care elsewhere.
What state and federal agencies must do now
In conclusion, the question is not whether a crisis exists within nursing homes. It does. The real question is whether state and federal governmental agencies will modernize rules and regulations to ensure that nursing home residents with mental illness receive the care they need.
What should these actions look like? To begin, regulations ought to be put in place to increase the nursing requirement for nursing homes to 4.1 hours. Second, reimbursement rates for nursing home services—especially those that serve large numbers of residents with mental illness—need to be raised to levels that can support increased staffing levels and training.
And finally, there needs to be investment in community housing and mental-health services so that nursing homes are not the default option for those with mental illness.
Nursing home residents like Mr. Jones deserve no less.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/almost-addicted/202605/nursing-homes-are-de-facto-psychiatric-wards-but-lack-care
*
EARTH HAS TILTED 31.5 INCHES (Oriana: SHOULD IT BE DEGREES?) — ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF GROUNDWATER PUMPING
A new study reveals a shocking consequence of groundwater pumping: humans have tilted the Earth’s axis by 31.5 inches over just two decades.
Between 1993 and 2010, the removal of over 2,100 gigatons of groundwater, mostly for irrigation and human use, shifted so much water from land to oceans that it altered the planet’s tilt and contributed to sea level rise.
Published in Geophysical Research Letters, the study highlights how groundwater pumping isn’t just a local water issue — it’s a global climate one. This water redistribution plays a surprising role in sea level changes and Earth’s rotational balance.
The biggest impact came from midlatitude regions like western North America and northwestern India, which is a sign that how we manage water in key regions can have planet-wide consequences.
The Mechanism: Water has mass and leverage. Removing water from deep underground and relocating it fundamentally changes how the planet's weight is balanced, causing its spin to wobble.
The Scale: The shift is small on an astronomical scale, but moving the rotational pole by 31.5 inches contributes to roughly 0.24 inches of global sea-level rise.
Key Regions: The redistribution of groundwater in mid-latitude regions like western North America and northwestern India had the largest impact on the rotational pole. (~ AI overview)
*
THOSE EXTRA FOUR MINUTES
Earth’s true 360-degree rotation takes 23 hours and 56 minutes (a sidereal day). The extra 4 minutes are spent rotating a bit further so the Sun appears in the exact same spot in the sky, creating our 24-hour solar day.
These crucial 4 minutes are consumed by the following mechanics:
Earth's Orbit: While Earth spins on its axis, it simultaneously travels forward in its yearly orbit around the Sun.
The "Catch-Up": Because Earth shifts its orbital position every day, a single 360-degree spin isn't enough to align the planet back to the Sun. Earth has to rotate an extra (or about 4 minutes of time) to "catch up" to the Sun.
The Result: This daily "catching up" ensures our 24-hour clock perfectly matches daylight cycles and the seasons.
Synodic versus Sidereal Rotation
Synodic is the rotation relative to the sun (more generally, the center of any orbit). Sidereal is the rotation relative to the fixed stars. The periodicity you gave is the Earth’s synodic day. It would have been important to nighttime ship navigation, for example. The mathematical difference between the two periods adds up to one year, in your case 4 minutes * 360°. Also, counting sidereal motion means the stars move through the night sky, completing one cycle over the year.
*
OUR SUN IS NOT AN AVERAGE STAR
People often think of the Sun as an average star, but it is a cosmic anomaly. Most of the Milky Way is actually hostile to life.
Earth survives because it sits in a narrow "Galactic Habitable Zone." Near the galactic center, stars are packed tightly together; frequent supernovas bathe surrounding planets in lethal X-rays and gamma rays, and close stellar encounters destabilize planetary orbits.
At the extreme outer edges of the galaxy, the environment lacks "metallicity"—astronomical shorthand for elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. Without enough carbon, oxygen, and iron, rocky planets cannot form. The Solar System sits securely in the middle suburbs, nestled in the Orion Arm, a peaceful region rich in necessary chemical building blocks.
The Sun itself is also an exception. About 75 percent of the stars in the Milky Way are red dwarfs. Because red dwarfs are small and cool, a planet must orbit them extremely closely to maintain liquid water. But these stars are volatile, frequently unleashing massive stellar flares that can strip away a close-orbiting planet's atmosphere. The Sun is a G-type main-sequence star, a highly stable classification that provides a steady, predictable output of energy for the billions of years required for complex biology to evolve.
Locally, the architecture of the solar system acts as a shield. Jupiter exerts a profound gravitational influence on the asteroid belt and the paths of incoming comets. By sweeping up or deflecting massive pieces of space debris, the gas giant dramatically reduces the frequency of extinction-level impacts on Earth.
Together, a safe galactic neighborhood, a stable star, and a protective planetary arrangement make this system an exceptionally rare sanctuary.
~ NovaPrism, Quora
Robert McCrossin:
Having a single large Moon may also be important. Its gravity stabilizes the tilt of the Earth's rotation relative to its orbit around the Sun, preventing extreme tilting which would lead to marked seasonal variations which could inhibit the development of life.
Nigel Arnot:
Don't be so sure about that “Goldilocks zone”. Some life here *accidentally* evolved to be very radiation tolerant, such as cockroaches. If this planet was subject to higher natural radiation, evolution would select strongly for this trait. It's obviously possible without fundamental changes.
We don't know anything about life as we don’t know it, in places where metals are more scarce. I suspect something similar applies.
C.B:
Seeing as we know so little about other planetary systems surrounding other stars in the Milky Way/Universe, I think it’s naïve to say that our system is particularly rare. We simply don’t know whether life is rare or not based on our current knowledge
Thomas Nguyen:
Apply that “extremely rare” probability to 65 quadrillion quintillion stars in the known universe.
Ian Wylie:
I would add, in addition the moon’s fortuitous size and distance as mentioned in the other comments, that the amount of water in the oceans facilitates plate tectonics, the size and composition of the Earth itself allowing the formation of the magnetic radiation shield (and the Van Allen belts). Also, the size and shape of the Milky Way itself being a much larger than average sized galaxy with a stable orbit for the solar system about the core of the galaxy that allows our solar system to remain in the galactic habitable zone. Not many galaxies are so well behaved. Finally, the heavy elements present in the planet itself (including iron, nickel for the magnetic core), and the near circular orbit of the planet and yes the stable circular orbit of our “big Brother” Jupiter without which we would almost certainly not have survived.
Wallace Mayo:
Life can only occur in Spiral Galaxies (only 60% are). But not all spirals work. Not every part of a galaxy can host/create life. Too close to the galaxy core means deadly radiation, too far out and there is not enough heavy elements. It can happen only in a rather narrow strip near the co-rotational distance from the galaxy core (defined as where the arms and stars rotate around the center at the same rate). But not exactly at that distance, or mean motion resonances would disrupt a star/planet system or eject it vertically out of the disk. This has huge implications regarding galaxy size. Too large or two small, and the co-rotational distance will not work. It would be too close to the center (radiation problem) or too far out (too little heavy elements).
Our Solar System is rare. One is the collection of planets. We can find no other system with planets of each type lined up as ours. Others have no gas giants, or some very near the Sun (1/10 as close as Mercury is to the Sun). Let me just say they mostly have planets of type not found in our system. Star systems out there are very much like each other, but very unlike ours.
*
DO GLP DRUGS AFFECT OVERALL DRIVE AND ZEST FOR LIFE?
Lack of pleasure, drive, and emotional numbness have been reported with GLP-1 use.
The arrival of summer means beach season is calling for many, which may lead some to chase the perfect swimsuit physique. A 2025 Gallup poll showed that 52% of Americans want to lose weight but that only 26% are actively working towards this goal. GLP-1 agents (eg, semaglutide, tirzepatide) are increasingly utilized for weight loss in the United States and are part of patient goals. Despite cost limitations, surveys show that 1 in 8 Americans is currently prescribed a GLP-1 agonist for weight loss, and the global market for GLP-1’s is expected to surpass $200 billion by the of the decade. GLP-1 efficacy for weight loss may be unparalleled, but recent reports describe unwanted effects on mood and drive, raising the question: Do GLP-1’s change your personality?
Do GLP-1’s change your personality?
GLP-1’s have emerging broad utility. Beyond weight loss and cardiovascular benefits, they have been show to reduce incidence of breast cancer in women and halt progression of Parkinson’s disease, among other effects. Ongoing research also suggests a role for GLP-1’s in the treatment of substance use disorders.
Neurochemically, the dampening of “food noise” by these drugs may also decrease activity in the brain’s reward pathways that influence alcohol use, illicit drug use, and compulsive behaviors.
For those without substance use disorders, however, this effect may manifest as a bothersome lack of drive, emotional blunting, inability to feel pleasure in their usual day-to-day pursuits, or decreased ambition. In some instances, GLP-1’s may also adversely impact libido. Rarely, these mood changes can be severe and associated with suicidal ideation, although current guidance from the Food and Drug Administration suggests no causal risk.
Our early experience and limited data with the potential psychiatric consequences of GLP-1 agonists means that many questions about their risk and benefit profile are not answerable. But history provides some cautionary guidance. Rimonabant, a cannabinoid receptor antagonist meant to block potential brain reward responses to eating, was released in June 2006 in the United Kingdom as an adjunct treatment for weight loss and metabolic disturbances. Although the signal for its intended outcomes was positive, public fervor for the drug diminished when the FDA ultimately rejected approval in the United States because of an increased risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes in the treatment group, including two deaths by suicide.
To be sure, GLP-1 agonists have an important place in the clinical care of obesity, as well as many other potential uses. Research and development will assuredly advance and bring us newer and more effective agents for weight loss (eg, reatrutide). However, overzealous use must be tempered by a concerted and careful effort to assess risk and benefits until further research provides is available. For those taking these potentially life-changing medications, a healthy respect for mental well-being must also be part of the weight-loss journey.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/health-examined/202606/do-glp-1s-change-your-personality
*
HOW GLP-1 DRUGS AFFECT THE BONES
GLP-1 drugs are celebrated for shrinking waistlines and protecting hearts—but a new study looking at five years of data suggests America’s favorite weight loss drugs may be weakening bones.
The findings, presented at the 2026 annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, are observational—meaning that they show an association, not proof of direct causation. The study has not yet been peer-reviewed.
However, with tens of millions of Americans now taking GLP-1 receptor agonists such as semaglutide (sold as Ozempic and Wegovy), liraglutide (sold as Victoza and Saxenda), dulaglutide (sold as Trulicity), and exenatide (sold as Byetta), researchers say the signals are worth taking seriously.
GLP-1s’ Bone Problem
Researchers analyzed five years of medical records from more than 146,000 adults with obesity and Type 2 diabetes. The results showed that roughly 4 percent of patients taking GLP-1 drugs developed osteoporosis, compared with a little more than 3 percent of those not on the medication.
Bone-softening, also known as osteomalacia, was about twice as common among GLP-1 users—0.2 percent versus 0.1 percent—and gout rates were slightly elevated: 7.4 percent among users compared with 6.6 percent in the control group.
“We are just now reaching the precipice where five- and 10-year follow-up data are becoming available for patients taking GLP-1 medications,” lead researcher Muaaz Wajahath, a medical student at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, said in a statement. “Any medication that sees this rapid adoption warrants close examination, particularly in orthopedics, where obesity and surgical intervention often overlap.”
The study findings contradict recent assertions of musculoskeletal protection and suggest that GLP-1 RA exposure may confer increased long-term skeletal risk, Dr. Giles Scuderi, orthopedic surgeon and vice president of Northwell Orthopedics, who attended the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, told The Epoch Times.
Is It the Drug or the Weight Loss?
Experts are debating whether any increased risks are due to the drugs themselves, the rapid weight loss they promote, or the underlying conditions of the patients taking them, as both obesity and Type 2 diabetes independently increase inflammation and bone fragility.
“As with any weight loss, bone remodeling can occur if patients lose weight on these medications,” Dr. James J. Chao, a board-certified plastic surgeon specializing in body contouring, facial rejuvenation, and medical weight loss using GLP-1 drugs, and chief medical officer of VedaNu Wellness, who was not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times.
In weight loss, bone remodeling refers to the continuous cycle of breaking down old bone and replacing it with new tissue, which can become imbalanced during a calorie deficit.
While remodeling naturally maintains skeletal strength, significant weight loss often triggers a net bone loss because the body removes more bone than it replaces.
“If patients lose lean mass on these medications, bone health can be affected due to less strain being placed on bones,” he noted.
Rapid weight loss—regardless of method—has long been associated with some degree of bone density reduction, Dr. Fernando Ovalle Jr., an obesity medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times.
“We’ve seen it with bariatric surgery for many years and even with aggressive caloric restriction,” he said. “That’s not unique to GLP-1s.”
Do the Benefits Still Outweigh the Risks?
For most patients, the answer remains yes, at least for now. Ovalle pointed out that GLP-1 drugs have robust cardiovascular outcome data. They meaningfully reduce blood sugar, lower blood pressure and lipids, and cut the risk of heart attack and stroke.
“In high-risk patients, those benefits are substantial and often life-saving,” Ovalle said. This is why, in most cases, the metabolic and cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1s still outweigh any modest increase in fracture or gout risk, particularly when those risks can be monitored and mitigated by health care providers, he said.
Scuderi echoed that view.
“Since heart disease is a leading cause of death, the potential risk of muscle and bone problems might be less important,” he said.
However, health care providers need to play an active role in supporting patients on these medications, not simply prescribe them and step back, Scuderi said.
What Patients Should Do
Scuderi said he advises patients on GLP-1 therapy to prioritize adequate protein intake, ensure sufficient calcium and vitamin D, engage in regular resistance and weight-bearing exercise, and avoid excessive or rapid weight loss without nutritional support.
“Strength training, in particular, is critical,” Ovalle said. “Preserving muscle mass protects bone. If a patient loses weight but also loses significant muscle, fracture risk can increase regardless of the medication used.”
Those at higher risk include postmenopausal women, older adults, and patients with prior fractures.
“Regarding gout, rapid weight loss and changes in uric acid metabolism can transiently increase flares,” Ovalle said. “That’s something we’ve seen even outside of GLP-1 therapy.”
For patients concerned about bone health, Scuderi said he recommends that health care providers consider therapeutic doses of dietary supplements to enhance outcomes, retain lean mass, and reduce oxidative stress and inflammation.
HEALTH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEXES
The study, carried out in collaboration with the Berlin Institute of Health at Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and the Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, was published today in Nature Communications. Using data from UK Biobank and the Fenland study, the team carried an in-depth analysis of the genetic links between ~6,000 proteins and hundreds of diseases in 56,000 males and females. The team found that for two-thirds of these proteins, their levels differed between males and females.
Further examination revealed that only a very small fraction, around 100 proteins out of the 6,000 studied, had differences in the genetic ‘switches’ which control their levels, when compared between males and females. These findings, which may have implications for drug development, indicate that while there are differences between the sexes in relation to how much they express certain proteins, what’s causing these differences isn’t solely down to differences in their genetics.
Instead, the authors highlight the importance of looking beyond genetics – and other medical factors such as hormones – when comparing health risks and outcomes between males and females. Their findings indicate that non-medical factors such as where people work and live, their education, financial situation, access to resources, as well as their lifestyle also contribute to the health differences experiences between the sexes and so should be explored further and considered more when exploring sex differences in health.
Professor Claudia Langenberg, Director of the PHURI at Queen Mary and Professor of Computational Medicine at the Berlin Institute of Health at Charité, Germany, said: “Drug development pipelines increasingly incorporate information on genetic differences in protein levels and function and this has led to large investment in human cohorts, such as UK Biobank.
From this perspective, better understanding of population differences in the regulation of proteins, such as those between males and females, is essential to guide precision medicine approaches and identify where one size may not fit all. Our results clearly show that with very few exceptions, protein regulating genetic variants identified so far behave in a very similar way in males and females. This provides evidence for an important implicit assumption – that insights arising from studying these variants apply to both sexes.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1083277
*
Ending on beauty:
I WAS BORN
I was born
and I died
I don’t remember anything else
a green river perhaps
a green tree
green eyes
and about this so much ado
such regrets about this
~ Anna Kamieńska
No comments:
Post a Comment