*
HOW TO LIVE WITHOUT WEATHER
I set out buckets to catch rainwater,
saw green so deep the hills knelt in it.
Winters were stitched
with crows. I wanted to go
to California, thinking I'll never
be cold in my life.
Later I understood: the heat is outside.
It hangs in the air, a drowsy drapery.
The self shivers in the rainy
climates of the heart,
tossed with the branches in wolf-whistling wind,
clouds swollen with unbearable knowledge.
We carry the weather inside.
The first snowflake
still melts on my face. It’s forever,
the way I danced,
whirling when a blizzard beat
white wings against the window –
stopped when it stopped,
between the blasts of feathered light,
waiting for everything to happen.
~ Oriana
*
BEYOND WAR AND PEACE; TOLSTOY’S THEORY OF NONVIOLENCE
Tolstoy, 1860
Far from being the sudden product of a late-life religious crisis, Tolstoy’s theory of radical non-violence stemmed from views that had remained remarkably consistent since the 1860s.
Count Leo Tolstoy is best known for his masterful works of fiction. But his later philosophical writings on religious and ethical issues had an enormous influence on global nonviolence movements — most famously those led by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. While it is tempting to view these two strains of writing as essentially separate, close examination shows that Tolstoy’s views on violence remained remarkably consistent from the 1860s onward, and germinated even earlier. Far from being the sudden product of a late-life religious crisis, Tolstoy’s influential theory of radical nonviolence stemmed from these much older conceptualizations of violence, shaped in great part by his own experiences.
Tolstoy’s Emerging View of Violence
By 1861-1862, when Tolstoy worked in earnest on a never-finished essay titled On Violence, he had been gravitating toward this topic for at least 15 years. His early explorations include several recurring ideas key to his later invocations of radical nonviolence; two of the most prominent were skepticism about the legitimacy of governments that rely on force and doubt about rulers’ use of Christianity to justify oppression. Both are present in a piece from 1847, when Tolstoy was only 18, analyzing an old directive by Catherine the Great. Soon after, another theme emerged: a deepening sense of the wrongness of violence in general.
In the 1850s, Tolstoy’s military service and experiences in Western Europe — particularly witnessing a public execution in Paris in 1857 — bred in him a revulsion toward war and other government-sanctioned violence. An imperial censor unsurprisingly deleted this section from one of Tolstoy’s earliest stories, The Raid (1852): “War! What an incomprehensible phenomenon! When one’s reason asks: ‘Is it just, is it necessary?’ an inner voice always replies ‘No.’ Only the persistence of this unnatural occurrence makes it seem natural, and a feeling of self-preservation makes it seem just.”
In the excised text, Tolstoy criticizes Russian policy in the Caucasus, where he served, and expresses sympathy for local people’s resistance. His disgust with war grew deeper during his time fighting in the Crimean War and is palpable in his Sevastopol Stories (1855), which established his reputation as a writer and brought him widespread acclaim in Russia.
Tolstoy’s views on violence crystalized in the 1860s, most clearly in three works: On Violence (not published until 1936 and translated into English only in 2022), War and Peace (1863-1868), and the essay “Some Words About War and Peace” (1868). Through both abstract and historical approaches, he develops a theory distinguishing between individual and systemic violence. Violence, in his view, is a tool the powerful use to control the weak. Society is organized in such a way that those who command others do not bear the violent consequences of their decisions and those who are commanded and carry out violence do not bear moral responsibility for their actions. People have the capacity for free action but have created systems that suppress this freedom.
This bleak view of the world carried Tolstoy into a period of dissatisfaction with the government, the military, and organized religion, which escalated into a total denunciation of all three. In this way, his exploration of violence in the 1860s laid the foundation for his theory of nonviolence, rooted in a complete rejection of the state and nonparticipation in its institutions.
Moral Truth as True Freedom
In the 1870s, Tolstoy went through an intense spiritual struggle that resulted in a commitment to live according to Christ’s teachings — especially not to resist evil by force. He publicized his beliefs in What I Believe (1884) and later in The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1894), which addresses his critics and articulates his nonviolence in depth. This later book builds on ideas Tolstoy developed in the 1860s — on the nature of violence and freedom of action. In it, Tolstoy argues that there is a sphere in which humans possess complete freedom: their conscience. Thus, a person’s freedom does not lie in independent action but in recognizing or rejecting moral truth.
According to Tolstoy’s theory, first developed in On Violence, humanity cannot regress in development; instead, it moves forward irreversibly along a path of positive progress. But to continue along this path requires the destruction of governments, since they rely on violence and consequently cannot fulfill Christ’s teaching of nonresistance to evil by force.
The key moral question becomes: How do we resolve the conflict between conscience and violent state authority? Tolstoy’s answer is to awaken people to their inalienable freedom: Within each individual is an instinctive affinity for Christ’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy’s message to his contemporaries is essentially this: Realize that state power and the duties it requires stand in opposition to the moral consciousness inherent in every person and begin to live according to Christ’s teaching.
The Law of Love in a Violent Context
The years after The Kingdom of God Is Within You was published were marked by increased violence in Russia — with revolutions, pogroms, and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). With violence emanating not only from the state but from its critics, those who envisioned a different future for Russia, Tolstoy felt keenly that his message of love, nonresistance to evil by force, and true Christianity was more necessary than ever before. In 1908, two years before his death, he published The Law of Violence and the Law of Love, again urging people to reject violence as a foundation for society. As in his earlier writings, he defined violence as a coercive relationship that cannot produce lasting peace.
Tolstoy argued that violence may force actions but never thoughts, creating only illusory unity. A society built on coercion inevitably fosters resentment and future retaliation. The only real alternative is what he called the Law of Love. Tolstoy called for a transformation in how people relate to one another — not through power, but through conscience and love.
His message was met with enthusiasm, not only in Russia but around the world. Rather than founding a sect, Tolstoy sought to inspire personal moral awakening. One powerful example of this influence is Gandhi, who credited The Kingdom of God Is Within You as a pivotal factor in his turn toward nonviolence. “When I went to England, I was a votary of violence,” Gandhi recalled in a 1928 speech commemorating Tolstoy. “After I read this book, that lack of faith in nonviolence vanished.” Through Gandhi, Tolstoy’s vision evolved into a strategic philosophy that shaped 20th-century peace movements.
Tolstoy’s way of thinking about nonviolence effected significant political change in the West and worldwide, through Gandhi’s nonviolent campaign for Indian independence in the 1920s-1940s and King’s preaching of nonviolence, which shaped the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s. Tolstoy’s message of nonviolence is as relevant today, under Russia’s Vladimir Putin and in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine, as it was during the writer’s lifetime.
Tolstoy continues to be taught in classrooms across Russia — ironic, considering his strong anti-state, anti-war message. Today, it is time to remember Tolstoy as more than the great novelist who wrote War and Peace and Anna Karenina; it is time to remember him as a fierce opponent of oppression and a passionate, compelling voice for nonviolence.
https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/beyond-war-and-peace-tolstoys-theory-nonviolence
*
At some point in your life you come to realize that nostalgia itself is enough of a sufficiently sweet substitute for its actual object. Longing — for the people you’ll never see again, places you know you’ll never be able to return to anymore, even your own younger self — is enough. It’s enough… or at least, that’s what I would like to believe now. ~ M. Iossel
Oriana:
For me, nostalgia proved to be a fickle muse. At first it was a source of powerful inspiration. But over the years it weakened, and finally left me for good. I simply ran out of material. It was a loss; I’ll always remember the lovely moment when an instructor told me, “Your Polish poems are magical.”
I thought I’d go on writing those magical poems for the rest of my life, getting better and better, deepening the magic — but alas it was not to be. I was starving that earlier part of myself that was intellectually promiscuous and wanted to read not poetry but informational prose — and informational prose became my new world, the faithful landscape of my remaining life. But the rooster-crowed villages and the cloud-like sheep — die Wolken, the German word for clouds, seems like a flock of sheep — those are still in my psyche, having changed me forever because poetry has that power.
Kathryn Federer: Treescapes
*
OLD ENGLISH WORDS IN MODERN VOCABULARY
The English language has undergone a variety of developments and evolutions over the centuries, and a surface-level comparison between Old English and modern English might appear to reveal more differences than similarities.
Old English is the term used to refer to the form of English spoken from the 5th to the 11th century. By the end of this period, elements of French began to be introduced following the Norman Conquest of 1066, and this ushered in the period now known as Middle English.
Some words used in Old English have now disappeared completely, but others have endured, and the legacy of the OE period is very much present in the vocabulary of today. It has been estimated that more than 50% of the words that were most frequently used in Old English continue to exist in some form in contemporary English.
It should be noted that some words which exist in both Old English and modern English do not always have the same meaning. For example, “rice” existed in OE but was not used to refer to cereal grain the way it is today: instead, “rice” as a noun in OE was used to refer to a kingdom, and was also sometimes used as an adjective that meant “powerful.”
However, many other words have survived with their original meanings intact, albeit with slight variations in spelling in many cases. Here is a look at several Old English words that are still used in everyday English:
Cat (“catt”)
Cool (“cōl”)
Friend (“frēond”)
Night (“niht”)
Often (“oft”)
Sun (“sunne”)
Water (“waeter”)
Often (“oft”)
In contrast to some of the other words on this list, “often” is a rare example of a contemporary English word that is longer than its Old English ancestor. “Oft” was used in Old English in the same way that “often” is utilized today.
Sun (“sunne”)
The word used today to refer to the sun is very close to the one used by the Anglo-Saxons, though over the centuries, it has lost a couple of letters, going from “sunne” to “sun.” Still, the root has stayed the same.
Night (“niht”)
Man with a Lantern against a starry sky; Dmytro Balkovitin
The word for “night” is another that originated in the Old English period. Over the years, it acquired a “g” in the middle, but is still clearly recognizable. The related term “day” also derives from Old English, although the original spelling of “daeg” is slightly more distant from today’s spelling than “night” is from “niht.”
Water (“waeter”)
It has been noted that many words that have survived in similar forms to their Old English counterparts refer to aspects of the natural world. As with “sunne” and “sun,” the OE word for “water” is very close to its modern equivalent, with the slight variation in being spelled “waeter.”
*
EAST GERMANIC LANGUAGES ARE EXTINCT NOW
All East Germanic languages are extinct. The tribes successfully conquered Rome, Spain, and North Africa—only to have their languages erased by the millions they subjugated.
These languages, which included Gothic, Vandalic, and Burgundian, vanished because of how the tribes moved during the waning days of the Roman Empire. During the Migration Period, the East Germanic groups left their homelands near the Baltic Sea and pushed deep into Roman territory. The Vandals took North Africa, the Ostrogoths and Visigoths claimed Italy and Spain, and the Burgundians occupied eastern Gaul.
Once they established these new kingdoms, the East Germanic peoples found themselves as a tiny ruling military elite governing vast populations of Latin speakers. To administer their territories, engage in trade, and intermarry with the local nobility, the Germanic rulers adopted Vulgar Latin.
Initially, their distinct languages were preserved by their faith. The Goths and Vandals practiced Arian Christianity, which kept them separate from their Catholic Roman subjects. As these ruling classes gradually converted to mainstream Catholicism to secure local support, that cultural barrier vanished.
Military defeat accelerated this linguistic erasure. In the 6th century, the Byzantine emperor Justinian launched campaigns to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. His armies destroyed the Vandal and Ostrogothic kingdoms, wiping them out as political entities. Without a state to support them, the surviving East Germanic speakers assimilated into the local Romance-speaking populations.
The steep cliffs of the Mangup plateau rise above a forested valley in Crimea.
The only exception was a small group of Goths who never marched into the Roman Empire.
They remained behind in the mountains of the Crimean Peninsula. Isolated from the linguistic melting pot of Western Europe, they maintained their East Germanic language for centuries, establishing the Christian Principality of Theodoro. They held out until the Ottoman Empire conquered the region in 1475. Over the following centuries, the remaining Crimean Goths slowly assimilated into the surrounding Greek and Crimean Tatar populations, and their language died out by the late 18th century.
Today, Gothic is the only East Germanic language with a substantial written record. Almost everything linguists know about the branch comes from the Codex Argenteus, a 6th-century illuminated manuscript of a Bible translation by the Gothic Bishop Wulfila. ~ Sepia Glyphs, Quora
*
WHY WAS COMMUNISM SO APPEALING?
Communism was appealing because it promised absolute equality, an end to poverty, and a classless society where wealth was shared fairly among all workers instead of a few rich owners. During times of massive economic crisis and harsh class divides, it offered hope for a completely fair world.
Core Promises and Ideals
No Rich or Poor: Everyone shares all property and money equally.
No Classes: It sought to destroy the gap between rich bosses and poor workers.
Basic Needs Met: The system promised food, homes, jobs, and health care for all people.
Fair Work: Workers would own the factories and farms instead of wealthy capitalists.
HISTORICAL APPEAL
Capitalist Failures: During severe events like the Great Depression, capitalism looked broken, while communism offered a bold fix.
Anti-Colonial Hope: Poor nations fighting against foreign empires saw communism as a quick path to freedom and modern growth.
Proof of Action: The 1917 Russian Revolution made people believe a fairer worker-led society was actually possible.
For much of the twentieth century the appeal of communism was simply a sociological fact; by now it is something that needs to be explained. Communism promised a future that was far better than the present and offered a way to achieve it; it presented a world full of darkness that could be broken by small circles of people who could see the light; and it provided those oppressed around the world with a beacon for their imaginations and hopes.
The story of the appeal of communism is a reflection of the reality of suffering and atrocity; it is also one of betrayal, trauma, mass murder, and rethinking. (Google overview)
~ Communism is one way to achieve industrialization, just as cannibalism is one way to consume a high protein diet ~ Robert Service
Oriana:
The speed with which communism transformed itself from from moral idealism to a moral catastrophe is truly breathtaking. It seems that the higher the ideology tried to reach, the greater the crimes committed in its name.
*
In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains an un-uprooted small corner of evil. ~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
*
THE APEX PREDATOR IN THE CHERNOBYL EXCLUSION ZONE
In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded, releasing radioactive material into northern Ukraine and Belarus. It was the most serious nuclear accident in history. Over one hundred thousand people were evacuated from the surrounding area because of the health risks radioactive waste poses to humans. Most people have not returned.
Unlike humans, gray wolves never left.
The local population has grown over the years. It's seven times denser than populations in protected lands elsewhere in Belarus. This fact has led scientists to wonder whether the wolves are genetically either resistant or resilient to cancer — or if the wolves are simply thriving because humans aren't interfering with them.
In this episode, researchers Shane Campbell-Staton and Cara Love talk through what might be causing this population boom. Plus, why researchers in the field of human cancer are eager to collaborate with them.
Gray wolves in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone thrive in numbers seven times higher than in nearby non-contaminated reserves, adapting to high levels of daily radiation through natural selection and an absence of human pressure.
Population and Environment
High Density: The gray wolf population has boomed, making them the dominant apex predator in the abandoned landscape.
No Humans: The lack of hunting, farming, and cities allows wildlife to flourish despite lingering radioactivity.
Prey Abundance: Deer, elk, and wild boar populations have also surged, providing steady food for the wolves
Radiation and Genetic Adaptation
High Exposure: Wolves wear GPS collars with radiation dosimeters showing exposures exceeding safe human limits.
Cancer Resilience: Research led by evolutionary biologists indicates these wolves possess altered immune profiles and specific genomic adaptations.
Distinct Genes: Blood analyses show genetic variations linked to enhanced cancer resistance and tumor suppression, helping them survive chronic radiation.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/05/1198909263/cancer-wolves-ukraine-chernobyl-radiation
*
THE BRINK OF WAR: REVIEWS
Once, the world was on the brink of nuclear war.
Well, no, multiple times. For the new movie “The Brink of War,” the claim is that the threat of civilizational extinction was never greater in its moment.
I’m not so sure, and yet alas, I am of the same mind about every single historical movie ever made: they exaggerate, usually wildly, for effect.
The movie’s moment is 1986, a clandestine meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. They met in Iceland, a remote “haunted house” outside of Reykjavik, for potential talks about reducing their respective nuke and missile stockpiles.
What attracted me to this film was the presence of the actors involved: Jeff Daniels as Reagan, and the great Jared Harris as Gorbachev. Harris has already awesomely played a 1980s Russian in the superior show “Chernobyl.”
The two promise to go head-to-head, as representatives of their respective empires, over the fate of humanity!
That part of the film, the table conversations between the actors, is the best part of the movie. Their negotiations, based on an apparently real event, encompass 75 minutes of a 110-minute runtime. Tagging along well is J.K. Simmons, who plays George Shultz, Reagan’s “east-coast blue-blood” Secretary of State.
The movie opens by showing a vexed Reagan in exactly the same pose as Caspar David Friedrich’s famous “Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog.” He then tells Shultz that he’s failed in negotiations, over one word. We later learn that this is near the end of the movie, and Nolan-like, it will return to this moment and twist it around.
As the movie proceeds, it relies too much on sloganeering and buzz words to represent each cause. Reagan must say “freedom” and “liberty” as much as my 12-year-old says “6-7,” while Gorbachev provides the arresting counterpoint, thanks to Harris playing him earnestly and humanistically.
If you played a drinking game here, you’d get drunk off “trust but verify,” repeated six times by my count. Add in “we’re a nation of immigrants,” repeated five times, and you’ll die of alcohol poisoning.
Nevertheless, “The Brink of War” has an honest heart, despite being 25 minutes too long with three needless subplots, all of which go nowhere. It longs for “trust,” the most important part of the famous phrase “trust but verify.”
In depicting negotiations between two non-shooting enemies, the largest empires in world history up to this point, it longs for them to get along. Because nuclear annihilation, as the characters of Reagan and Gorbachev know, could doom the people they are supposed to represent and protect.
I have no idea how historically accurate this movie is, or how true to character. Reagan is depicted as shaken — traumatized? — by the Hinckley assassination attempt, frequently clutching the affected hand that got injured when he was shot. If only, this movie says visually, that hands could be open and embrace other hands — the visual pattern it wants to see, when the two leaders shake hands.
But in the way of a handshake is another visual pattern: the closed door with a dividing line in the middle, and the negotiating table that is so long that each man, sitting on each end, seems a world apart from the other.
“The Brink of War” arrives by obliquely speaking into our weird times, in the year of our Lord 2026: the Russia-Ukraine war that goes on indefinitely, and the US-Iran War in which negotiations seem completely broken down.
This week, Iran declared that it will wait until President Trump leaves office to even bother to negotiate again. Meanwhile, Trump postmodernly declared that the Strait of Hormuz is US territory.
The spirit of all that seems to be the exact opposite of this movie, which is also refreshingly the opposite of the masterpiece “Dr. Strangelove.” That movie postures as a reasonably cynical attitude, circa the mid-1960s and right after the Cuban Missile Crisis, towards the inevitability of nuclear conflict.
Meanwhile, “The Brink of War” knows that the Soviet empire ended, and also soon after its 1986 setting. It can thereby give Reagan the credit for defeating them, even playing Gorbachev during the Reykjavik negotiations. Even though it shows him clinging to the technological “shield” of SDI at all costs, perhaps to the detriment of the possibility of dismantling all nuclear weapons worldwide, it believes that he represents the best spirit of America and its best leaders.
Once again, I don’t know about this.
Daniels can’t play Reagan any subtler than the words of the script allow, which gives him naive credit for preferring worldwide “freedom” over getting rid of 70k nukes. Harris, however, is the proper balance here. When he articulates the US’s hypocrisies over human rights and SDI, it seems genuinely reasonable from his point-of-view. The movie condemns Soviet communism while comprehending that the commies were thinking and feeling people, too.
I cannot ultimately recommend this one, just given its editing flaws. It should be an intenser-as-it-goes movie in a small room, about 85 minutes long. If you cut the fat out here, it might improve dramatically. But in the theatrical release, you have to endure the Reagan character talking to a reindeer head and dumping chicken-salad on his shirt.
Edited well, this could resemble the “12 Angry Men” of imperial-leader negotiation movies.
Hopefully, the movie portends good things for the current wars. We never know. The dream of talking well and honestly may, one dreams, be an eventual answer.
https://learningaboutmovies.substack.com/p/the-brink-of-war-is-on-the-brink
*
SHALLOW COLD WAR HISTORY LESSON
Written and directed by Michael Russell Gunn (“Designated Survivor,” “Billions”), “The Brink of War” tells a story less powerful because of its subject matter than the deeper truths — sociopolitical, but more importantly, humanistic — that it illustrates. Jeff Daniels stars as Ronald Reagan opposite Jared Harris as Mikhail Gorbachev in a dramatization of the Reykjavik Summit of 1986, where the world’s greatest superpowers first began to initiate the end of the Cold War. While the two actors make a meal out of the historic clash between the two leaders, Gunn’s lacking aptitude as a first-time feature director limits the drama that can be wrung out of two men — even these two men — bickering in a room with one another over the fate of humanity.
The film opens as Reagan frets to Secretary of State George Shultz (J.K. Simmons) that he has “failed,” after being unable to come to an accord with Gorbachev over the de-escalation of the Cold War. Seventy-two hours earlier, the world leaders had met at Gorbachev’s request and discussed winding down the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union that, at that point, had resulted in a reported 70,000 missiles pointed at each other and world populations poised with dread.
Reagan’s plan is to provoke Soviet leadership by preempting the main topic of conversation, instead leading with a request that Gorbachev allow the sister of famed classical musician and conductor Mstislav Rostropovich, who defected from Russia in the 1970s, to visit the U.S. for his own birthday. Reagan’s power play gets quickly undercut after Gorbachev proposes a shocking and unexpected reduction in arms — to 50 percent of the current numbers.
Quoting a Russian proverb doveryai, no proveryai — “trust, but verify” — Reagan embraces the proposal, and encourages both countries go even further with a “double-zero” plan, which would result in total nuclear disarmament over a ten-year period. But when Gorbachev questions the need for the U.S.’s in-development space militarization Strategic Defense Initiative, tempers flare and talks stall.
In the meantime, Gorbachev’s wife Raisa (Branka Katić) uses the summit to generate good PR, staging a series of frivolous photo opportunities in Reykjavik for a group of international reporters (Aya Cash, Guy Burnet). Meanwhile, the First Lady (Hope Davis) remains back in the U.S., trying to quell mounting criticism for not joining her husband abroad.
In the context of moviegoing, 40 years doesn’t seem like that much time; but in the firehose of history, it’s practically an eternity. There have been multiple generations of audiences who now barely know what the Cold War was, much less felt its oppressive effects. As with Anthony Maras’ D-Day drama “Pressure,” released earlier this summer, our collective cultural amnesia over the events in “The Brink of War” practically makes the film an historical document. Also like “Pressure,” it chronicles granular or, less generously, not always especially thrilling machinations, pivotal though they may have been.
The film is skillfully cast. Even though neither Daniels nor Harris look much like the real-life people they’re playing, both possess plenty of actorly gravitas to convince audiences. But Gunn’s script treats the motivations behind Gorbachev, and especially Reagan, like mysteries to be solved, leaving it to his stars to elevate that structural sleight of hand into a meaty tete-a-tete on-screen.
The film is distributed by Angel Studios, the Utah-based distributor which emerged as a significant theatrical player with its blockbuster release of the dubiously factual sex trafficking drama “Sound of Freedom” (its success attributed, in part, to a “pay it forward” ticket-buying system that encouraged viewers to participate via QR code during the closing credits, replicated here with a post-credits message from Daniels). Consequently, it may not come as a surprise to learn that Reagan’s frequent, ego-driven monologues about American values in “The Brink of War” are invariably presented in hushed, sober tones of indisputable truth, as opposed to dramaturgical counterpoint to Gorbachev’s.
Gunn is no readier to factor even potential fallibility into his portrait of Reagan compared to the legions of modern conservatives who treat the president like their patron saint. Those politics dilute what could be a much more compelling discussion on screen about Western values, then and now, by effectively positioning the Americans not just as good guys, but “right” long before either leader sits down in Iceland. As opposed to a more shaded evaluation of Reagan, the film instead aims for sitcom vulnerability by emphasizing the president’s PTSD from his 1981 assassination attempt. For better or worse, the device gives his clenched fist a dual meaning, as the leader’s lingering anxiety calcifies into tenacious resolve.
The film’s other portraits of U.S.-Soviet conflict are even less sophisticated, from the public relations battle between Raisa Gorbacheva and Nancy Reagan to the literal line of white tape that separates the CIA and the KGB in the basement of Iceland’s Höfði house. Katić and Davis deliver sturdy performances that emphasize their characters’ stature as stateswomen who are as crafty as their husbands. (In the spirit of the FCC’s equal-time rule, Davis should portray Hillary Clinton in a different film or TV series; she looks exactly like her here, not Reagan.) In the roles of journalists whose reporting facilitates the First Lady face-off, Cash and Burnet offer an altogether contemporary read of political gamesmanship (especially its silliness), but add little dimension to the central conflict that unfolds away from the eyes of the public.
Simmons’ performance as Shultz, the political altruist frantically trying to broker an agreement between the two headstrong leaders, injects much-needed humanity into this showdown between two 800-pound geopolitical gorillas. But for a movie whose seeming purpose (much less marketing campaign) is to “keep the conversation going” as rejoinder to the tribalism that’s keeping our current political system gridlocked, Gunn ultimately proves too conciliatory to America’s perspective by the time Reagan and Gorbachev part ways. It should be noted that the depicted negotiations did not materially accomplish anything in real life.
“The Brink of War” is not without its virtues, but Gunn’s debut would likely be better served by premiering on a streaming service a la Daniels’ miniseries “The Comey Rule,” not least of which because its chief visual asset is some stunning Iceland photography. Certainly we’re in an era where anything that encourages deeper political conversation is a good, perhaps even necessary thing. But if you’re advocating that as a filmmaker, your material should be a little less certain from the outset which side of the debate is correct.
https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/reviews/the-brink-of-war-review-jeff-daniels-reagan/
Branden E:
My favorite part was when one of the two reporters, who had no relevance to the plot, shouts at Mrs. Gorbachev "Yea, well at least Nancy Reagan championed breast cancer awareness!"
THE GRIPPING COLD WAR DRAMA DRAMATIZES THE FIRST SUMMIT BETWEEN REAGAN AND MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
The first time we see Jeff Daniels as Ronald Reagan in “The Brink of War,” his back is to the camera. Then he slowly turns, and the first thought is, “Hey, is he wearing one of those rubber Reagan masks that were popular in the 1980s?” Daniels looks almost ridiculous — or as close to ridiculous as anyone can get without being funny.
And then the transformation happens, not all at once, but gradually. Daniels is of a similar size and build as Reagan. He begins a lot of sentences with the word “well.” And those head nods that Reagan made famous — Daniels has those down, not in an exaggerated way, but in a way that’s true to life.
But what makes Daniels a persuasive Reagan, or at least persuasive enough, is that his performance isn’t merely surface. He locates Reagan internally as a man whose geniality barely masks a spine of steel.
Remember the famous “Saturday Night Live” skit, in which Phil Hartman played Reagan as a geopolitical mastermind imposing his will on the world while pretending to be a doddering old geezer? “The Brink of War” is the non-joke version of that. Successful presidencies don’t happen by accident. Reagan may have top talent backing him up, but “The Brink of War” shows a president with the clarity and purpose to steer his own course.
The film takes place over a couple of days in 1986 during which Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the general secretary of the Soviet Union, held their first summit in Reykjavik, Iceland. For dramatic purposes, the movie tries to make us think that this was the height of the Cold War. It wasn’t. But the U.S. and the Soviet Union were still pointing 70,000 nuclear missiles at each other, which isn’t nothing.
Gorbachev, ably played by Jared Harris, drops a big fat hint before the talks even start that he has come to Iceland wanting to reduce nuclear armaments. Reagan is skeptical, but he’s willing if Gorbachev is serious. But Reagan is also intent on extending human rights in the Soviet Union, including the right to travel outside the country.
Most of the film is just two guys talking. In real life, there were actually four guys — the principals and their translators. In this version, Gorbachev speaks excellent English, preventing the movie from being twice as long. It’s possible that some viewers will get stir-crazy, feeling shut up in a room hearing nothing but back-and-forth conversation. But if you pay attention, the power dynamic is irresistible.
Both men are sincere. Both want peace. Both want to do something enormous and wonderful in the world. But neither quite trusts the other, and even when they almost do, they don’t trust each other’s respective governments. Watching this, you might find yourself rooting for Gorbachev at times, because Reagan is often really hard on him. Then again, he’s being hard on a man who represents a repressive, failed system that’s keeping half of Europe in bondage.
If you know anything about the Reykjavik summit, you know that it’s famous for something that almost happened, and that tantalizing something forms one of the great ifs of modern history. (If you don’t know, that’s best discovered by watching.) But it’s also famous for something that did happen. These men saw something in each other. To the extent it was possible, they even began to like each other and found themselves able to establish genuine, sincere communication.
“The Brink of War” depicts, in a way worthy of its subject, the stalemate that transformed the second half of the 20th century.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/movies-tv/article/brink-of-war-review-22379591.php
Oriana: THE BALANCE OF TERROR: MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION (MAD)
For me, the summary of the movie took place before the movie even started. In a preview of some upcoming movie I’d never bother watching, a young man shouts: “I am not Pinocchio! I am a real boy!” And I thought: that explains it: the world is run by real boys with their deadly real toys.
And it has been that way for centuries, and sometimes it doesn’t seem believable that humanity is still around. The imperial carriage makes a wrong turn, which leads to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, which leads to the gas-mustard nightmare of WW1 — which eventually leads to an even greater hell of WW2, which leads to the enslavement of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union, itself largely a product of WW1. This leads to humanity living in a “balance of terror” — portrayed in a movie that I’m still having a hard time believing was even ever produced — a “talking heads” movie in an era of action and horror flicks made to cater to real boys.
For me, one scene stood out for its accurate portrayal of the Soviet system. Taking it for granted for his room is bugged, Gorbachov turns on the faucet so that the sound of running water literally drown out voices, and begins to whisper with Raisa in what is perhaps the most loving and intimate scene of the movie.
Indeed the movie would have been improved by more scenes with Raisa, a brilliant and highly educated woman. It would have been even better if we could twist history so that Raisa and Nancy Reagan talk to each other face to face. But this movie stays faithful to history, and the Raisa-Nancy summit can only be wistfully imagined — with perhaps someone else playing Nancy, who looks eerily like Hillary, as both my companion and one of the critics pointed out. Nancy’’s quick consultation of astrology is another memorable scene, providing a bit of comic relief.
One final thought: though Reagan is meant to represent democracy and Gorbachev a Communist dictatorship, in this movie both countries appear strangely similar: ruled by the whims of aging real boys.
“The Brink of War” may not be a great movie, but it is a necessary one. The winds of the Cold War blow through the haunted house in Reykjavik, reminding us of the absurdities of the Cold War, when real boys with real nasty toys could decide if humanity would survive. The presence of the women (though Hillary-like Nancy Reagan is only on the phone), the free-roaming horses, the Icelandic Veda that is a sacred object to Raisa — those fleeting moments remind us that love and beauty exist, and are worth saving.
*
'CHEST-THUMPING MACHISMO': THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY REVEALS THE BLOODY, BAWDY TRUTH ABOUT THE MIDDLE AGES
In the 11th-Century masterpiece's tale of a contested throne, about to be exhibited in the UK, virility is equated to power – and the largest and proudest appendage. It tells a story that feels familiar today.
The Bayeux Tapestry tells a bloody − and occasionally bawdy − story of the Norman conquest of England. The intricate masterpiece is embroidered on to 70 meters (77 yards) of flax linen, and weaves a tale of broken promises, greed and aggression that culminates in the death of King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings.
After almost 1,000 years, the iconic artwork is returning from Normandy, France to England, where it was skilfully stitched in the 1070s, and from this September is to be exhibited at the British Museum.
It's an artwork depicting a medieval version of today's digital manosphere: an ideology and world centered on hypermasculinity and men's experiences. And a world where size matters.
It is men's contributions that form the focus of the 11th-Century society the tapestry portrays. A third of its men are armed, while others are vigorously engaged in tree-felling, boatbuilding and construction. A woodcutter straddling a length of timber readies his axe, while hunters wave large clubs about their heads as they pursue their quarry. All of this helps communicate the heightened atmosphere of an impending confrontation between two alpha males: William, Duke of Normandy and Harold Godwinson. "A more testosterone-soaked scene is hard to find," Dr Christopher Monk, a cultural historian of medieval England, comments.
This suggestive display of chest-thumping machismo reveals a medieval society made for and by men, where violence settles disputes and laddish humor scores political points. Armed pillagers rampage through Hastings, and fallen soldiers in the lower margin are stripped nude for their armor, just as Harold, slain above them, is denuded of his royal claim.
The recurring penis
If there's a recurrent motif in the iconic artwork, it's the penis. In 2018, George Garnett, professor of medieval history at Oxford University in the UK, counted 93 – mostly tumescent – specimens in the embroidery. Eighty-eight belonged to horses, and another five to men, with a pendulous scabbard (which he rules out) causing considerable debate in academic circles.
"Size matters on the Bayeux Tapestry," observes Janina Ramirez in Femina: A New History of the Middle Ages, Through the Women Written Out of It (2022). In the tapestry's tale of a contested throne, virility is equated to power and the largest and proudest appendage, she notes, "belongs to the fine stallion William is presented with on the eve of the battle". Second place goes to King Harold's mount, "the implication being that he is a worthy opponent”.
In the Bayeux Tapestry the horse of alpha male William reflects its owner's virility
Within the traditions of 11th-Century art, graphic nudity was commonplace, and it's quite possible that these penises were stitched by nuns. "They reflect what was so evident more broadly in elite medieval society – by and large, men were the primary drivers of political sovereignty," Monk tells the BBC. "The use of male genitalia, be it human or equine," he says, is "shorthand for the political machismo within the context of the transition to the new Anglo-Norman world in medieval England."
If women play a minor role in the tapestry, it's primarily because "the narrative revolves around male action", Dr Emily Joan Ward, a lecturer in medieval history at Edinburgh University in the UK, tells the BBC. "It's largely depictions of militarily active men, and in those battle scenes we wouldn't expect women."
If a ratio of one to 100 still seems unbalanced, there may be a clue in who the artwork was intended for. Historians believe the tapestry's likely patron is William's half-brother, the Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who features prominently in it and may have used the tapestry to emphasize his important role in the campaign for William's rightful rule.
"The content is probably to resonate with him and his immediate social circle, which will largely be a homosocial circle of men," says Wade. With a Norman sponsor, the messaging needed to be on brand. "Introducing too many women into the story is actually a bit risky," she adds. "William's attempts to stress his legitimacy to the throne through the female line may have made the designer or patron wary of drawing attention to this tenuous claim."
The six women in the tapestry
The women in the central story mostly serve as what Monk calls "emotional punctuation". Queen Edith, a highly influential figure in court politics, mops her tears with her scarf as her husband, Edward the Confessor, takes his final breaths; and a woman and her child flee as gigantic Norman soldiers casually torch their home. Bizarre expressions and proportions aside, it's a scene that reminds us, says Ward, "that warfare is not just a male-dominated event, not just what's happening on the battlefield."
She references the historian Catherine Karkov, who observes that the women in the main register appear at moments of shifting power relations. "If we interpret it that way," Ward remarks, "it gives them quite a powerful role in the tapestry.”
The decorative borders above and below the tapestry take us into a world that is more subversive due to its coded critique of the central characters, often in the form of fables. It's here that three of the women appear.
In the lower border, a woman recoils from a sexual aggressor, thought to be her father. Later, in the upper border, two nude women gesticulating towards naked men are thought to be associated with stories of a seductress and a prostitute who used their bodies to deceive, hinting at Harold's broken oath.
We're missing William's daughter, Agatha of Normandy, who was offered to Harold in part-exchange for the crown. Ward notes that we're shown William's impressive flagship, the largest and fastest vessel in the Norman fleet named the Mora, but we do not see his formidable wife, Matilda of Flanders, who paid for the ship in order to facilitate the military success that would make her Queen.
'Medieval Me-Too moment'
One mysterious cloaked figure does however get a namecheck: Aelfgyva. A seemingly predatory priest in a green cape reaches for her face, while in the border, a naked man with impossibly large genitals mimics his pose. Proposals for who she is and why she is there are manifold. The suggestion of Dr David Musgrove, co-author of The Story of the Bayeux Tapestry (2026), that sexual harassment by the priest is being called out in "a medieval Me-Too moment" makes sense.
Others have been more dismissive. As one 20th-Century historian commented: "since it contributes nothing to the story, except a moment of confusion, we have felt justified in leaving it out”.
Just as monks inserted illustrations in the margins of manuscripts, it's possible that female embroiderers were permitted a little creative liberty with these cryptic comments on the central story. "They were no doubt working to a design," Monk tells the BBC. "But that does not have to mean that they were merely executors of another's will, or indeed that every detail was dictated."
Perhaps in the border, the invisible women behind the artwork had the last laugh. "Was it a way of expressing despair at bellicose men, or at their own plight as subjugated English women? Is there any sense of mockery, particularly of William? Or were they indulging in playful, earthy humor to pass the time?" Monk asks.
"It's impossible, perhaps, to answer these questions, but it should at the very least make us reflect on the fact that the Bayeux Tapestry only exists because of the skilled and intelligent labor of women.”
It was Victorian sensibilities that would eventually subdue some of the original tapestry's machismo. In a faithful replica, created in 1885 by a group of 35 women belonging to the Leek Embroidery Society (currently on display at Reading Museum), the advancing armies are still full of men, but the horses' oversized members have retreated. Unsurprisingly, the naked man with the outsized genitals who was mimicking the priest in the border is shown in the new version wearing shorts.
Most importantly though, by introducing an additional border where each embroiderer stitched her name, the 1885 version honored its creators and asserted a female presence. As Ramirez points out: "While no one would think of discussing Starry Night without mentioning Van Gogh… very few begin discussions of the Bayeux Tapestry thinking about the women who made it."
A manosphere, be it modern or medieval, might tell stories of male power, but its existence may be dependent on the women it tries to leave out.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20260820-the-medieval-manosphere-of-the-bayeux-tapestry
*
ONE MORE LOOK AT THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
The French aristocracy pre-Revolution weren't the careless, luxurious bastards cruelly lording over everyone as they are made out to be. This is demonstrated most perfectly by the fact that many of the most prominent revolutionaries were, themselves, noblemen.
In the same vein, Louis XVI wasn't overthrown because he was a tyrant. He was overthrown because he was NOT a tyrant. If anything he was friendly, indecisive and soft-willed, more so than his war-minded predecessors Louis XV and Louis XIV. The Kings before him stayed reasonably popular. By going to war a lot and spending obscene amounts of money that would ultimately lead to the Kingdom's downfall, these rulers were generally rather respected by much of the population. Much like with the last Tsar of Russia, the King who ended up losing his head to the guillotine was a pretty chill, open-minded fellow open to reforms.
There’s this stereotype of these lavishly spoiled big spenders in powdered wigs, Marie-Antoinette telling the hungry should just “eat cake”, completely removed from reality… and truthfully, this is bullshit. A ton of noblemen were social reformers, generous to the poor, conscientious and cared deeply for the common man. The revolutionaries who took over, quite a few of them were blue-blooded themselves. And were far worse than the elites they ended up killing. ~ Jean-Marie Valheur, Quora
Michael Terrell:
Most of the leaders of the revolution weren’t noblemen. Instead, they were merchants, bankers, and wealthy artisans who were upset with their lack of social standing among the aristocracy. Basically, the only people who benefited were the rich who weren’t nobles.
Romain Clère: Louis XVI was a passive guy. He was not interested in governing. Actually he was a pretty good craftsman — he was very interested in locksmithing. He was not really a social reformer either.
Dimitar Reeves Koparov: Interestingly, similar logic can be applied to the end of the Soviet Union. The leader that oversaw the end of it was the one most open to reform and softening of the oppression.
Duke Ganote: Saudi Arabia is undergoing its own soft revolution of a kind now, but it's debatable how far it will go, with a dictator who dismembers his critics still in power.
Luke Hathertone:
The Sun King lived in a different time, when the aristocracy and the divine right of kings was utterly unchallenged. Louis XVI lived at a time when the Age of Enlightenment had transformed King Arthur’s Court. Mark Twain wrote:
~ There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it: the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break?
A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves. ~
Rob Ford: Louis XVI spent excessively, almost bankrupting the country. And the revolution was based on a historical context in which the gap between the rich and the poor in France had widened to a ridiculous degree.
The revolution wasn't just a changing of the guard. It ended the feudal system that had dominated European societies for centuries, overthrew the monarchy, and established civil laws and fairer representation of a wide variety of people in the political system.
It was messy and brutal, but necessary. The societies in which we all live in the West would not exist without it and similar events.
For real-world alternatives, witness Russia, China, Saudi Arabia or Iran today. At least three of these four societies have had their revolutions too, but they ultimately replaced one kind of dictatorship with another, because the people of these nations had not progressed sufficiently through education to understand and implement a fair and democratic government. The European intellectual class included many aristocrats, and the middle class was much larger and more educated as well.
And yes, Louis XIV was a strong king, despite his destructive warmongering. Louis XVI was the wrong combination of incompetent and weak, much like Nicholas II.
Alan Parsi: Kingdom had become the thing of the past. This revolution would have happened regardless of who the king was. Louis XVI just made it easier by being kinder than his predecessors.
Arthur Short III: The one thing a theoretically absolute monarchy cannot survive is a decent, indecisive, kindly monarch in a time of trouble and crisis. Louis XVI would have been happier being a locksmith than being king, and would probably have lived far longer as said locksmith.
Nick Daniels: Volcano eruptions in Iceland around about that time caused a “nuclear winter” scenario with crop failures all over Western Europe. The food riots that erupted in France, particularly in Paris, were very hard to put down and contributed significantly to the French Revolution.
Shaun Hanlon: It was never about cake. It was about revenge.
Guy Nutting:
The French revolution was not about the poor. It was reasonably well heeled people grabbing power from the most wealthy. It was underpinned by the Enlightenment, which probably meant little to a subsistence farmer in the Dordogne.
Wow, Jean! I never knew that since my school history text book and all the history books that I have read so far gave me the impression that all the revolutionaries who spearheaded the French Revolution either belonged to the middle class or the lower classes. Thanks for making me learn something new today. If what you said is true, my conviction that history is always the story of the victors has been strengthened. While I was reading this answer, I am reminded of the quote of a prominent African writer Chinua Achebe: “Until the lion learns to write, every story will always glorify the hunter.”
Atanas Arnaudov:
Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette make rather poor villains — a kind-hearted and deeply religious couple who clearly were devoted to each other and helped the poor and the victims of natural disasters.
*
THE TWO FACES OF MARS
Mars has two distinct faces: one a low-lying plain, and one high, rugged and cratered. The differences extend all the way to the planet's core, a new analysis finds.
The Martian crustal dichotomy—commonly known as the two faces of Mars—refers to the stark geographical and geological differences between the planet's smooth northern lowlands and heavily cratered southern highlands.
The Northern Lowlands vs. Southern Highlands
Northern Hemisphere: Flat, smooth plains lie at a lower elevation, showing fewer impact craters and signs of ancient volcanic flooding or past ocean beds.
Southern Hemisphere: Rugged, mountainous highlands sit at a higher elevation and are heavily marked by impact craters and ancient volcanic activity
Scientific Explanations:
Giant Impact Hypotheses: Planetary scientists believe this stark division was caused by a massive collision in the planet's early history, either through a glancing impactor striking the north or a colossal impact creating a magma ocean in the south.
Internal Core Asymmetry: Recent gravity and tidal-flex data indicate that Mars may remained "two-faced" down to its deep interior, showing measurable temperature differences between the southern mantle and northern plains.
Alternative Meanings
The "Face on Mars": The phrase sometimes recalls the famous illusion of a human face carved into a mesa in the Cydonia region, captured by the Viking 1 orbiter in 1976 and later shown by higher-resolution cameras (like the Mars Express mission) to be a natural landform
Opposite Hemispheres via Telescope: The Hubble Space Telescope famously imaged two nearly opposite sides of the globe during close approaches, displaying opposite hemispheres featuring landmarks like Olympus Mons and Solis Lacus, an immense dark marking also known as the "Eye of Mars”.
A moon-sized celestial object that crashed into the south pole: ETH researchers use a simulation to demonstrate why Mars consists of two notably different hemispheres.
The two hemispheres of Mars are more different from any other planet in our solar system. Non-volcanic, flat lowlands characterize the northern hemisphere, while highlands punctuated by countless volcanoes extend across the southern hemisphere. Although theories and assumptions about the origin of this so-called and often-discussed Mars dichotomy abound, there are very few definitive answers. ETH Zurich geophysicists under Giovanni Leone are now providing a new explanation. Leone is the lead author of a paper recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Using a computer model, the scientists have concluded that a large celestial object must have smashed into the Martian south pole in the early history of the Solar System. Their simulation shows that this impact generated so much energy that it created a magma ocean, which would have extended across what is today's southern hemisphere. The celestial body that struck Mars must have been at least one-tenth the mass of Mars to be able to unleash enough energy to create this magma ocean. The molten rock eventually solidified into the mountainous highlands that today comprise the southern hemisphere of Mars.
Volcanic activity over three billion years
In their simulation, the researchers assumed that the celestial body consisted to a large degree of iron, had a radius of at least 1,600 kilometres, and crashed into Mars at a speed of five kilometers per second. The event is estimated to have occurred around 4 to 15 million years after the Red Planet was formed. Mars' crust must have been very thin at that time, like the hard, caramelized surface of a crème brûlée. And, just like the popular dessert, hiding beneath the surface was a liquid interior.
When the celestial object impacted, it added more mass to Mars, particularly iron. But the simulation also found that it triggered strong volcanic activity lasting three billion years.
Around the equator in particular, numerous mantle plumes were generated as a consequence of the impact, which migrated to the south pole where they ended. Mantle plumes are magma columns that transport liquid material from the mantle to the surface.
In the model, the researchers found that activity on Mars died down after around three billion years, after which time the Red Planet experienced neither volcanic activity nor a magnetic field — this is consistent with observations and measurements.
Volcanic activity and topography modeled under realistic conditions
Earlier theories posited the opposite, namely that there must have been a gigantic impact or many smaller strikes against the northern hemisphere. The most important theory about the origin of the Mars dichotomy was formulated by two American researchers in 1984 in an article in the journal Nature. They postulated that a large celestial object struck the Martian north pole. In 2008 a different team revived this idea and published it once again in Nature.
This theory did not convince Leone: "Our scenarios more closely reflect a range of observations about Mars than the theory of a northern hemisphere impact," states Leone. The volcanoes on Mars are very unevenly distributed: they are common and widespread on the southern hemisphere, but are rare and limited to only a few small regions in the northern hemisphere.
"Our model is an almost identical depiction of the actual distribution of volcanic identity," asserts Leone. According to the researcher, no other model has been able to portray or explain this distribution before.
Their simulation was also able to reproduce the different topographies of the two hemispheres in an extremely realistic manner, says Leone. And he goes on to explain that the model —depending on the composition of the impact body chosen — is a virtually perfect representation of the size and shape of the hemispheres. One condition, however, is that the celestial body impacting Mars consist of 80 per cent iron; when the researchers simulated the impact with a celestial body made of pure silicate rock, the resulting image did not correspond to the reality of the dichotomy.
Magnetic field tipped the balance
Lastly, the model developed by the ETH researchers confirmed the date on which the magnetic field on Mars ceased to exist. The date calculated by the model corresponds to around 4.1 billion years ago, a figure previously proven by other scientists.
The model also demonstrates why it ceased: a sharp decrease in heat flow from the core into the mantle and the crust in the first 400 million years after the impact. After a billion years, the heat flow was only one-tenth its initial value, which was too low to maintain even the volcanism. The model's calculations closely match previous calculations and mineralogical explorations.
The volcanic activity is related to the heat flow, explains Leone, though the degree of volcanic activity could be varied in the simulation and influenced by the strength of the impact. This, he states, is in turn linked to the size and composition of the celestial object. In other words, the larger it is, the stronger the volcanic activity is. Nevertheless, after one billion years the volcanic vents were extinguished - regardless of the size of the impact.
Hubble's Closest View of Mars — August 27, 2003
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/the-two-faces-of-mars/
*
EL NIÑO HAS BECOME MORE INTENSE OVER LAST 40 YEARS THAN THE PREVIOUS 1,000 YEARS
An El Niño of historic proportion is taking shape in the tropical Pacific. As a result, water temperatures off Santa Barbara climbed into the low 70s Fahrenheit in late August, and anglers have reported catching dorado and yellowtail around the Channel Islands.
While 2026 promises exceptional conditions, a new study in the journal Science found that El Niño events have become nearly 40% stronger in the last 40 years than they were in the pre-industrial era.
The atmospheric circulation responds, in turn. Strong rainfall shifts from Indonesia into the central Pacific, leaving the western Pacific dry. This weakens the trade winds further, locking in El Niño conditions that can persist for one to two years. While these fluctuations in temperature and precipitation originate in the tropical Pacific, they affect weather all over the world.
These changes push the jet stream farther south in the western U.S. This steers atmospheric-river storms away from the Pacific Northwest toward California. “A big El Niño tends to mean wet winters for us in Southern California,” Stevenson said. Often, conditions reverse the following year under “La Niña”.
Similar shifts around the world lead to droughts and flooding that bring disease, crop failure, wildfires and other crises that impact people's health and well-being. “The question is not whether the current El Niño is going to happen, but how bad is it going to be, and how bad will the impacts be?” Cole said. “This event is superimposed on global warming, and it's likely to supercharge the temperature increase that we would normally see from greenhouse gases.”
Some forecasts suggest we might get as hot as 1.7º or 1.8º Celsius (3.1º or 3.2º F) above pre-industrial temperatures, “which is quite a bit higher than the current record,” Cole added.
A history written in coral
To examine historic El Niño patterns, the authors sampled cores from 13 corals — including living colonies and boulders of ancient coral — from the Galápagos Islands. Corals grow one to two centimeters per year by secreting layers of calcium carbonate. The chemistry of these layers provides a record of the seawater temperature in which the corals grew.
Since El Niño extremes occur every few years, the researchers focused on core samples that spanned at least 20 years. Sampling a millimeter at a time, the group measured two aspects of the coral skeleton's chemistry. They analyzed the ratio of the element strontium to calcium, which depends on seawater temperature. They supplemented these results by looking at the ratio of the different isotopes, or atom weights, of the element oxygen, also a proxy for the temperature of the site.
The team was left with a history of variations in temperature in the Galápagos — a location where El Niño has its largest impact, Cole explained. They saw that strong El Niños occurred in the last 40 to 50 years, whereas the El Niños prior to that time period showed “a pretty consistent pattern of lower intensity.”
“We kept adding records thinking ‘well, this is going to get more complicated,’ but it really didn't,” Cole said. “This is such a clear story.”
Confirming the connection
The researchers then examined whether other natural processes could have caused similar intensifications of El Niño over the past millennium. To do this, they used climate models that account for histories of volcanic eruptions and solar variability. The models found no reason to believe such large shifts in El Niño were caused by other natural processes.
“I’m concerned that none of the climate models picked up on the increase we observed in the coral record,” Stevenson said. “That probably means the models are missing something about how El Niño responds to climate change, and we need to know why that's happening.” Her group is currently investigating the subtle differences between climate models in an effort to further improve predictions.
The findings underscore the need to seriously tackle global warming. “If this trend continues into the future, ‘super El Niños,’ like the one developing right now, might become much more common — with all the impacts that go along with them,” Stevenson said.
“Impacts like droughts, floods, wildfire and food insecurity,” Cole added. “Changes in the hydrologic cycle also lead to issues like damage to infrastructure: floods that wipe out homes, highways or railroads; or to health effects, such as diseases like cholera.
“We believe global warming is supercharging El Niño,” Cole continued. “And if that's true, then we expect stronger climate extremes that will amplify ecological, infrastructural and human losses. No country has the resources to be fully protected from these impacts. This is one more reason we need to move away from fossil fuels, the root cause of the problem.”
The findings were supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the United Kingdom Natural Environmental Research Council. The Galápagos National Park and the Charles Darwin Research Station in Galápagos also provided support for the research.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1141829
*
CANCER VACCINES: A NEW HOPE?
Merck and Moderna’s success with a personalized cancer vaccine designed to keep melanoma at bay opens a new avenue of treatment that doctors hope will work against many types of tumors.
Unlike chemotherapy, which kills both healthy and cancerous cells, or immunotherapy, which revs up the immune system, personalized cancer vaccines train the immune system to specifically target mutations found only on a person’s tumor.
Merck and Moderna said on Wednesday their vaccine helped prevent the return and spread of disease in a large trial involving more than 1,000 melanoma patients. They had localized tumors that were removed surgically, but had a high risk of recurrence. Moderna expects that thousands of melanoma patients could benefit within the first few years of approval.
“It is a big deal for the field in general,” said Dr. Ryan Sullivan, director of the Center for Melanoma at Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute. “With this positive study, there is hope (and likely investment to follow) that these approaches may change the way we treat cancer more broadly.”
The trial result is “a monumental leap forward,” validating mRNA technology as a cancer treatment, said Dr. Julie Gralow, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
More trials target other cancers
Beyond melanoma, personalized cancer vaccines are in late-stage development for a host of tumor types. Merck and Moderna have several large trials under way in non-small cell lung cancers that have been surgically removed.
They are also studying the combination in mid-stage trials in patients with bladder and kidney cancers as well as in early-stage trials in pancreatic and stomach cancers, with numerous trial results expected in the next year or two, Moderna President Stephen Hoge told Reuters.
Roche and BioNTech, whose mRNA technology was used in the Pfizer COVID vaccines, are testing a similar treatment called autogene cevumeran in mid-stage studies in colon and pancreatic cancer patients who have undergone surgery.
Results of the colon cancer trial are expected in 2027, with pancreatic trial results to follow in 2031.
“We should be hearing results from multiple studies over the next few years and there’s every reason to hope now, with this news, that many of them will be positive,” said Dr. Robert Vonderheide, director of Penn Medicine’s Abramson Cancer Center and president-elect of the American Association for Cancer Research.
How it works
Merck and Moderna’s treatment, known as intismeran autogene, involves activating the immune system with up to nine doses of Merck’s immunotherapy drug Keytruda, infused every six weeks, plus up to nine doses of a customized mRNA vaccine that instructs the immune system to attack the patient’s specific cancer cells.
When used alone after surgery to reduce the risk that melanoma returns, Keytruda is given every three to six weeks for up to a year.
In melanoma patients, Keytruda treatment can result in fatigue, diarrhea, rash and inflammation of joints and muscles, as well as of healthy organs in some cases. The companies said they saw no new side effects with the addition of the vaccine.
The trial is ongoing and the companies have not released full results. They will continue to follow volunteers to determine whether the drug extends overall survival.
Five-year data from a previous mid-stage trial presented in June showed the vaccine had cut the risk that the cancer would return by half, and reduced the risk that it would spread to new locations by 59% compared with Keytruda alone.
In that trial, the addition of an mRNA vaccine also showed no new increase in the rate of serious side effects.
“What we saw in the (mid-stage trial) were the kinds of reactions people were having when they got a flu or COVID shot or any other vaccine,” Hoge said.
Dr. Elizabeth Buchbinder, a melanoma specialist at the Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute, said doctors treating patients whose cancer has been surgically removed often weigh the benefits of treating with Keytruda against the risk of side effects, especially for patients with only a 20% risk of cancer recurrence.
The added benefit of the vaccine, however, “may change that math,” she said.
Buchbinder said a key reason to select melanoma to test in combination with Keytruda was that it is a tumor that produces a lot of mutations, making it easier for the immune system to spot.
Many other cancer types also produce multiple mutations, she said, suggesting it may have broad applicability.
“We’ll see, but it’s definitely an area that is going to be exploding, especially with these results coming out,” she said.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/21/health/mrna-cancer-vaccines-wave?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
*
HIGH BLOOD LEVELS OF XYLITOL LINKED TO AN INCREASED RISK OF STROKE, HEART ATTACK, AND DEATH
A common sweetener used in products such as chewing gum, toothpaste, jam, yogurts and ice-cream has been linked to an increased risk of strokes, heart attacks and death.
Xylitol is a sugar alcohol present in some natural foods in very low amounts. It is also added – often in amounts 1,000 times higher – to artificially sweeten foods, beverages and oral care products.
Despite its growing use, the long-term health impacts of xylitol have never been widely studied.
In the largest study of its kind, researchers found high blood levels of xylitol were associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. The findings were presented in Munich at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) annual congress, the world’s largest heart conference.
In the largest study of its kind, researchers found high blood levels of xylitol were associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. The findings were presented in Munich at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) annual congress, the world’s largest heart conference.
Researchers looked at 17,710 people and compared the 25% with the highest levels of xylitol in their blood against the 25% with the lowest.
Those who had the highest amount were 57% more likely to die or suffer a heart attack or stroke, than those with the least, within six years. Even after 30 years, they were still 18% more likely to have suffered one of these cardiac events.
Taken with data from the middle quartiles, the results from both cohorts suggested a dose-dependent relationship: the higher the xylitol blood levels, the higher the cardiovascular event rate.
Furthermore, the researchers showed that there was consistent increase in cardiovascular events with xylitol irrespective of baseline characteristics, such as age and sex.
The researchers also highlighted that the association was independent of underlying factors such as body mass index, hypertension, diabetes and lipid levels, which might predispose people to low-calorie products.
The study’s author, Dr Marco Witkowski, from the Charité university hospital in Berlin, said the results built on research that had raised concerns about xylitol.
“In previous studies, we showed that xylitol can enhance the ability of platelets to form clots,” he said. Witkowski and his colleagues also found that high blood levels of xylitol were linked to adverse heart events in high-risk people over a three-year period.
“Artificial sweeteners are consumed by people who think they are healthier than sugar and they are generally regarded as safe by regulatory agencies,” he said.
“Our long-term findings in the general population highlight how little we know about the cardiovascular safety of xylitol and indicate that further studies are warranted, especially as the amount of xylitol in products continues to increase.”
Prof Dan Atar, an expert member of the ESC communication committee, who was not involved with the research, said: “Artificial sweeteners are widely embraced by modern society, and the safety ratings had been good and granted by regulatory authorities.
“In this observational work, however, it appears that xylitol has a negative long-term effect on cardiovascular events in the general population. As with all observational studies, causalities are difficult to infer, but this work shows that further studies are mandated into this societally important topic.”
Dell Stanford, a senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, a charity, said risks to heart health built up over time, and it was vital to ensure that what was being added to foods did not contribute.
Stanford said: “Artificial sweeteners such as xylitol are found in many foods and drinks, and people may assume they are the healthier choice, so consume more than they realize. This study adds to growing evidence that artificial sweeteners could have an impact on our health.
“It is important to note that this was an observational study, meaning it can only show an association between higher xylitol levels and cardiovascular events, rather than proving that xylitol directly caused them, and further research is needed. But it is not a green light to have more sugar instead, as we still need to reduce our free sugar intake.
“This study is a reminder that we all need to reduce our intake of processed foods and drinks that are often high in sugar, salt or sweeteners, and focus on a balanced diet to help protect our hearts.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/aug/28/sweetener-xylitol-used-in-chewing-gum-and-jam-linked-to-strokes-and-heart-attacks-study?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
Oriana:
Does it mean ordinary table sugar (made up of molecules of glucose and fructose) is a better choice? Since AI is increasingly becoming our health guru, let us check with it:
“High sugar consumption significantly increases the risk of stroke and heart attack by promoting weight gain, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and chronic inflammation.”
And your mother was right: sugar does rot your teeth.
Erythritol has also been linked to higher risk of stroke and heart attack. So far, the safest artificial sweetener seems to be allulose. It’s found in nature, especially in figs, raisins, and maple syrup. Using too much of it may result in bloating, a minor discomfort without lethal side effects.
“Chemically, allulose is similar to fructose, which is found naturally in fruits. “It’s roughly 70% as sweet as sugar, so it tastes very similar. After being absorbed in the small intestines, it’s rapidly excreted, and therefore, has minimal contribution to your daily caloric intake.” (https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-is-allulose)
But the use of allulose is relatively recent. The safest choice: don’t crave sweetness. It’s surprisingly easy to live without sweeteners of any sort — unless some fruit, and even fruit should be consumed in moderation. 
*
THE BENEFITS OF EGGS
For years, eggs got a bad rap. That’s mostly because they contain saturated fat and cholesterol, and people worried about their health effects. However, recent studies have debunked the myth that eggs are linked to cardiovascular disease, and eggs now appear to be neutral or slightly beneficial for lipid profiles in most healthy adults. “The old philosophy that eggs raise cholesterol has been found to be outdated,” Berjis says.
Some of the main nutrient benefits of eggs include:
Protein: Eggs are packed with protein, which can slow digestion and curb cravings, Wright says. “Over time, that can help with appetite regulation.”
Vitamin D: Eggs are one of just a few foods that naturally contain vitamin D, which helps you absorb calcium. The vitamin is essential for bone health, mental health, and mood.
Choline: This is “great for brain health,” Berjis says. Choline also supports your nervous system and cell health. Most adults do not meet the recommended intake for choline, making eggs a convenient way to help reach targets.
Vitamin B12: Two eggs give you a third of your necessary B12 for the day, Wright says. The vitamin is “essential for making red blood ells, keeping nerves healthy, and supporting energy metabolism,” she adds.
Antioxidants: For example, the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin support eye health, Berjis says.
“Most people notice they stay fuller for longer thanks to the protein and healthy fats,” says Sahar Berjis, R.D., a registered dietitian and founder of Inner Health and Wellness. “Some report more steady energy throughout the day.” The stabilized energy is likely due to the B vitamins, as well as choline, which is crucial for mood, memory, and brain and nervous system function, Wright says.
“I love the idea of eating eggs every day,” says Berjis, who recommends choosing organic and cage-free eggs. “For most healthy individuals, eggs can absolutely be part of a daily routine.”
One egg per day is a “solid guideline for the general population,” Wright says. Two a day may be recommended for older people, active individuals, and those with higher protein needs, but one's risk of heart disease should be considered as well.
“Eating more than that occasionally isn’t harmful for most, but consistently eating four or more a day may not be ideal for those with diabetes, high cholesterol, or a family history of heart disease,” she explains. Most recent guidelines do not strictly limit egg intake for these groups, but individual context matters.
Lastly, don’t rely on eggs alone as your only protein source. Wright suggests balancing your intake with other proteins, such as fish, beans, or nuts.
Some people may notice bloating and stomach discomfort when they eat eggs too frequently, which could be a sign of an egg sensitivity, Berjis says.
How to eat more eggs
Beyond health, Berjis says eggs are “quick, budget-friendly, and incredibly versatile.” She says she loves a “veggie-packed scramble”— eggs with sautéed spinach, tomatoes, and onions, and topped with avocado. “It’s fast, colorful, and makes you feel like you’ve already checked the ‘eat your veggies’ box by breakfast.”
Incorporating veggies adds “extra fiber, vitamins, and minerals to the protein-rich base of eggs,” says Wright, who also recommends snacking on hard-boiled eggs sprinkled with everything-bagel seasoning.
Other easy ways to incorporate eggs include tossing them into salads, whipping up a frittata, or simply scrambling them, she suggests.
*
ending on beauty:
WILD IRIS
Here’s what slipped into my heart:
that crested yellow tongue
down the runway of parched truth:
and those petals’ pulsing blue,
the excitable color of now:
like coming on a meadow of wild iris.
Long ago in dank woods,
I blundered on a dell
of lilies-of-the valley:
white lovers palm to palm
between leaves. That’s why God
must be forgiven, and why Dante puts
those who weep when they should
rejoice in a muddy pocket of hell
near the wood of suicides. After youth’s
‘love is pain’, that blue-purple flight.
On Non-Judgment Day,
in the Valley
of Saved Moments,
I will bloom, the wildest iris.
~ Oriana
