Cumberland Falls, Cumberland Falls State Park, Honeybee/Corbin, Kentucky

**PLEASE NOTE** - I use no other social media and my comments are closed due to persistent harassment and impersonation by one individual - sorry :(

Thursday, June 30, 2022

Ahhh, Peace at Last ... :)


I wrote the earlier post this morning (and this one) while waiting for the fog to clear, after reading my emails and the news from Lexington.  

Big mistake - because this place is instant peace when you arrive, I can't explain it - and I need to get back to that  :)

Writing to you from the beautiful mountains of North Carolina, which is also a red state, but with a nearby town which is a tiny, bright-blue dot, hippified, college town, proudly displaying their pride flags, surrounded by a sea of red - and of course, the mountains as well - making it rare see the red people (or anyone) or maybe just  makes them easier to deal with lol.

So closing my laptop now, as the fog is clearing (pictures were taken last night) - going to sit on that balcony, now, and eat our breakfast from Melanie's restaurant, listening to the birds and the occasional donkey bray from the farm next door,  up the hill (2nd pic)  - forgetting all about Roe V Wade, Jan 6, for a while - more later  :)


PS - "Hot Tub Rehab "

5+ hours of driving is a killer on bad backs and necks, plus Mark hurt his knee a couple of weeks ago - and the perfect thing for that is a morning that begins at 67 degrees (now 81 degrees at noon, considered unusually hot for June) in a hot tub with multiple jets, with this view ...

Nothing but the the sound of birdsong and bubbles - perfect :) 

Spending this first day just chillin' ... :)

Parkette Drive-In: So Remember When I Wrote About Our Increasingly Aggressive, Trumpified Experiences at a Lexington Landmark Diner? (Link Below)


Here is that post.

I didn't say the name, at the time, but now that it's closed - it was Parkette Diner and Drive-In, a Lexington landmark for 70 years, one of the last of its kind, an old 50s style drive-in and diner.

It just closed yesterday, without warning, due to its lease not being renewed.  The employees showed up and couldn't get in. 

This is actually the second article on the subject from the Lexington Herald Leader, when people asked why (white Trumper people? lol)

So the official reason given, though the business was profitable even through COVID, they lost business and money in 2022, which they're blaming on inflation and gas prices.

Note the LHL's article says the business admits that they were still doing well until 2022, they past few months.

Okay, maybe it's inflation - but despite being a diner, it's mostly known as a Drive-In, which means people ate in their cars, so we can't blame COVID too much - and you said you were doing well until 2022 despite COVID so?

Or maybe it was mocking your customers wearing masks, the loud-mouthed Karen manager openly making racist comments and denouncing liberals (who refused to argue back with you and still tipped you 25%) in a town that is 63% blue?

(Though it feels like less, my fellow liberals here are so weak.)

I can't speak for everyone, but we used to eat there every Friday until the final aggressive, rude politically driven experience, the last of several straws, letting us know mask-wearers and liberals weren't welcome there.

We stopped eating there, every Friday, after that final experience, which was the final straw - and I bet we weren't alone.

You can blame inflation, gas prices, and Biden all you want, and maybe that played a part - but the fact is, you can't mock your customers for wearing masks, allow your loud-mouthed Karen manager openly make racist statements and denounce liberals (though we never argued back), and implement sudden new policies when you suspect your customers are liberals - and then when they still tip you 25%, complain they didn't round up to the next dollar  - and expect your business to do well.

Likely, your aggressive Trump politics and mocking your liberal customers in a city that is 63% blue didn't help you, now didn't it?  (Though it feels like less than 63% because the liberals here are weak.)

You cannot run a business and expect to do well when you aggressively serve politics along with your food and are rude to/mock your customers that disagree with you, or you even think they do, for wearing a mask.

It is sad, but I grieved its loss with that that last experience - the Parkette we once knew died in about 2016.

And the saddest thing about it is that they're going to walk away blaming inflation and Biden, instead of themselves :(

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

Rocky Start: Be Forewarned if Renting a Car, This Summer ...

 So we rented a car to do some running around, this 4th of July week, to save on mileage.  We rented from Budget Rent-A-Car, whom I've rented from before, pre-COVID.

I rented a "mid-size SUV, Mazda CX-5 or similar, fits 5 people," which looks like this ... 

Instead, we got this little roller skate - a Buick Encore  ...

Cute, but it only fits 4 people, with no luggage space.

Me:  "Okay, so ... our reservation says, right here, "Mid-size SUV, Mazda CX-5 or similar, fits 5 people.  The Buick Encore is a subcompact SUV."  
Ticket counter Agent "Yeah, that's what Budget calls a mid-size SUV." 


Me:  "Okay, question - what SUV is smaller than a Buick Encore?  Everyone else, including Ford themselves, calls it their subcompact SUV." 


Ticket Counter Agent:  "Nothing is smaller, but that's what car-rental companies consider a mid-size SUV." 


Me:  "But ... the name "mid-size" implies there are smaller SUVs - but as you just agreed, nothing is smaller than a Buick Encore.  And it doesn't fit five people. " 


Ticket Counter Agent:  "Technically, it does, but ..." 


Me:  "A 2-year-old in a really skinny car seat?" lol  


Ticket Counter Agent"Lol, true. "


Me:  "Okay, so I know you don't make the policies, but anything we can do about that?  It's not as advertised." 


Ticket Counter Agent:  "Nope, sorry.  I just work here.  Rental car companies call sizes differently than the car companies.  


Me:  "That's funny, they didn't use to, before COVID.  Nice little scam they've got going, way to unnecessarily stick it to people during inflation and COVID. Okay, I guess we'll need an upgrade then."

I had to shush my husband, who was about to blow a gasket, so as not to get extra charges when we brought it back.

Though wrong, I'm not about to act like a Karen, so I just upgraded to a Ford Edge, which is a true, mid-size SUV, for $35 a day more, which is what they are hoping you'll do.

I have never in my life had any problems with renting cars before, this is pure exploitation with COVID and inflation.

So just be forewarned ... 

Cassidy Hutchinson: Bravest Woman - Bravest PERSON - in America?

... and then God - and women - volleyed back :)

Cassidy Hutchinson was understandably nervous, and yet still remarkably calm, articulate, detailed, and very credible/believable.

Whether coincidence, or Cassidy just said "Oh, hell, no," after that  extra slap in the face of Roe Vs. Wade overturn, on top of everything else she'd seen, doesn't matter - emergency committee session regardless, and  ...

Take THIS, b*tches ... 

Trump repeatedly throwing food during temper tantrums, foreknowledge of armed insurrection and likelihood of violence, wanted to lower security scanning for the crowds -  demanding to join the insurrection himself and trying to grab the steering wheel from the secret-service agent driver -  assaulting that secret-service agent by trying to choke him (that agent being present in the courtroom), witness tampering - the kind of stuff we already knew was going on/went on with Trump, we just wanted someone to be brave enough to confirm it under oath. 

Journalists cannot help but smirk, late-night talk show hosts went nuts - this is what we've all been waiting for.

If true, Brava, Cassidy, and thank you - you are not just the bravest woman in America, you are the bravest person in America - for doing for conscience and country what the men  around you were too afraid to do/could not. 

Because we women know there are several forms of bravery - and women are much more accustomed regularly making sacrifices, every day  - their careers, even their own safety  - to protect and safeguard what's most important - their children, the truth, and now, democracy itself?  :)

Of course, the mountains of damning evidence and testimony at this trial should mean the Justice Department investigates and files charges - and yet still, will that matter?

Tuesday, June 28, 2022

Comedian Chelsea Handler Asks the GOP to Rethink Use of the Term "Pro-Life" - GOP Hypocrisy on Federal Mandates for Abortion VS. Guns (School Shootings),

Along the same lines I mentioned in my last post, the irony (and hypocrisy) of the Republican Party supposedly being the party of small federal government, but in reality, cherry-picking what they want the federal government to enforce in our private lives  - including the "right" to own and use an AR-15, the weapon of choice for mass shooters of school children -  I give you comedian/former late-night talk show host, Chelsea Handler, filling in for Jimmy Kimmel while on vacation :)

"I'd probably have more rights if my vagina were an AR-15"

~ Chelsea Handler

Seriously - I've mentioned my own position on abortion below, which in an oversimplified nutshell is "Pro-Choice, but it depends" - on the circumstances and on who's paying for it, public or private money -  due to the potential for abuse by either government agencies themselves along racial lines or the clients themselves" ...

 ... but at least one is a humane surgical procedure VS. the terrorization and murder of innocent ex-uteri school children with a weapon that shouldn't even be in civilian hands at all?!?

She also included some great signs found during the protests:  

"Don't like abortions?  Ignore them, like you ignore school shootings."

"You didn't like wearing masks - imagine being forced to have a baby."

"Pregnancy begins with a penis - regulate THAT ... Fallopians 13:13"


Awesome, Ladies - well done!

OMG, all so true ... 

Sunday, June 26, 2022

Revisiting "Iron Jawed Angels" ...


Before I begin, I want to make my own position clear.

There are very few things in life that are black or white, always or never,  either/or - and abortion is definitely NOT one of those things.

There are extenuating circumstances - circumstances that states like mine have ignored entirely, passing their laws immediately after the overturn of Roe Vs. Wade -  controlling the decision as if they -  the omnipotent and omniscient government -  can make better decisions regarding private and personal family issues than women themselves can, and not just some women - ALL women.

Ironic that the Republican Party - supposedly the party of small government - would be cheering on federal control and "banning" of  personal, private family choices, isn't it?. 

Though I chose to have my child, I used to be full-on Pro-Choice, but after witnessing two women have their publicly funded fifth and sixth abortions as a form of birth control and laugh about it, actually celebrate it - it made me sick to my stomach and gave me pause on my tax money going always going towards all publicly-funded abortions.

I want to be clear that this is NOT the norm - every other woman I know who has ever had an abortion - which is in the dozens - toiled over the decision and were extremely sad afterwards, and some were haunted - and anyone that tells you otherwise is exaggerating for political purposes or has never known personally any woman who ever made this decision, likely a man, who has no understanding of women at all (and no true interest in understanding women).

And yet those two were enough to give me pause as far as public funding.

Also, learning that hundreds of Native American women were given forced abortions and full hysterectomies, without their permission/consent in the 1970s, abusing Roe Vs. Wade for racist/genocidal purposes -  this also gave me pause as far as  my tax money/public funding always going towards abortion as well.

Thus, I am still Pro-Choice - BUT - out of concern of the potential for abuse of these services - either by government agencies along racial/genocidal lines (i.e., Native Americans in the 1970s) OR their clients - I would like my tax money/public funding for abortions to be limited to such extenuating circumstances - i.e., rape and incest - especially of a minor - risk of death or adverse health event of mother or child, severe deformities/disabilities of the child resulting in chronic suffering, mentally challenged or mentally ill women who lack a clear understanding of their condition, drug addiction, domestic violence, abject poverty, or any other extenuating circumstances that arise.

For other reasons, I believe commercial insurance and privately-funded organizations - including clinics themselves - can step in for any other reasons and that this is a personal, private, and spiritual family choice. 

But unfortunately, we no longer have either of those options, for any of those extenuating circumstances in the State of Kentucky at all - with the exception of potential death of mother or child. 

For those truly motivated by feeling you must protect the life of the unborn, I respect your valid opinion - HOWEVER -  we must ALL do a better job of learning to better recognize the many others drawn to /hiding behind pro-life arguments who aren't motivated by the life of the unborn at all -  they're motivated by either the fear of/need to control the behavior and choices of women or pure misogyny, residual cultural rot in our society - much like racists are drawn to/hide behind otherwise valid arguments of the Republican party.

Given the voraciousness and venom, we witnessed, in the right-wing press and their fear of a "night of rage" and falsely reporting "chaos in the streets" when women peacefully protested the Roe Vs. Wade overturn, I was immediately reminded of the history of the suffragette,  Alice Paul, who was ultimately responsible for the passage of the 19th amendment - the right for women to vote.

Though suffragette predecessors, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, get most of the credit - who are not without their merit and still should receive some accolade for being the first American suffragettes - it was really what happened to Alice Paul that resulted in the passage of the amendment.

Alice broke with the mainstream suffragettes, in that she felt their efforts were pandering, and that they spent most their time talking, but doing little, accomplishing little.

Thus, she and Lucy Burns, and a few other women, decided to picket outside of the White House every day for nearly a year, with banners and signs. 

They held their heads high, with such resolve, determination, and dignity, press and politicians began to call them "The Iron-Jawed Angels."  

It was meant as an insult, but the suffragettes embraced it - much like many have embraced "nasty women" today :)

Most of the post-Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton suffragettes distanced themselves from them, considering them radical.

Though peacefully protesting, Woodrow Wilson and cabinet tried to find various ways to get them arrested or sent to mental institutions for crimes such as trespassing or treason, to no avail - they were  on public property and they were not protesting against the government - they were asking to be included in making government decisions.  

Additionally, the quotes on the signs were quotes from Woodrow Wilson himself about liberty.

One November 9th, 1909, the women were picketing, and the women had a barrel fire to keep warm.  Alice began reading quotes from Wilson about the looming war and liberty, throwing them into the fire, to symbolize the words were meaningless for women.

A crowd of mostly men began to form, though women were present too, just as angry as the men.

A few men began grabbing and beating the women, tearing their signs, and became a full-on riot, while the police allowed it.  Amid the chaos, the police arrested just the women, including Alice, for "obstruction of traffic."

Recreation of that event from the movie "Iron-Jawed Angels" ...

While in prison - for "obstructing traffic" - Alice organized a hunger strike, and was thus carted off to a mental ward, strapped down, and force-fed with a feeding tube shoved down her throat ... 

Never mind that Gandhi was employing the same hunger-strike tactic, at this time, for independence from the UK  - but nobody sent Gandhi to a mental institution, strapped him down, and forced a tube down a throat to force-feed him :/

In the end, after notes were passed from prisoners or asylum inmates to husbands of their treatment, the press caught wind of what was happening to Alice Paul.

Also, the psychiatrist whom Wilson's cabinet personally assigned, under the guises/orders of the district commissioner, supposed to assess her as insane, found her to be quite the opposite, and refused to do so, after she delivered essentially this speech ... 

After which the psychiatrist utters the best line in this film ...

"In women, courage is often mistaken for insanity."

Let that sink in a minute - the POTUS, Woodrow Wilson, and his cabinet, tried to gaslight and pronounce insane suffragettes to to discredit and silence them. 

Thus, there was a massive public outcry - including the prior women suffragettes who distanced themselves from her for being "too radical" - and out of pressure from every angle, now - Woodrow Wilson thus set in motion the drafting of 19th amendment, which was passed in 1919  ... giving women the right to vote.

I still see shades of remnants of that antiquated mentality today, don't you?

As a woman, you're not allowed to be mad or protest.  If you speak up too loudly, or at all,  you're an out-of-control monster that needs to be imprisoned or sent to an insane asylum.  

And above all, whatever happens reproductively, it is always your responsibility and your fault.

And unfortunately, women enable this mentality themselves out of competition or wanting to be viewed as more "sane" and "proper" as opposed to other women - to include themselves now using the misogynistic tactic of gaslighting with each other - or out of fear of rocking the boat too much themselves. 

Flash forward to a century later.

5 men and 1 woman decided that not just some women - but ALL women - could not be trusted with their own family decisions and that state government needed to step in and make those decisions FOR them.

And when they peacefully protested about it, right-wing press falsely called it a "night of rage" and "Chaos in the streets."

Have we evolved as a society at all, in a century?

RBG and Alice Paul are rolling in their graves - liberty indeed :(

Saturday, June 25, 2022

A Sexist/Political Bias Test - Which is Scarier to You?

Hey - let's play a fun game to find out how sexist, politically biased and/ even possibly racist you are!  (Because this test includes all 3)

And women, you can play, too, to see how much you enable sexism yourselves! ;)

Ready?  Okay!

So which is scarier to you?

A)  A young white man - QA Shaman, Jacob Churnley -  illegally breaking in to the Capitol Building,   wearing bull horns, carrying a spear and weaponizing the flag by placing it on that spear,  letting out a primal scream, looking and sounding like some kind of wild animal.


B)  A young Latino woman - AOC -  legally standing outside  the Supreme Court building, with signs in protest and chanting, occasionally using a bullhorn  so women's  voices can be better heard, wearing a pink blazer?


If you chose B as being scarier than A, what is the scariest aspect to you?

1) She is female.  
2) She is Latino.  
3) She's a Democrat

If you answered a combination of 2 or 3 of those things, let's break it down.

Which is the scariest aspect - female, Latino, or Democrat?

So if you chose B as being scarier than A, then yes - definitely sexist, as well as politically biased, because protest should be okay not only for both genders, but both political sides - if done peacefully and legally - it's what this country was founded upon.

Also, if her being Latino ever entered your assessment, then tack on racist tendencies as well.

But more than that -  if you can't see that the actions of A were terroristic and illegal forms of protest, then you ain't right in the head lol - sorry.

Again, considering cops showed up in riot gear the moment the decision was made, and the press-pushed anticipation that women would "rage" even worse than Jan 6 - which didn't happen, by the way lol -  it DOES make you wonder ...

Was this decision really about right to life/abortion - or lingering cultural remnant of the fear of/need to control women?

And again, Republicans in power wanted you to riot/insurrect, because doing so would distract from/undermine the case against Trump and Jan 6.

Good job, ladies for NOT doing this!

(Crossing fingers that no one will now lol)

Except according to Fox News, it was a "night of rage" and "chaos in the streets" - which their gullible followers will of course believe without question - despite the fact that even Fox News's own pictures and videos only show peaceful protests LOL!!! 

Friday, June 24, 2022

Continue to Protest Peacefully, People - Republicans WANT You to Riot/Enter Government Buildings Like Jan 6th, Here's Why ....


... because doing so would undermine the Jan 6th case ;)

So far, brava, ladies, for keeping your protests peaceful - despite cops showing up in riot gear the moment the decision was made - apparently desperately hoping that Democrat women will now riot/break into government buildings/destroy government property over it?  ;) 

Republicans are just salivating with hope that Democrat "nasty" women will riot, enter government buildings, and steal or destroy government property, so that they can appear less criminal/more justified for January 6th, only for different political reasons, aren't they?

In other words,  forget about those mostly white-male, rage-filled nuts that broke into the Capitol Building on January 6th, inexplicably wearing things like bull horns, using flags as weapons, mowing down police, and stealing and destroying government property.

Because apparently, what's even scarier/worse than THAT, according to Republicans, is a group of angry women, of all races, walking down the street with signs, singing or shouting into bull horns  (instead of wearing them) so their voices may be heard! ;)

The fact that they're anticipating women to riot worse than the men, cops showing up in riot gear right after the decision was made, does make you wonder - is this decision really about abortion or is it about a need to control women?

In fact, I strongly suspect that's why both SCOTUS decisions were suddenly made this week and so extremist - because the most damning Jan 6th evidence yet was presented.

They want you to riot and stoop to their same January 6th level, (which is why cops showed up riot gear the moment the decision was made) -  not just as distraction, but because it would appear to justify their same actions on January 6 for different political reasons.

That way, if the Justice Department filed charges just for Jan 6th, without charges for any of the same actions today, it will appear politically biased and undermine the Justice Department's authority  - see whatta mean?


(Not sure if I explained that well, it's late, but hopefully you get the gist - if not, I'll fix it later lol.)

They're playing a game - the only way to win is not to play.

DON'T. DO. IT - they're not worth it.

Take your walk, then walk away - save your fight for another day, the right way - please?




Fox News's website front page calling it a "Night of Rage" and "Chaos in the Streets" and an "Attempted Insurrection." 

Really, Fox News?

Where is this happening?

Because your own pictures and videos show people just marching with signs, and at most shouting LOL

Ooooh, aren't women scary? ;)

We get it Fox News and Republicans - you're terrified of women, especially if they get angry, which is human, and imagine if they do, all hell will break loose? 

See whatta mean, folks?

They're hoping for an insurrection by the left because it would undermine the January 6th, make it seem less criminal  ;)

So don't take the bait, Ladies - it's what they wan.

Plus you know if you step anywhere close to how the men behave, that "crime" will be considered 20,000x worse in public perception, because you don't have a penis ;) 

Holy ... Whatever ... SCOTUS Just Overturned Roe Vs. Wade! May God Have Mercy on These Women (And So Should We)

(*Edited - content added, PS added)

After which, we received word by our local news that the Kentucky Supreme Court just banned abortion nearly entirely, from the moment of conception 


The only exception is the potential of death for mother or child.

If a doctor is found to perform an abortion under any other circumstances, it's a Class D felony and he or she will go to prison.

Unclear on what happens to women who travel to get abortion or abortion providers in other states or internet providers of "abortion pills."

Thus, with variance only by states - those states similarly prohibiting abortion entirely (or with the above only exception) - the United States now joins just 24 countries in which abortion is either entirely or nearly entirely illegal.  These 24 countries are all considered "third world," and are found in the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin and South America.

Regardless, either way this decision went should never be cause for celebration.

The decision to terminate a life due to extenuating circumstances is  tragic and sad - celebration of doing so is wildly inappropriate, deeply immoral, and horrifying.


Just as horrifying, wildly inappropriate, and deeply immoral is celebrating the federal government allowing state laws that deny abortion to victims of rape or incest  - even if a minor child  - as well as automatically sentence tens of of thousands of women and their babies to a life of abject poverty, as there is no plan for their provision or support  -  a situation which should be equally tragic and sad.

Thus, if you were to celebrate either way, I would suggest you give your moral compass a swift kick, because it's definitely on the blink.

And as hard as "splitting" or black-or-white thinkers try to simplify the issue of abortion as either always morally wrong or always morally right, it is almost never that simple - there are gray areas and extenuating circumstances that should be considered. 

As for me, my thoughts went first to my (Great) Aunt Marie - happily married  to my grandmother's brother, my (Great) Uncle Bob - who was once an engineer on the Panama Canal. 

She became pregnant in the 30s, during The Great Depression, and though they both wanted children, she had a medical condition (no one is certain now, but suspected to be kidney issues), in which they were told by several doctors, in second, third, and fourth opinions, that she would die if she didn't have an abortion - and thus had a back-alley abortion.

She nearly died from it, but then when she recovered, the entire family shunned her - so she killed herself -
trying to prove it wasn't because she valued her own life more than the unborn child's life, but so as both not to leave the child motherless and burden her husband during The Great Depression.

And yet still, though much beloved until this happened - not a single soul went to her funeral but Bob :(

(Who later cut ties with the family completely.)

Then my thoughts went next to a recent revelation, finding out a little more than a week ago that my never-married (Great) Aunt Elizabeth  had a daughter which she gave up for adoption in 1943, when she was an Army Corps nurse in WW2.

She must have watched Marie's situation in horror, hoping to never be in it herself - but now understanding, having to make that choice herself - because unlike Marie, she was unmarried.

So she made a different choice, which was no doubt no less painful.  

She carried that child for nine months in hiding, then gave her up for adoption, believing she would have a better life.

The family was apparently so ashamed that they never spoke of it again, taking this secret to their graves, so we're only finding out just now, 80 years later, when contacted by her daughter through a genealogist, who didn't know herself until she took a DNA test.

(This explains why certain members of the family barely spoke to my aunt.)

The timing of this revelation is almost too coincidental, right?

And then finally, I think of myself ...

One family member threatening to never speak to me again if I didn't get an abortion, the rest of the family pressuring me not to.

In the end, of course, I didn't - but still accusations made that I got pregnant on purpose, that I was slut  - despite living with the father and never cheated, but clinically depressed and not remembering to take my pills properly - the usual stuff, none of it true.

Much shame and blame, all excuses to justify themselves from not helping me, by family (except my grandmother) -  that I've never really gotten over. 

So I think what men - and women who've never been in these situations - don't understand is, this decision is almost never taken lightly, we literally toil over it.

Regardless, in the end, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't -  keep it, give it up for adoption, or abort it -  you WILL still be shamed and there WILL be pain.

The mere fact that you got pregnant at all outside of marriage can get you shamed, falsely accused, and shunned for life socially,  and immediately thrown into poverty - and don't you dare go on welfare for help (though it isn't much anyway).

Thus, I'm literally crying now ... for my Great-Aunts, for myself, for ALL women ... because the manner in which this was done - no consideration of extenuating circumstances or plan for financial assistance -  feels like yet another a scarlet-letter, shaming punishment for ALL women.

It will especially be a punishment for women so desperate that they get one anyway, an unsafe one, in some back alley, or will be thrown in jail of they travel outside of the state to get one.

While the men get no consequences - pats on the back,  assumptions that the woman has loose morals and seduced him, or that she was trying to trap him into marriage, etc., and thus pity - from both men and women - then finding multiple excuses not to pay child support or lie about how much they make and how much they have to pay.


Okay - so it's done regardless, it is what it is.

So then like I've said before, those happy with this decision need to be thinking now about how to be best support these women to raise these children - both financially and emotionally, with both publicly and private funding, including for child care while women work  - instead of continuing to assume, shame, and abandon them - for the love of God?

And if you aren't prepared to do support these women in those ways, then maybe you should've thought of that before voted/cheered this on?

And if you're a woman, if you're making assumptions about these women being irresponsible sluts, trying to trap men into marriage or  trying to get on welfare (which isn't much - try about $200 a month per child) - you're not helping, and you're not making yourself look better with most people - in fact, the only thing you're accomplishing is adding on extra shame to what they already feel.



You know what I think we should do?

I think every woman in America should walk out of work for at least one day, at least until rape and incest - especially of a minor - are included as exceptions in these state abortion bans.

Let them see how much their precious businesses depend on the voices and work of women to run ;)

New Federal Gun-Reform Law (With the Potential to be Invalidated by the SCOTUS Now) ....

Speaking of the  SCOTUS not waiting for the final Senate vote on the gun-reform law ...

The Bipartisan Gun Control bill passed (though it doesn't do much, and I worry about the "red flag" laws being abused, especially for people of color).

Nevertheless, congratulations, Sandy Hook Promise, to whom I donate, and whom I know worked tirelessly on  this! :)

Also, thank you ... I guess ... to the Senators from my state, Mitch McConnell (despite threats from Trump) and Rand Paul, for doing the right thing, for a change.

UNLESS - you two were tipped off by your conservative power circle about the SCOTUS ruling and knew the precedent set could potentially override and invalidate this new law as well, hmm? 

My guess is, based on both your swamp-turtle track records, you probably did know how SCOTUS was going to rule -  and vice versa -  didn't ya, ya sneaky bastards? lol 

That way, you two could still get your pockets lined by the NRA lobbyists, but still save face with your constituents at the same time - all the while knowing there was a SCOTUS ruling that could  potentially invalidate the new law - is that about right? ;)

Ya know, I don't consider deviousness and duplicity, to control perception versus reality, as a form of intelligence - but lucky for you, apparently half of America does - no level is to low to stoop to ensure your side wins :/

Regardless, the SCOTUS ruling and new gun law seem to be somewhat in opposition to each other - now what? 

Well, the gun law still doesn't say you have to be licensed -  and doesn't go far enough, IMO - but?

You just know someone's gonna get busted on the gun law and then appeal it to the SCOTUS - probably several "someones" - and then the law will be invalidated as "unconstitutional," just like the NY gun law was ...


Thursday, June 23, 2022

Socially Irresponsible, Reckless, and Tone Deaf SCOTUS Decision on NY Gun Law

Just in case you don't know the background, the State of New York had passed a gun law, which required a gun owner to have a license in order to carry the gun outside the home.

The Supreme Court of the United States struck it down as unconstitutional, in a vote 6-3.

This means anyone can carry a gun anywhere - licensed or not.

So ... do they want gun fights on NYC's subways and streets - like this is the freakin' OK Corral/Wild West in the 19th century -  as well as more mass shootings schools or-?

At the very least, they should've waited on this decision until the Bipartisan Gun Control Law had been voted on in the Senate.

Completely socially irresponsible, completely reckless, and completely tone deaf decision, considering the increase in mass shootings - NUTS!

And these people are SC justices for life, mind you.


Wednesday, June 22, 2022

Dear Family - Regarding The Genealogist and Aunt Elizabeth...

(*edited content added)

Since we're not in contact, and I know that a couple of you sometimes read here, I just want to assure you that the genealogist that contacted me appears to be legit - did you check out the website?

I tested her a bit - she provided all the details about family members that we knew of, going back for some time, and even filled in some gaps for me, after I'd hit some walls while researching years ago.

I also wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that I gave M the phone number of Aunt Elizabeth's daughter, Rita, to give to mom, last week.  

M said mom was initially excited about this, but Mom has yet to call Rita or contact Sharon, the genealogist working on Rita's case? 

Sharon also said she sent letters to each of  you, but no one replied but me - did you get them?

Maybe give it a chance and talk to Sharon yourselves,  and feel free to test her?

I have never spoken with Rita directly, because as I told the genealogist, I really feel it's Mom's place first, since she was so close to Aunt 'Lizbeth and spent much more time with her, plus she met some of our older relatives in person that I didn't and can perhaps help with more details. 

I will be out of pocket for a bit on vacation soon, and will check back with the genealogist after that.

If no one has contacted them by that time, I will then speak directly with Rita and her sister and share what I know, trying to be as objective and fair as I can, but I'm afraid I'll get something wrong - so if you want to provide any memories, insights, perceptions, or help fill in any gaps yourselves, you may want to do so now.

Rita is not well and needs more health information about her biological family, too.

Otherwise, I've decided after today's post not to post any further information on what the genealogist has traced, and I also don't want to put M in the middle and keep filtering information through her.

I will be purchasing the tree she's making when completed, though.

So if you want further family heritage information, then I guess you'll need to contact the genealogist or Rita directly, at either the phone number I provided to M to give to mom or the email address listed in the letter.

I completely understand if you feel conflicted - lots of pain in this family, hard to revisit - and yet the prospect is also exciting, too.

Might be worth the risk, might not be - but we'll never know until we try, right? 

And I do think this woman deserves to know more about her biological family, and Mom is the best person to provide that info - but if you find you're unable to do so, I guess it's up to me to fill in what blanks I can, God help me lol.



My Great-Great Grandmother, Elizabeth Ishmael ...

 So I asked the genealogist who contacted me if there was a woman with the last name "Ishmael" in our family, as my older sister said she once saw that name in the family bible.  

She also said there was a star of David next to her name?

The genealogist replied that  "Elizabeth Ishmael" was my great-great grandmother, mother to Anna, who was mother to my grandmother :). 

The genealogist is checking with her client for permission to reveal heritage testing info, if there was Jewish DNA found in her testing - which I would be thrilled over :)

Now, as much as I'd LOVE it, if we found out we were Jewish, I'm skeptical - 
because even though the name "Elizabeth" is a combination of two Hebrew words (see below), during that time period, it might have been unusual for a Jewish person to have the first name of "Elizabeth" - as in the mother of John the Baptist and the cousin of Mary, Jesus's mother -  because that particular combination name can only be found in the New Testament, and with close familial ties with Christ.

However, not impossible or unheard of - especially if she converted to Christianity and changed her first name to a Christian one when Baptized - plus she was from the UK and they already had one queen with that name, by the time she was born, so who knows?

Nowadays, nobody really cares lol - Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many other faiths, even atheists, now name their children biblical names just because they like the sound of them or their meaning, or because they knew someone with that name.

But just about a century or so ago, naming someone with an historically  Christian name if you were Jewish was a no-no, or conversely, naming someone an historically Jewish first name if you were Christian was a no-no - or at least Christians picked and chose from the OT as to which names were okay, it seems?

So they're all biblical - and I get why NT biblical first names were avoided by Jewish people, that makes total sense sense.

What I don't get is why only certain Old Testament biblical names were considered once "Jewish," but other OT names weren't, with Christians of a bygone era?

Okay, so I get why the OT name "Saul" was/is avoided in general, especially by Christians - though the first King of Israel and initially started out on the right track, he became a bad dude and obsessed with killing David out of jealousy.

However, other names like  "Solomon, Benjamin, David, Rachel, Leah" - despite being revered OT biblical people by both Christians and Jews, were avoided names by Christians and once almost exclusively considered Jewish first names in America, up until like the 20th century.

It doesn't make any sense - they're all biblical, and we Christians named a lot of our kids OT first names prior to the 20th century, names like Isaac, Aaron, Samuel, Jonathan, Elijah, Noah, Jonah, Sarah, Esther, Deborah, Rebekah/Rebecca - but for whatever reason, only certain OT first names were once considered Jewish and avoided by pre-20th-century Christians versus others.

Why was that?  Weird, right?  I don't get it.

Also, although both "Eliza"  (or "Elisha," meaning "Joyful to God") and "Beth"  (meaning "Oath of God") are both Hebrew words, the actual name of "Beth" can found in combination with other words in the Talmud/OT, but the specific combination of "Eliza" and "Beth" for a specific person's name is only found in the NT, referring to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and the cousin of Mary, mother of Jesus.

Also,  the last name "Ishmael" isn't necessarily either Jewish OR Muslim - in fact, it's more likely not (see below) - but it would be super cool if it was:)

 If you're wondering how Muslim is even a possibility, remember that Abraham's two sons - Isaac from Jewish Sarah and Ishmael from  Egyptian Hagar - both were claiming birthright to his legacy.  

Thus, Isaac is considered the father of the Jewish nation and Ishmael is considered the father of the Muslim nation.  

Remember, these were Hebrew-Arabic names with meanings - so as a result, "Ishmael" as a surname can be found in both Jewish and Muslim families, and "Isaac" can be found in both Jewish and Muslim families.

(In fact, we have a Palestinian family here in Lexington with the last name of Isaacs.)

In fact, the last name of "Ishmael" is actually more common today in Muslims, because he is considered the father of the Muslim nation.)

Regardless, the surname "Ishmael" first appeared in the UK in the 12th century, when the population had increased and people began to have last names/surnames to avoid confusion. 

From what I've been reading, there were apparently at least 4 ways you could get this last name, so no way to know if UK surnames like "Enoch" "Isaac" or "Ishmael" are Anglo-Saxon, Jewish, or Muslim unless you take a DNA test (which the genealogist's client has, so I asked her, last night, and am waiting to hear back):


1)  Baptized-from-birth Christians in the UK simply began to take their father's first name as their surname/last name as the population increased  to avoid confusion. 

Kind of like the Scottish (and some Irish)  with "McGregor" (meaning "son or/heir of Gregor") or the Irish do  with names like "O'Leary" (meaning "of Leary, " though that's often location. 
Another option was to use your profession as your surname - i.e., Miller, Smith, Thatcher, etc.)

Because until late-medieval times, people didn't have or use  - and the church did not recognize - last names/surnames, only your given Christian first name that you were baptized  with.  

Thus if your father's first name was "Ishmael," an option besides using your profession as a last name was to simply take your father's first name as your surname by the 13th century on. 


2)  Christianized pagans, forcibly or not - usually forcibly.


3)  Christianized Jews, forcibly or not - usually forcibly. 


4)  Refugees or captives to the UK from Muslim territories during the Crusades and the "Reconquest"  - Christian, Jewish, and Muslim - either already Christian (like Spain) or became Christianized, forcibly or not. 

Interestingly, the last name "Ishmael" was at one time the most plentiful in the UK.

Even more interesting, most of the Ishmael descendants that came to America can be found in Kentucky :)

Also, a Jewish friend once asked me my grandmother's father's family was originally Jewish lol

I think because her maiden name is German and found in both non-Jewish and Jewish Germans, plus her family's physical  traits? 

I said I didn't think so, they were hard-core Southern Baptist, but while the genealogist is checking, might as well check my grandmother's father side too, right? lol 

That would be super cool, if we were Jewish :)

Thus, we still don't know, waiting to find out - exciting!

Monday, June 20, 2022

The Trend Towards Authoritarianism ...


Can I just say, as I watch in disbelief the irrational, unwavering, uncompromising, blind faith in Trump, that for the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could just hand over and/or willingly vote to give just one person that much power without question -  over themselves, over other people, and over all important decisions - regardless of whether they were of right or left politics?

I mean, even of the evidence wasn't staring us right in our faces that Trump willfully and knowingly tried to illegally overturn elections results in his favor - including  the breaking news story today that emails that are about to be presented before the Jan 6 committee, from official Trump campaign organizers in Georgia and Michigan, appear to suggest that official Trump campaign officials were behind those "fake electors" that we heard about that showed up in the swing states to certify the election and were rebuffed (which we were told were random whack jobs, at the time) ...

Even if we didn't sit here and listen to Republican witness after Republican witness -  from his own Republican White House Staff,  mind you -  swearing by oath on a bible that they told him he'd lost, as well as that his threatening Pence to overturn the election results were illegal ... 

Never would I ever pledge that much unwavering blind faith, support, and power to any politician, even if he hadn't done those things - right, left, or in between - but especially now that it's so clear that he did those things.

I mean, do they not know their history or how each type of government system works? 

Do they not trust themselves to form their own opinion and critically think through issues?

Are they too lazy, or are their attention spans and memories so short, that they don't read the actual full-length signed and dated historical and legal documents for themselves, and thus are dependent on being spoon fed information by people, who dumb things down for them at a slant, or-? 

Do they honestly imagine that if they hand over that much power to  any one person, that they, themselves, will be protected, immune and safe from his volatile wrath if you so much as disagree with him? 

(Well, don't answer that, actually - I fear the answer may be "yes" to all 4 questions lol.)

History has shown us that any time that one person - a king or queen, a pharaoh, an emperor, a dictator, a president or prime minister (elected or not) - has absolute power, it's always disastrous, over time - even if one person did well, but we trusted their son or daughter would do just as well based on genetics alone lol.

I mean, look no further than the Pharaohs, the Romans, and some medieval royalty (i.e., the Hapsburgs)  for what disastrous physical and mental deformities resulted from the consequences of too much inbreeding, due to false beliefs about "genetic superiority." 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Which is why although not perfect, democracy, at least as an ideal, is best.

That is why we replaced the one-person systems we have into Republics, with a Congress or Parliament to balance our president, PM, or monarch.

It's why we have state or province to balance federal government.

It's why we have a board of shareholders to balance the CEO.

It's why we have business teams or departments to handle different aspects of business, in both corporate and privately owned business.

It's even why we have both and mother and father, to provide balance in the family (despite many still believing only the father should be in charge).

Because no one human being is ever an expert on everything and thus should not have absolute power over everything.

So considering no one person ever knows all, why on earth would anyone automatically treat any single politician's word as almost an edict of God and gospel truth, without even questioning it?

That is cult mentality - and I know it has something to do with an individual's ability to manipulate a person, using their fears against them, and eventually  into scapegoating blame, anger, and hatred of others, as well as being the followers being the sort of people who  have to been spoon-fed what to think and led, allowing their fears and beliefs to "trump" their intellect and fact/proof - but it's scary how easily it's done and how many are subject to that sort of manipulation, isn't it? 

I mean, I just wonder if they ever do what I do, with people I voted for or organizations that I believe in -  like say Biden. our governor, or let's even say the CDC, and go "Now, wait a minute, hold up, not so fast ... I don't know if that's true/a good idea/ going to work"

I mean, for God sakes, although I respect the expertise of the CDC, they were panicking/jumping the gun during COVID on their guidelines, churning out information like every two days,  sometimes contradicting themselves, and it was like "Okay, CDC - why don't we just put a pin in that for a at least a week or so, so we can make sure first, before you publish guidelines that are completely at odds with the ones you just published two days ago, and perhaps let's make them less granular and more streamlined/easier to follow?"  lol

But at least when it comes to Trump followers - nope - always true, always right, never questioned - even thought they've never actually met the guy, and he actually has done absolutely nothing that benefits them personally (except make them angrier and more paranoid than ever).

I just don't understand this type of blind loyalty, it's just - super weird.