I Have Been Waiting Almost 40 Years for this Day!

 

Senate Minority Leader, Republican Senator from my state of Kentucky, Elitist Behind-the-Scenes Puppet Master, and Chief Swamp Turtle in Charge, Mitch McConnell, is stepping down!

WAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 

Oh, but wait a second - this likely means some MAGAT will take his place as our state's senator, so I won't celebrate too much, because we will likely get even worse.  Can't believe that there IS worse than Cocaine Mitch, but there is.

I would pause to celebrate anyway, because his poor health lately may be playing a role and I don't wish anyone ill health.

Then again, the man has tried to defund Medicare and Medicaid for years, as well as railed against government-provided healthcare insurance for decades.

Thus, all I have to say to him now is "Hope your federal pension covers the costs of skyrocketing premiums and out-of-pocket healthcare and pharmaceuticals for ... whatever your problem is ... and don't let the Capitol doors hit you in the arse on the way out!" 🤣

Daniel "Uncle Tom" Cameron was his groomed protege since high school, but he's currently Attorney General for our state.  We shall see what happens. 

For now let's enjoy this moment! 

WOOOOOHOOOOO!

PS - Hey, Alabama SC - Rendering Justice VS. "God's Wrath" - "What About the Love (of God)?"

*Edited - content added.

(The title of this post refers to an old Amy Grant song, actually written by 60s folk singer, Janis Ian, which I've included at the bottom of this post with lyrics.)

So another fertility clinic has stopped doing IVF treatments after the Alabama SC ruling.

Apparently, the basis for this ruling is preventing embryos from being destroyed, even though they're only destroyed if there is a problem with the fertilization and the embryo is not viable anyway; otherwise, all are inserted in hopes of even one attaching to the uterus instead of being sloughed out.

I read in the NYT today, that even most anti-abortion, Christian Republicans find this ruling strange, as well as government overreach. 

You know, not everybody is a Christian - and preventing couples from having children because the woman has had trouble getting pregnant and/or miscarrying is NOT the way to draw more people to Christ! 

In fact, it's a sure-fire way to "shut the door of kingdom of heaven in people's faces," as Christ warned the Pharisees about.

Also, you're enforcing just your interpretations of the bible onto everyone - which is what many of our ancestors came to America to escape from!

So also in that NYT article, I'm reading the asinine things that a few if my overly-literal fellow Christians are saying, and so I'm really questioning their ability to understand the bible, and why they continually fail to negate the entire NT and Christ's own words in favor of the OT.

But then again, even Paul had trouble with that, after Christ. He kept waffling between OT law and Christ, often choosing OT law to please the Pharisees, to keep himself alive longer (which is something Christ would never do.)

But they're saying things like quoting Proverbs 31-8: “Speak up for those who have no voice.”

Erm - do you think Solomon meant only those who are mute or unborn children?  

Pretty sure he did  NOT mean just people literally without a physical voice, but also poor, oppressed, vulnerable people without representation or power, and Christ, our actual Messiah,  said the same, by the way.

But if you're such a fan of that verse, then why aren't you speaking up for  marginalized groups like people of color?

And particularly in this case, what about speaking up for WOMEN, of both political parties, who had no voice in this?!?

But instead, you vilify and scapegoat these groups without power or money for all societal problems, now even making up stories to make it appear that they do have power and rule the world, trying to justify your racism, classism, and bigotry?!?

Why do y'all continually quote the OT and negate Christ, when you do merciless stuff like this, misapplying/failing to apply these verses equally and fairly?

Then I read Chief Justice Parker's own words, on some backwoods Tennessee preacher's broadcast say:  “Life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”

Of course quoting the OT and Genesis that life was created in God's image, but then added his own stuff, like"Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

Really? 

Where is that in the bible, exactly?

Yes, we were made in God's image, but that doesn't make US holy; otherwise, why would there be a choice to to choose God and Christ or not?

Do you mean the lives of people of color,  too?

Jews and Muslims, too?

Do you mean killing by taking part in wars that we have no business being in and dirty actions we've taken like killing even innocent citizens trying to win these wars? 

Do you mean the death penalty?

Because I don't think you do, based on how you vote.

Where IS God's wrath for destroying life, because I haven't seen it?

In fact, no one has seen God's wrath since the Old Testament,  and there may be a NT scriptural reason for that (see verse below). 

Also, he doesn't seem to actually intervene with justice, and Christ never promised he would - just that we should seek it.

But since y'all are such fans of the OT and Paul re-adhering to it, here is one possible reason why nobody has seen God's fire-and-brimstone wrath since the Old Testament: 

"Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Christ redeemed us from God's wrath for us with his death, and if we sin - according to whomever's interpretation of scripture and sin - all we need to do is ask forgiveness or not - and there is nothing in the New Testament otherwise about God's wrath other than the time of Revelations upon Christ's return. 

In other words, we were born into God's wrath already - and only through Christ taking on the wrath of God for us, paying the ultimate price with his life, are we saved - through grace.


Believe me, I would looovvve to see God's wrath myself, on some people - particularly people that act as if they are speaking for God , twist scripture for their own selfish purposes, and do horrible things in Christ's name - but that ain't gonna happen, because God, in his infinite mercy and grace, gave us Christ to pay the price, and thus we have a choice, right up until the very end.

This is why I'm not God and cannot speak for God, none of us can, though we imagine we can render what other people deserve from a subjective, limited perspective, without considering all aspects of a person's life, what we would do in certain situations, and our own sin.

Again, there is a difference between vengeance/wrath and justice that we humans just can't seem to wrap our heads around.

Vengeance/wrath is delivered subjectively out of anger, malice, and/or bias.

Justice is delivered as objectively as possible, without anger, malice, and/or bias, and includes mercy. 

So even IF these couples are sinning with IVF - which no one has proven to us they are, that's not supported anywhere in scripture without twisting it - then all we need to do is ask forgiveness.

There is no imminent societal danger at large, here, there are no victims, so no need for state or federal law - these people are just seeking assistance at starting a family, a "sin" born out of love, if you will, and it is God who determines the consequence for such sins, not us - no need for a law.

Also, don't forget that though Jesus paid the price of redemption from God's wrath, there is no scriptural passage in the bible that God has claimed his dominion over the earth just yet; in fact, quite the opposite, according to numerous scriptures, and further explained in Revelations.

According to Revelations, "Satan" - and the rule of Babylon, which doesn't mean what you think - has been given limited authority over the earth to give us a choice between light and dark - but will fall and God reclaims total dominion upon Christ's return.

"Babylon" in Revelations is a metaphoric concept - NOT literally the region of Babylon or the Persian race of people.

In fact, Revelations itself is entirely a metaphoric vision. So the infamous "mark of the beast" of "666" isn't literally accepting a mark of 666, it's a human choice to follow fake ideology.

The metaphoric concept of Babylon refers to a persistent, oppressive, destructive, merciless, falsely-accusing (Revelations 12) ideology/philosophy, while simultaneously excusing themselves from adherence to the same moral code.

Or if you wanna use more biblical-sounding/spiritual terms, it's an oppressive, negative spiritual energy stronghold that "rested" in the region at that time by human choice (see the passage from Daniel below).  It could happen anywhere, with anyone - but at the time, it was in Babylon.

Think of the Nazi regime in more modern times as being an example of the concept of "Babylon."

The ideology is deceptively seductive, too easy to resort to, and spreads like wildfire by appealing to the worst of our human nature; fear, hatred. materialism/greed/lust, and idolatry - thus, why this element is represented as the "Whore of Babylon."


*Aside - Revelations says "Babylon" will be represented by three entities or spirits, like an unholy trinity - and John does NOT explicitly say  whether or not they will have a physical form, but that they are spirits -  the Antichrist, the Whore of Babylon, and the Beast - but they are all part of the same spirit, just like the Holy Trinity.  

What I find particularly interesting about this is that there's a father, son and mother, rather than a genderless third being.  

This lends credence to my theory that the original translation of the Holy Spirit wasn't genderless; the Holy Spirit may have been, and was even likely, originally female energy - represented by a dove, the nurturer, comforter, healer - and the gender may have been removed by the church at the councils of Nicene or even at Trent, as we know that many stories about women were removed into the apocrypha during that time, and that some things were destroyed/lost entirely, but that's a whole other post. 😉

(Not that I care what gender it is, as Christ said after death, "neither marry nor be given in marriage, we will be like the angels in heaven," meaning genderless anyway, the soul has no gender - Matthew 22:30)

Back to my point, this ideology or "unholy spiritual trinity" will apparently be false religious doctrine that could be chosen by any group of people at any time; therefore, to blame any race, region, or even religion for it isn't an accurate interpretation of the concept of Babylon - so to say all Persians are "Babylon" is like saying all Germans are inherently Nazis.

In fact, our own OT law borrowed heavily from Babylonian Hammurabi's code stone, as their captors' law, which is why Christ specifically defied it or repudiated it - because nothing based on fear and hatred would ever come from God.

Because basically, at the time, Babylonians did not believe in an afterlife and thus all punishment for "sin" was swift and merciless, whereas Christ said that all law "should hang on love" and promised an afterlife.

The only problem today is, light and dark are not as simple to distinguish as we try to make them (for example, Christians sometimes do bad things in the name of Christ).

There are numerous hints to support this theory, even before Revelations, for instance in Matthew 4:8-9 - where Satan tempts Christ by offering him power, money, and rulership, if he will just bow down and worship him.

This suggests that "Satan" has the authority over all of those things to give, doesn't it?

Which means, of course, that all of that "Gospel of Prosperity" and that God blesses us with material stuff  - is complete nonsense.

In fact, having so much materialism may leave us suspect for idolizing the dark side, because in many cases - but not all - what did you have to do, or who did you step on, throw under the bus, or  enslave to poverty in order to get that wealth, if you're honest?  

Regardless, if you believe that you've been blessed financially because you're such a good Christian, then you've already received your reward, and thus may be among the last in heaven - "The last shall be first and the first shall be last" - Matthew 20:16 

I personally began thinking more about this concept when my friend - more like a mother - was killed by a drunk driver last May. There was no one more faithful to God, more exemplary of Christ's compassion. 

I could not reconcile why she was killed and the drunk driver walked away without a scratch.  In fact, I still can't. It really shook my faith to the core, such that I considered disbelief/atheism again.

But her pastor said "Remember, Satan still has a certain amount of authority over this earth; which means, people can still become be slaves to addiction, or just live selfishly, even Christians.  This person, whether because of being a slave to addiction or just selfishness, chose his addiction and/or himself over the safety of others and God unfortunately does allow that, for the time being."

I'm not really sure where I stand on "Satan," but I definitely believe in negative spiritual energy. And I guess if you allow for the possibility of God, you have to allow for a dark side.

Regardless, I never really thought of it like that before, actually, as an explanation for bad things happening to good people, but it makes more sense than common Christian logic that bad things only happen to bad people, or that bad things happening are necessarily a result of our own poor choices.  

In fact, some things appear to happen just randomly, wrong place at the wrong time, regardless of how good of a Christian or person you are.

He's not necessarily saying that "Satan" is actually doing these things (though he does believe that in many cases), but that God has given the world a choice and some people choose selfish things, and others pay the price for it, Christian or not. 

The bible says the rain will fall on the just and the unjust, of course, but also, there doesn't seem to be any special protection from the selfishness and evil of others for believers, like many evangelicals think there is, despite special incantations and prayers - or my friend, who prayed over herself, her family, and even her car, every day, would've been spared, of all people.

As I said, I think sometimes things just happen randomly, regardless of what kind of person you are, and that God has nothing to do with  it; but at the same time, there are people with stories of miracles and angels - were they more special to God or better than my friend? 

Then I heard something in an Adam Sandler comedy movie, recently that helped. 😂

The female rabbi said that God is random. 

Not only do things happen randomly with no respecter of persons, but that God himself is random as far as intervention - and it has nothing to do with what we do or don't do, it has to do with God's ability to see the bigger picture, as well as where his attention is turned at times in priority.

Interestingly, there is a verse in the OT that I've struggled to understand that actually supports that theory, in Daniel 10.  

Remember when I said above about the passage in Revelations about "Babylon" having nothing to do with race or region, but was an  "oppressive philosophy" or "negative spiritual stronghold" that "rested over" Babylon/Persia at that time?

Here it is again, in the OT, actually, long before Revelations.

An angel came to Daniel in a vision and said:  

"Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.”

So clearly, these "princes" are to mean archangels, because we know that the Michael that he mentions coming to his aid is an archangel, and the angel speaking to Daniel is referring to a struggle with another prince that we can only assume is a fallen angel since they were in conflict, which kept him for three weeks from getting to Daniel.  

Also, Genesis 30:22, "And God remembered Rachel, listened to her, and opened up her womb."

So did God, like, forget her or was he just busy? 😂

This would suggest that it may not be that God doesn't exist or that he chooses only the most righteous, or even that he's necessarily random  - perhaps he just prioritizes? 😊

Who can say, but regardless, it is God who determines what is light and dark, what is sin, and what the consequences should be - especially with "sins" that are born out of love, since Christ commanded that all law should hang on love.

Which brings us back to my point - how arrogant are YOU, Alabama SC, vainly imagining that you have the authority to speak for God, twisting OT scripture to your own strange personal interpretation of scripture into state law? 

Your job is to render justice - NOT "provide God's wrath,"  based on your personal interpretation of scripture.

Christ said that all of the law and the prophets should hang on love - and he specifically defied or repudiated OT scripture that did not.

If you're such a believer in basing all current government laws on the bible, where is Christ's call for love in this ruling?

FYI, God and science are not mutually exclusive - God IS the ultimate scientist, just waiting for us to discover his science and things we may find useful to cure what ails us.

Also, if you're not viewing the bible as an evolutionary piece of work from OT to NT - separating out our Messiah Christ's words from all other humans - then you'll stay perpetually confused when reading it.

The bible evolved along with humans, Ladies and Gentlemen, and in my opinion, we shouldn't stagnate and stay in either testament, but continue in Christ's ideology of all the law should be based on love.

In writing this, I am reminded of an old Amy Grant song, actually written by 60s folk musician, Janis Ian, called "What About the Love?"

The song is encouraging us to speak up for the powerless, but to be careful in rendering judgement without love and mercy, because all of us are only saved by grace. 

LYRICS

I went to see my sister
She was staying with a friend
Who had turned into a preacher
To save the world from sin

He said, "First deny your body
And then learn to submit
Pray to be made worthy
And tithe your ten percent"

I said, "Is this all there is
Just the letter of the law?
Something's wrong" ...

I went to see my brother
On the 32nd floor
Of a building down on Wall Street
You could hear the futures roar

He said, "Here we make decisions
And we trade commodities
If you tell me where there's famine
I can make you guarantees"

I said, "Is this all there is
Power to the strong?
Something's wrong" ...

Something's wrong in heaven tonight
You can almost hear them cry
Angels to the left and the right
Saying, "What about the love?
What about the love?
What about the love?"

I went to see my neighbor
He'd been taken to a home
For the weak and the discarded
Who have no place to go

He said, "Here I lack for nothing
I am fed and I am clothed
But at times I miss the freedom
I used to know"

I said, "Is this all there is
When your usefulness is gone?
Something's wrong" ...

Something's wrong in heaven tonight (Something's wrong)
You can almost hear them cry (Cry)
Angels to the left and the right
Saying, "What about the love?
What about the love?
What about the love?"

I looked into the mirror, (Yeah)
Proud as I could be, (Yeah)
And I saw my pointing finger (Yeah)
Pointing back at me,

Saying, "Who named you accuser? (Yeah)
Who gave you the scales?" (Yeah)
I hung my head in sorrow; (Yeah)
I could almost feel the nails

I said, "This is how it is
To be crucified and judged
Without love"

Something's wrong in heaven tonight. (Something's wrong)
You can almost hear them cry (Cry)
Angels to the left and the right,
Saying, "What about the love?"
What about the love?
What about the love of God?"

God Deliver Us From the Ignorance of the Political Right ...

 

Apparently, the State of Alabama Supreme Court ruled that it considered unfertilized eggs of women as children, so UAB has paused fertility treatments.. 

UAB is allowed to retrieve the eggs and even freeze them, but they cannot combine them with the father's sperm in the lab/develop them, and then insert them into the mother's uterus, or they face criminal charges.

What is the basis for this ruling - because they think God should  combine them instead of humans in a lab and then insert them in the uterus or-? 

Okay - but y'all think God would be A-OK with retrieving and freezing a "child" for later use?  😂

Oh, but wait, never mind - because you can't use them later, that's the illegal part. 

So why the hell would freezing eggs be okay, then?

Because some backwoods evangelical preacher wants to "increase in number" by personally fertilizing the eggs and inserting them himself?  😂

That is the most absurd and asinine court ruling that I've heard yet, regarding women's health from the religious right.

If that were true, then we women would lose a child every month when we menstruate! 

And what about 9-year-olds that start their period, are they losing children?

What are we supposed to do, stay pregnant all the time or we lose a child each month in the eyes of the court?

Well, that'll be news to my 55-year-old uterus, who is just finishing menopause and sometimes still bleeds, that my eggs are automatically still viable children.

(No, they are NOT viable eggs anymore, actually, or I'd be pregnant.)

Does that also mean every time we eat chicken eggs, we're eating baby chicks?

I don't think so.   The eggs must be fertilized by the rooster first.

No word yet on whether or not a man's sperm is also considered a child, of course, just women. 

Y'all realize none of this makes any sense, right?  

And I'm pretty sure you all can't speak for God like you think you can, and in fact, it's the epitome of arrogance for you to even try.

Oh, Lordy, Alabama, you're more backwoods and ignorant than we Kentuckians ever even thought of being, and that's saying a lot.

These couples are trying to have a child, not abort one, you idiots! 

Why do politicians/the government now also get to decide how and when couples get pregnant? 

And here's something you'll understand - fertility treatments are one of the few money-making/profitable procedures you can undergo - you prepared for that much loss in revenue (and thus taxes) to state university hospitals?

God deliver us from their short-sighted, narrow-minded, Dark-Age ignorance!

I'm so embarrassed for them - because not only do they not seem to understand how the female body even works, nor how these treatments work, but because they're too ignorant to even know they should be embarrassed!

Also, please deliver us from the sort of religious men who cannot understand the bible as an evolving scripture, cannot see the difference between OT and NT and where Christ was going, and view women as nothing more than breeding chattel for children.

Because I know that isn't the way YOU see us, or you wouldn't have given us a brain and a voice - and the way Christ treated women versus men with this mentality is proof.

_________________________________________

PS - Republican Presidential Candidate, Nikki Haley - who had a child herself through in-vitro fertilization - said “Embryos, to me, are babies ...embryos created through I.V.F. are considered children.”

For the ignorant, embryos are fertilized eggs.

Well, at least one Republican understands basic biology, and of course, it's a woman.

See, this is why a bunch of men shouldn't be making all of the reproductive decisions for women, you need more female input on such matters..

(There's on woman on the court, but I'm not sure if she voted for or against it, but her single vote wouldn't matter against the otherwise all white men anyway.)

Because especially men like these don't know enough about basic biology and physiology for women and don't care to learn;  they only care about external anatomy, what's on the outside of women, unless it's a child inside. 

 

"Sly" VS "Arnold"

No, I'm not referring to the ridiculous 80s-icon, action-hero competition ... 

I'm talking about their recent Netflix documentaries  ... 

 So after watching "The Family Stallone" to see what all the buzz was about, especially with Season 2 dropping tomorrow .. 

... we then watched the Netflix documentary "Sly" that Jimmy Fallon praised, followed by  "Arnold," because Netflix suggested it, to compare.

Because although Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger are friends now, and are in each other's documentaries, back in the 80s, they were fierce competitors (and IMO, still may be competing with these documentaries) 😂

If so, then Sly definitely wins 😂

And not for the reasons that you think - it's not about muscles or money or power.

It's because Sly admits that he has regrets, effs up, isn't afraid to get vulnerable, and has finally realized the importance of family, thanking them for their support and putting up with him -  whereas Arnold spent the first half of his two-part series talking about himself and his own past glory, giving no thanks or praise to virtually anyone else but himself. 

*retch*

In fact, I won't be watching the second part, and asked Mark to turn "Arnold" off, just after he talked about feeling nothing when his brother and father died, which was fine with him, because Mark had his face scrunched up at him, too.

Okay, his Dad, I get, because he was literally an abusive Nazi soldier - but his brother wasn't - he died in an accident, driving while drunk. 

Now, I'm no fan of drunk drivers myself, after losing a very close friend to a drunk driver, but I DO understand that people that drink are trying to drown pain and it's an addiction - but the lack of empathy wasn't even about his drunk driving - it was about his "being fragile."

So they replayed a previous video clip from when his brother and dad died within the same year, where he stated that he felt nothing, he pushed any feelings down for them long ago, 

His current response to that clip was to say he still felt nothing, his brother was "fragile" and didn't take his Dad's abuse well, but he did, because he was "strong" and he's "not a victim." 

Further, he added that "people who think about how they're feeling or become depressed don't have enough work to do."  (Tell that to people who suffer from clinical depression caused by chemical imbalance.)

However, interestingly, he said his dad had PTSD, but the reality is, his father was a Nazi - so it's interesting that the only victimhood he even slightly attributed to anyone was to his abusive father, who was actually a perpetrator?

And as for victims, how about the 6 million Jewish people (and others the Nazis considered non-perfect/strong like Catholics, LGBTQ, the disabled), killed at the hands of men like your father, hmm?

No empathy for his brother at all - not because he was drunk driving, but simply because he was "fragile"  and "sensitive" anyway?  Icky.

Also, as we learn, because he perceived that though his parents - particularly his dad -  beat both of them, they liked his brother more than him - and as we know, if nothing else, Arnold is fiercely competitive - willing to do anything, to anyone, to win.  He says he got along with his brother well, but he was clearly jealous of him and just wanted to "win" versus him.

In fact, I really felt like I was listening TO a Nazi, talking about strength and weakness, lack of empathy or feelings, and it churned my stomach, and how public praise/chanting his name was everything to him, the goal.

Ewww and Zzzzzz.  

In contrast, there was Sly - talking about his regrets, realizing that he doesn't have much time left to fix them all (and in some cases, can't, like with his son, Sage, who died of a heart condition at age 36), and just wanting to spend more time with family (without really knowing how) - and this is what the reality show, The Family Stallone, is about.

He didn't cry or anything, but he wasn't afraid to get vulnerable, in talking about these things, and had even gleaned the insight that he had spent his life chasing public love as a substitute for the lack of love in childhood, but that public adoration was fickle, and in fact, it isn't real - none of these people chanting his name really knew him as a person. 

It is clear he loves his daughters and vice versa, but also that he doesn't know how to relate to them well as adults rather than children, and much of the show is about them trying to find time together to rebond as adult children and parents. 

(It's also interesting that Sophia has a heart condition, too, but unlike Sly's son, Sage, it was caught early.  A different heart condition, but heart problems nonetheless.)

His daughters, Sophia, Sistine, and Scarlet are great, they ARE the show.  Sly and Jennifer have done a very good job with them, because they may look all LA, but don't be fooled, they're very genuine, empathetic, mischievous -  and just like their dad, they're smarter than you think.

It is very clear that they just want their dad's attention again,  rebonding with him as adults now.

But the best is their telling funny stories about how Sly has a habit of scaring off all their dates 😂

For example, Sistine's first boyfriend.  She brought him home, and before even entering the house, he looked up and said "What's that?" 

It was Sly, or more accurately, the silhouette of Sly, standing on the balcony, having backlit himself to look especially scary 😂

The poor kid ran away, never to be seen again 😂

They tell these funny stories, but then later, they do talk about wanting to talk to their father about trying to get to know their dates and boyfriends at first, at least. 

His wife, Jennifer, clearly loved Sly and vice versa, but you get the sense that she has had to quietly put up with a lot from Sly.  She seems a bit shy, perfectly happy to be the background-support person, but I'd like to know a little more about her.

She says really just wanted to be a mother and wife, and so when her final baby bird leaves the nest, she isn't sure who she is anymore, she admits - and in a way, mirrors Sly's struggles.

So even though Reality TV is rarely reality, the questions of this series appear to be:

1)  "Who IS Sly, when he's not working too much /being the movie star?" 

2)  "Who is Jennifer, other than being Sly's wife and a mother to his now grown children, the last little bird just having left the nest?"

3)  Who are Sophia, Sistine, and Scarlet, emerging from the shadow of their father, the enormous, larger-than-life character that is Sylvester Stallone?

4)  Will all be successful at adjusting to who they are as people now, and with rebonding the family?

That's what the series is about and what perhaps we may find out - IF the series doesn't kill all the relationships first, as reality shows tend to do. 

As for Arnold, though both men are funny and charming, the only things I found endearing about Arnold's story were his miniature horse and donkey, Lulu and Whiskey, which he lets run around the house 😂

Otherwise, I just couldn't relate to Arnold at all. 

It was all about competition and being the best, the conqueror, and how he even cheated a few times to get where he is, and I just don't admire that "Republican" line of thinking, especially seeing where it led us in World War II, and that mentality rearing its ugly head again today. 

In fact, I turned to Mark and said "Ewww.  What did Maria see in this guy in the first place and how could she stand it for so long?"  

You might say muscles and money, but I'm not a "huge muscles" fan,  because when they get to a certain point, your pecs can look like gigantic veiny boobs and it's just a turn-off for me 😂  I prefer a toned gymnast type of body in men, and it's more about the abs than the pecs.

Anyway, at least in Part 1 of Arnold's series, we never saw any of his family, anyone dear to him - just other professional people praising him, such that I don't think I'll be watching Part 2.

So in the end, it seems that Sly has gained at least some insight - effs up still, then tries again - just like all humans do.

In contrast, Arnold has essentially gained no insight at all, and is still stuck in selfish mode, bragging on his accomplishments, money, and people he knows, asking us to travel right up his own arse along with him, which I don't care to do any further, thanks 😂

Men who might be reading, if you get nothing else, get this - REAL women - and by that, I mean smart women with character - don't care about huge muscles, power, money, namedropping, and arrogance (except for a momentary fling, but we don't take you seriously).

Sure, confidence is cool, but the ability to get vulnerable and have empathy sometimes is important, too, as well as experience grief?

Real women of character don't want a run-down of your resume.

We don't care what competitions you've won, how much money you have, how many famous or powerful people you know.

Frankly, real women of character don't care to go with you, as you travel up your own arse - we just want you to hang out with us, take a sincere interest in us as much as you do yourself, have some self-awareness of your flaws as well as your accomplishments, as a  relatable human being - and just be real.

In fact, being real is sexy 😊

In fact, I never found either Sylvester Stallone OR Arnold Schwarzenegger attractive, back in the day - but at 77 years old, I actually find Sly somewhat attractive now, as a result of his newfound ability to gain insight/get vulnerability, just his values. 

In contrast, I actually liked Arnie before I saw his documentary, but the more he talked, the uglier I found him. 

So in the end, IMO - Sly and the Family Stallone win!

Best of luck on Season 2, Stallone Family 😂

Videos: Trump and Epstein Partying at Mar-A-Lago in 1992, Robin Williams on Trump in 2012 ...

This first clip, most Democrats have seen years ago, but very few Republicans/Conservatives have, because their news outlets will not air it.

Trump and Epstein, dancing and leering at young girls at a party at Mar-A-Lago ... 

Whatever Trump said about the girls, it apparently shocked even Epstein, if you can imagine that!

This second clip is one I'd never seen until yesterday - Robin Williams throwing shade at Donald Trump in his standup routine in 2012 ...

 

"And he owns all of these beauty pageants, Miss America, Miss Universe.  Isn't that a bit like Michael Vick owning a series of pet stores?  It's an effing catch-and-release program.  This is a man who said "My daughter is hot."  Even people in Arkansas said 'That's effing wrong.'

(For those who don't know who Michael Vick is, he was the quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, who's downfall was breeding and betting on pitbull fights to the death.)

Yep, that's right - we're super proud that a a creepy, lecherous, criminal was once our president (and could be again)!

(sarcasm)

Putin's Lame Attempt at Reverse Psychology, Navalny's Death

*Edited, content added.

Putin really does think Americans are that gullible and stupid, as well as that Biden is as easily flattered as Trump.

How many really believed him when he told the Russian state television "Biden is better for Russia?"

(Only MAGAts raising their hands, right now 😂)

Dohkay - despite the fact that the holdup on approving a new budget in Congress is MAGAT Republicans refusing to support Biden's request to giving more aid to the Ukraine???

Now, if that were actually true that Biden was better for Russia, then your MAGAT Republican congress members wouldn't be holding up the new budget over aid to the Ukraine, now, would they? 

C'mon, MAGATs - you know that makes zero sense.

Are we as stupid as Putin thinks?

Because the only way that Putin's statement is true, or even remotely makes any sense (at least that I can think of), is that hatred for Biden makes Trump, and himself, more popular, and thus Congress keeps holding up aid to the Ukraine.

Also, knowing that Russia's invasion of the Ukraine was unpopular on both political sides - except with MAGAT Republicans - it was also perhaps a lame attempt at reverse psychology - thinking if he said that about Biden, people would vote against him, believing they were colluding. 

So in fact, it may be a bit of both - reverse psychology AND not revealing the actual meaning of that statement isn't a positive compliment for Biden.

Because Russians are famous for being able to give what sounds like a compliment, but is actually throwing shade - dry humor, making a joke with a stern face and not laughing at their own joke. They're even better at it than the British.😂

But the ultimate proof is Trump saying "Now, that's a compliment."

Erm - now, we all know how firmly shoved up Putin's arse Trump is, and also how Trump cannot stand when anyone even appears to slightly criticize him, so that mild response should let you know something's up.

Then outspoken Putin-protester Alexei Nalvany, imprisoned for protesting Putin, suddenly dies today, in the "Arctic Wolf" prison that he was put in, after being just fine and healthy, yesterday, on film, mind you - and being poisoned once before.

To which Biden didn't play around, when he said "We don't know exactly what happened, but there is no doubt that the death of Navalny was the consequence of something that Putin and his thugs did."


That's a fail, Putin - you megalomaniacal, amoral piece of (BLEEP).

Not all of us are that stupid, or distracted ego strokes and shiny objects.

You and Trump are two narcissistic peas in a pod - the only difference is, you're smarter.

I hope you, and your buddy, Trump, float off into space together, on the back of your alleged anti-satellite nuclear missiles, in a sort of co-cult-leader murder-suicide pact, and you can take your "believers" with you 😂

I'm Sorry That Asking Other White Christians To Take a Look at Themselves in the Mirror ...

 

... and how we've treated others through history (or stood by and did nothing, or didn't even notice, because we were so enthralled with ourselves) is so threatening - especially to modern Republicans (but not exclusively).

How fragile and falsely entitled ARE we, that we feel the need to make ourselves the victims, and non-Christians and people of color the villains, just because they asked us to take off our white-filter glasses and take a look at ourselves and our culture in the mirror? 

No need to panic, get defensive and make up conspiracy theories, which are really out of deflection of guilt and paranoia that non-Christians and people of color will seek justice, retribution, or even revenge for the way we've treated them throughout history.

You do realize that you're more likely to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by acting this way, right? 

Grow up and man up, fellow white Christians -  it's a very simple process.

It's not that hard - you listen to their experiences and perspectives, you self-examine/examine our history and culture, you take responsibility for what's true, you make amends, and you vow to become more aware and to do better - period. 

This post was in response to reading how a Michigan state rep in Oxford, Michigan - the same location as a deadly school shooting happened, where the first parent was also charged and convicted (manslaughter) - posted "Replacement Theory" BS on social media.

The shooter was NOT motivated by the theory, but the parents were political conservatives who believed guns for kids were A-OK, and there have been four mass shooters that have touted this bogus theory.

I'm not even gonna take the time to explain this absurd theory which has no proof or basis in reality, but the basic premise is, that Jews and people of color are supposedly out to replace us and reduce the number of white people, especially through abortion. 😆😆😆

Again, the theory has no factual evidence or proof of its claims whatsoever - it's totally deflection of guilt and paranoia-based nonsense.

Like I said, just some paranoid white people, terrified that there will one day be a reckoning for the way we've treated  non-Christians and non-white people, now just making shit up, after lying on their fainting couches and needing smelling salts - just because some people of color asked them to take a look at themselves and facts versus fantasy 😂

___________________________________________________

PS - If anything, WE are the ones that have done all the replacing ...

Replacing paid labor with slavery, including raping female slaves as sexual property, and using their populations as votes, without letting them actually vote - and then after slavery is over, still exploiting minorities, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups for low pay and poor working conditions, doing the jobs we're too entitled to do ourselves/don't want to do anyway, and still trying to find ways not to allow them to vote.

Replacing, enslaving, displacing and killing the Native Americans ,  just because we wanted their land and felt falsely entitled to it as "manifest destiny" and imagined we were better deserving of it because we're Christians, repeatedly ignoring treaties we signed with them, forcibly and abusively converting them to our faith, stole their children and mandating them to boarding-school boot camps (to further be abused) and later forced their women into involuntary abortions, and killed them or forcibly moved them to territories we believed had no economic value, until oil was discovered on their new lands, then forcibly moved them again or killed them again, even in the 20th century (the Osage). 

The same in Latin and South America, Canada, and the Caribbean Islands over silver and sugar, as well parts of Mexico to become Texas, just because we could and wanted it for ourselves. 

(I would say Mexico can have it back, but that's an insult to Mexico - so I'll just say Texas can have Texas, the rest of us don't care what happens to Texas 😂)

Or how about the UK waltzing into India and forcing them to serve themselves and their monarchy, without actually giving them the benefits of being a UK citizen?  (I guess they were supposed to feel grateful because they introduced British tea and railroads with high prices to ship goods at low prices, or something, I don't know.)

Or in addition to forcibly taking and trading human beings from Africa, later waltzing in and forcibly replacing parts of Africa, particularly South Africa, with a bunch of rich, white people, over diamonds etc., then having the audacity to implement segregation over them with violent consequences in their own country.

And of course the obvious -  Hitler and Nazi Germany, trying to march across Europe to own the world, and exterminate all the Jews along the way, scapegoating them for all their problems (as well as Catholics, people of color, Slavics, LGBTQ, the disabled and anyone that did not fit their mold.

And though we try to replace and meddle in the Middle East with U.S. ownership, those countries with vast oil reserves aren't having it - so then, of course, we vilify them and go to war over it with false claims of weapons of mass destruction, trying to make them appear an even worse threat than countries that actually do have nuclear weapons like China and Russia. 

In modern times, how replacing American jobs with outsourcing to other countries like India, China, etc., paying them for pennies on the dollar?

Heck, now, we're even replacing even skilled human labor with ethics-troubled AI!

Who's behind that, people of color, women, and immigrants?

Nope.  The usual suspects - predominantly rich white men.

Oh, but hell, no, Republicans still trynna act like our biggest problem is "foreigners replacing our jobs"  and the non-white-collar mostly non-violent petty crimes of poor people? 

I don't think so - WE have done all the "replacing" ourselves, via rich white people (usually men) in power, often using military force  - who have consistently used minorities with less power as scapegoats to blame all our problems on, betting on the fact that they can't fight back, villainizing them, and making up conspiracy theories, if they ever even try. 

We need to stop projecting - because our biggest problem is imagining we're better than everybody else and that we deserve - and that God intends for us - to take the best for ourselves, without paying for it.

And of course, we forget that neither our own genetics nor our religions are pure, as well as and that not so long ago, we were the illegal immigrants, often running here because of for our versions of faith, and that when our illegal ancestors arrived, not so long ago, our own heritage was often under fire and scapegoated for problems in America (Irish, Italians, Polish),

We also forget that we are NOT innocent when it comes to our own world headaches, and in fact, they are the direct result of our need to conquer, or at the very least, meddle in everybody else's business.

(I do not condone terrorism by saying that, I'm just saying when it comes to aggression towards the U.S., it's not in a vacuum.)

There's a difference between justice VS. revenge that most white people do not seem to understand and would do well to learn the difference between. 

Though the want of justice can turn into revenge, this can easily be prevented by welcoming justice. 

An American Fairy Tale/New American Royalty?

 

Tay Tay and Travis 😂

Well, one thing is clear - I don't know about love, but they do genuinely care about each other 😂

(And I say that not because of this rom-com kiss moment, but something else I mention later.)

And despite Trump's best efforts to insert himself and politics into football - again -  everyone promptly ignored him and politics altogether 😂

In fact, it may have been the most unifying super bowl we've had in years, despite which side you were on.  

Because IMO, it was about love of the game and love of the melting pot that is America in general again.

Everyone likes both teams, so all would've been good either way, but it was a nail-biting OT ending, just the same - and Taylor brought new girl fans to the game who were previously uninterested.  

In addition to NFL representatives testifying to this occurring, many grateful dads have come forward, saying that said their daughters are  now asking them about football now because of Taylor and creating bonding time.

The game itself didn't actually show Taylor all that much, unless Travis did something incredible or when there was a touchdown.

There were a couple of other times, the camera showed her, for like a half second, but it was almost like a regular fan-cam moment -  to include her behaving like a regular fan, getting caught hugging Blake Lively (who I didn't recognize at first with curly hair) while singing along with "America the Beautiful"  - caught on camera, to which they both looked surprised the camera was on them and giggled.    

And then one with Taylor standing all by herself and singing and swaying, while everyone else was talking.  

I can't find a picture of it, but it was super cute - like something a little girl would do.

That's what I like about Taylor - the quirky little girl is always still in there, singing and dancing all by herself and not caring who sees it, pulling up the straps on her top repeatedly to keep them from falling, just a regular gal, no matter what. 

We women of a certain age have watched this girl grow up right in front of us and feel very maternal towards her, I guess 😂

Super proud of her for not standing on stage with Travis, Mahomes, and Coach Reid and their families, just staying on the floor, letting them shine, while she waited in the wings on the field with Donna Kelce.

As you can see, no Taylor on stage with the team and their families ...

'Atta girl, Tay-Tay, that's the way to do it - though you moved heaven and earth to be able to be there for him from Tokyo - stand aside and wait in the wings to let your man and his team take center stage and shine -  just as he does for you 😊

Taylor is not one to intentionally upstage anyway, she's actually usually the one getting upstaged (who can forget the Kanye "I'monna let you finish" moment)?

Now, I hate to be a downer, but I DO need to say one thing that worried me and appeared a red flag about Travis - his temper.

Going after Coach Reid like that, grabbing his jacket and screaming in his face?

Oh, no - no, sir - that's some serious rage, as well as ego - who grabs and roughs up their own coach like that on national TV during the Super Bowl?

As former Cincinnati Bengals QB said, "I don't like that. That's not okay."

The others on the commentator panel said "Well, he was frustrated that he wasn't in to help Pacheco, and Pacheco fumbled it in the end zone," making excuses.

Nope, I agree with the Boomer - that is NOT okay. 

In fact, mark that down as a red-flag moment. 

That was one moment where the camera didn't show Taylor after a Travis moment, but I did wonder her thoughts.  

All I can say is, he better never direct that rage towards Tay Tay - because he'd have an army of moms and daughters to contend with, if he ever did!

But on a positive note, when they finally met after the game, on the field, all of that aggression, all of that crazy "fight for your right to party" yelling on stage, seemed to just melt away when Taylor walked up to him.

You could physically see his shoulders and body relax, when she embraced him, he seemed to physically melt - how gentle he was with her, how gentle they are together.

He better be (grrr) 😂

All right, you get a pass for now, Travis -  but nobody ever wants to see you act like that again, with your coach or anybody else that isn't an opposing player during a play! 

Well, the other exception, other than during play, maybe with Trump, if he doesn't stop targeting you both to insert himself into everything and take credit for even YOUR success, out of his own jealous, pathological need for attention and insecurity 😂

WTF IS that, anyway - some pathetic, transparent attempt at the tired old "Divide-and-Conquer" routine, particularly trying to appeal to the male in the situation ?

Weak.  Lame.

Clearly, it's effective - and aw, everyone completely ignored you, poor baby bully.

I cannot believe that anyone sane can read his posts like that and NOT see how narcissistic and completely insane he is. 

Otherwise, back to Travis - get that temper under control, son! 

Taylor is America's baby girl - treat her right/take care of her.

Otherwise, though I'm not a huge football fan (it starts and stops too much, I like fast-moving sports), I have to admit, it was an exciting, nail-biting game, going into OT.   

As I said, America likes both teams and were good either way, but America LOVES Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, and the Chiefs. 

And let's put the focus back where it belongs, football itself, and the true wonder/whiz kid that is Patrick Mahomes!

Though not a football fan, I admire the intelligence-and-talent combo - and watching Patrick Mahomes play, is a privilege. 

It's like watching a master chess player - and he's a year younger than my daughter!

He's like the Michael Jordan of football - three super bowls at 28 years old already, tying Joe Montana and Tom Brady already - and may, in fact, end up being the best QB of all time.

I can't find a picture of it, but the camera showed the exact moment he had it figured out.  I think it was with about 40 seconds left  in OT to make another down? 

For those who don't know Patrick Mahomes, not only does he have an unusual sort of side-arm throw (due to his dad being a professional baseball player), but he is a master of timing, using the time wisely, with the patience of a saint, while the rest of us have chewed all of our nails off 😂.  

Again, just like a master chess player - hyper focused on the board/field, unflinching and patient, not caring if the clock is winding down -  nothing distracts him or phases him, when he's in that zone. 

But once you see him look up, come out of that hyper-focus of looking only at the field, suddenly looking off the field to his coach and the team, smiling, then chewing on his mouth=guard, then smiling again, and give a little wave/fingers wiggle?

Watch out, opposing team, it's on - and he's likely going to win. 😂

People have often wondered what this means and have speculated,  everything from it's hand signals or some form of autism lol.

I think what this actually means was never more clear than last last night. 

I think it's a hand signal, both to himself and his coach and team, and it apparently means "I've got it, I can see it -  where all the player pieces are, all their possible moves, I've got this  - huddle up." 

It really is amazing to witness that moment - as I said, like watching a master chess player at the exact moment he's figured out how he can win - all possible moves from all the players/pieces - then executes it perfectly.

You're amazing, Patrick!

As for "rigged" games in Vegas, as I said before, though you can possibly rig  individual players (someone fumbling the ball twice, that usually doesn't, could be suspect) or even coaches, but to rig entire teams is nearly impossible.  At least a few of them will want to win a game for posterity sake, rather than throw it for money. 

You also can't rig 70-yard passes, either, sorry - however - again, you can rig individual players, like running-backs and receivers.

Then again, sometimes fumbles are just that, fumbles -  due to nerves, not your day, etc. 

Congrats, KC Chiefs - well done, well earned!