PS - Quantico - Yep, Trump's Hinting At What We Suspected Is The REAL Reason They're Here ...

Now Trump is getting to the REAL reason they're here ... in a rambling manner, I should say, with slurred speech ... that he wants a QRF (Quick Reaction Force) to "keep domestic peace."

Yep, just as we suspected this was really about - more troops in U.S. cities for the "enemy within" that he is calling protestors, wanting to use our cities as "training grounds" for war.

HELL. NO.

Hate to tell you this, Trump, but you create a QRF and deploy troops everywhere and there will be more protests, rather than less. 

Otherwise, man, he is really rambling today, hard to follow where he's going with this?

At this moment, he's rambling about his ability to go down stairs versus Obama, what the ??? does that have to do with anything?

Slurred speech, quieter voice - he doesn't sound like he's physically well?

Now talking about drug crackdown.

Hey, here's an idea, Trump - why don't you just ask your son who supplies his coke dealer?

Now he's talking about immigrants "stealing your jobs" again.

That shit has been said for over 100 years, about Irish, Polish, Italians, Chinese immigrants, and now it's Latinos - with some of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those immigrant groups now jumping on that bandwagon themselves about Latinos.

It's just racist, ethnocentric nonsense.

Boy, bye!

Can't listen to another word of this garbage. 

_____________________________

PS - Like I said, this power-flex and self ego-stroke of Trump's wasn't worth the security risk to our generals.

And like the generals themselves  said ... 

"Um ... this could have been an email." 😂

Quantico - Hey, Hegseth, Here's An Idea ...

 

... since you risked national security by bringing all our generals from all over the world to convene at the same time, "supposedly" just to talk about appearance and fitness ...

How 'bout you quit drinking?

Also, how about investigating that supposed Ft. Bragg "cartel" drug and human-trafficking situation once and for all, to see if there's any merit to it or it's just more conspiracy?

Oh, that's right, I forgot - you LIKE conspiracies. 

And drinking!

And drugs!

😁

Not "Final Destination," But ....

 

... pretty sure this isn't safe on the highway 😂

So the above was seen on our way to the vet for Ziggy's annual, this morning.

Dust flying off it, no tarp or safety straps, and the top piece of broken concrete literally shifted the faster he went!

That tailgate wasn't gonna hold that load long - look at how the truck carriage buckles in the middle from the weight above the taillights - the mudflaps are tilting up! 

I was like "Mark ... um ... can we please not be directly behind the Final Destination truck? 😂 

I took the picture as he changed lanes and sped up past him. 

For those of you who haven't seen the Final Destination movies - which although I love horror, not a huge fan of gore, and these are very gory -  in the first one, teenagers were supposed to all die in a plane crash, but didn't, cheating death; thus, death comes a-callin' for them in other gruesome ways.  

One of the most memorable deaths was the guy being stuck behind a log truck on the highway, when a log flies off the back of the truck through the windshield, like a javelin, and - WHAM - byeeee!

In fact, the scene was so memorable that when the latest in the series, "Final Destination: Bloodlines" came out last year, there was actually an ad campaign in LA where they put the movie posters on log trucks! 😂

So what is that phrase from GOT?

"What do we say to the God of Death?"

"Not today" 😂 

Julia Sugarbaker Vs. Christian Nationalism, 1989

So I was going to write a post about Jimmy Kimmel's return to late night and what he said, but everyone else has pretty much covered it.

Our ABC local station covered it, but strangely, on that same night, some Lexington viewers reported our local CBS station, WKYT, decided to air an old Billy Graham episode from 50 years ago, instead of the scheduled Wheel of Fortune listed in the program guide, for what reason we don't know.

Okay, as much as I love Billy Graham - but passionately dislike his son, Franklin Graham - what the ???

I was reminded of this episode of Designing Women from 1988, when Julia is running for office against a "Moral Majority" member, as they were known at the time, today known as Christian Nationalists.

The push towards literally forcing people into Christianity is, of course, nothing new, but we haven't seen this level of "enforcement" in over a century.

The video begins with the pledge of allegiance - which, by the way, no other country in the world has children recite every morning - and ends with the school prayer debate.

Get it, girl ... 

Julia: "No, Mr. Briquette - I have not forgotten."  

"I was thinking that you seem to have forgotten the phrase "separation of church and state," but the one thing I did forget was just how divisive, dishonest, and distasteful someone like you can be."  

"I've sat here today and listened to you pander to these people, but you don't actually care about them, or you wouldn't sitting here reinforcing their ignorance and prejudices."  

 

Mr. Briquette: "You heard that, callers, she just called you ignorant and prejudiced."  

 

Julia: "I do not think everyone in America is ignorant, far from it! But we are today, probably, the most uneducated, underread, and illiterate nation in the Western Hemisphere, which makes it all the more puzzling to me why the biggest question on your small mind is whether or not lil' Johnny is going to recite the pledge of allegiance every morning."  

 

"And I tell you something else, Mr. Briquette - I have had it up to HERE, with your phony issues and your Yankee Doodle yakking!"  

 

"If you like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every day, then I think you should do it! In the car, in the shower, wherever the mood strikes you -  but don't try to tell me when or where I should say or do or salute anything, because I am an American, too, and that is what being an American is all about!"  

 

"And another thing, I am sick and tired of being made to feel like if I am not a member of a lil' family with 2.4 children, who goes just to Jerry Falwell's church, and puts their hands over their hearts, that I am unreligious, unpatriotic, and unAmerican!"  

 

"Because I have news for you, Mr. Briquette - not all liberals are kooks, any more than all conservatives are fascists."  

 

"And the last time I checked, God was neither a Republican or a Democrat!"  

 

"And just for your information, yes - I AM a liberal - but I am also a Christian."  

"And I get down on my knees and pray, every day - on my own turf, on my own time."  

 

"One of the things I pray for, Mr. Briquette, is that people with power will get good sense, and people with good sense will get power - and that the rest of us will be blessed with the patience and the strength to survive the people like you, in the meantime!"

😂

Amen! 

PS - (Trump Christians Post) - I WAS Moved by Erika Kirk

 The original post - which is receiving many view hits - can be found here.

As mentioned, I didn't watch the Kirk memorial.

However, I have since discovered that Erika Kirk, Charlie's mother, forgave Tyler Robinson for shooting her son.

That IS following Christ's words and powerful, I was very moved by that moment, admittedly.

That being said, if only Charlie himself had extended that kind of grace and mercy in his words for just everyday folk in general, who don't look, think, or believe exactly as he did ...

If only Trump Republicans/Christian Nationalists extended that type of grace and mercy to others who don't look, think, or believe exactly the same way they do ...

... what a better country this would be.

And with that, my next post will be Jimmy Kimmel's return, last night, including a clip for those who couldn't watch it.

Whoa, Slow Down, Trump and RFK - What The Tylenol Studies Actually Say

First things first, my blog has apparently successful switched to an encrypted https address. 😊

Otherwise ... 

Wait, so ... according to RFK, it was vaccines that caused autism - now it's Tylenol? 

Which is it? Why not both? Why not any ole pharma company that pops in your head (that perhaps doesn't support your politics?)

As long as we're focused on possible environmental causes, why just pharmaceuticals, completely ignoring pollutants or agribusiness chemicals?

Because that wouldn't support your agendas of anti-climate change/corporations polluting the environment as much as they want? 

So what do the Tylenol studies actually say?

Well, not what Trump and RFK say they do.

Read them for yourselves - HERE.

In 46 small research studies, some studies - but not all - found a correlation between Tylenol used during pregnancy and autism - and thus pronounced inconclusive, needing further study.

Even if all of the small studies found there was a correlation - which they did NOT - "correlation" does NOT mean "cause."

In fact, the actual the cause very well could be the reason they're taking Tylenol to begin with, some undetected/unknown virus contracted during pregnancy, for all we know - and that's just it, we don't know.

I'm not saying Tylenol does not cause autism either - I'm saying this needs further study with a larger random sample and better controls to rule out bias or variables.

I'm saying you cannot take a hypothesis and pronounce it fact  especially when the studies contradicted each other.

Because therein lies the problem with small studies - they often contradict each other.

If you don't use at least the statistical "magic number" of a random sample of 1,200 participants in the study (when possible, depending on disease prevalence), your results will vary because they aren't using the same controls - so mostly due to bias or a variables from study center to study center that were introduced that affected the outcome of the study.

Regardless, pregnant women for years have avoided Tylenol (except during labor), including me, 31 years ago - or any drug, for that matter - including hair dye - just to be safe. 

But that doesn't mean non-pregnant adults shouldn't take Tylenol as Trump said.

In fact, IV acetaminophen/Tylenol has been found to be a very effective painkiller after surgery versus opioids.

Would you prefer the opioid epidemic?

Lastly, I understand that autism didn't exist, as far as we know, until the last century.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's environmental in a pharmaceutical sense, there are pollutants to consider also.

And like I said, it could also be an as-of-yet undetected or unknown virus obtained during pregnancy, for all we know - and that's just it, we don't know.


We cannot just pronounce any old random things developed within the last century that pops into our heads as the cause without proof.

It's super early and super socially irresponsible to do so and is tantamount to witch-hunt panics to do so, at this stage.

Trump Christians? I'monna Say Again What Jesus Said ... (UPDATED)

UPDATE:

As I said below, I didn't watch it. However, I have since learned that Erika Kirk forgave Tyler Robinson for killing her son.

I did find that very moving and following the words of Christ.

And yet, if only her son - and Trump/Christian Nationalists - could extend that kind of grace and mercy to everyday folk in general who don't look,, think, or believe the exact same way they do.

Thus, the song remains the same for this post.

 ... and then wait for my blog to transition to an HTTPS address today, if it's available, so it might be down a while due to that.

But first, to those of you texting us asking if we watched Charlie Kirk's funeral - some of you being sarcastic (others not)?

HECK, no.

As I said in the post below, we watched Black Rabbit instead on Netflix. 😂

Again, I'm genuinely sorry the misguided young man was murdered due to the garbage coming out of his mouth -  he didn't deserve it.

However, none of us voted Charlie Kirk into any known office.

He didn't say or do anything that improved, enriched, or even affected my life, or the lives of anyone I know, whatsoever.

In the end, Charlie Kirk didn't say or do anything that contributed to the betterment of humanity or unified us, in life OR death - in fact, quite the opposite.

He was a glorified political digital influencer who said a lot of contentious things that were actually in direct opposition to Christ's own words - despite a lavish "revival-like" funeral in Christ's name.

(And I'm not sure where the money came for it or to televise it?)

In fact, most conservative friends my age didn't even know who he was until he died. I did, as a Democrat, before they did!

Be honest, conservatives over 50 - how many of you even knew who Charlie Kirk was, until this happened, THEN you jumped on the conservative bandwagon and canonized him into martyred sainthood?

*crickets*

Again, fellow Christians, I'monna say it again, like I said 2 posts ago, about what Jesus said versus the kind of things coming out of Trump and Kirk's mouth.

Christ said God would judge humanity based on how you treated "the least of these" in society - the poor and powerless.

Do you fantasize that following their ideology will lead our Heavenly Father to say to you "Well done, my good and faithful servant?"

Think again.

Because here's what Jesus said will be said by our heavenly father to those who treat poorly or villainized/demonized "the least of these" ...

Matthew 21:40-45

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, 'Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?'  

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, 'Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.' "

Did Jesus stutter?

Is there some sort of reading comprehension problem, when it comes to the actual words of Christ himself - our actual messiah - versus Trump's words, demonizing and villainizing the poor and powerless, which in direct opposition to Christ?

What about that scripture passage do you not understand, fellow Christians?

At some point, you're gonna need to choose between Trump and Jesus, as they are NOT one in the same, they are vastly different - and Jesus said "You will know them by the fruit of their labors." 

Y'all better just be glad Jesus ISN'T still walking on earth, as he'd likely be chasing a lot of thieves in the temple out of his father's house, with a whip! 😂

Jude Law and Jason Bateman: Black Rabbit

 

So I put the Netflix series title behind the actors for a reason -  because in this case, the series takes a back seat to the acting displayed by both of these men, particularly the final scenes - who wouldda thunk it?

I always thought Jude Law was just a pretty boy and Jason Bateman a snark that can't be taken too seriously, neither previously displaying  much depth or breadth of range in acting ability - but I stand corrected, I was proven wrong - they blew me away!

Like I said, the acting in the final scenes were the Emmy shots - but  extra points for British Jude Law's nearly flawless NYC-boroughs accent, without overdoing it - accurately depicting the character's roots of being somewhere between blue-collar and middle-class  in the burroughs.

(Jason Bateman, playing his brother, however, missed that particular mark - he sounded like the kid who grew up in LA that he is 😂)

As for the series itself, there were a few plot holes - like for instance, Mancuso, the loan shark, says their Dad advised him to never give Vince a line of credit - at what, 10 years old? Because their Dad died then. That made no sense. 

And just stupid choices made by otherwise smart characters.

I mean, how did Vince NOT know that his bartender buddy was the one who tipped off the gangsters that he was back in town? I mean, duh?

Otherwise, it was highly implausible to the point of absurd, too many twists, too often -  to the point where you just give up on it making sense and enjoy the ride - which no one else could've carried out BUT Law and Bateman.

Bravo, gentlemen, I stand corrected!

Also, loved the  90s-ish, black-and-white music video of Jude Law and Jason Bateman's former band,  Black Rabbit - with Jude Law trying to steal Kurt Cobain's swag - badly.

Other than Jason Bateman's general snark, one of the few laugh-out-loud funny moments at the beginning of an otherwise increasingly intense series. 😂

FCC Chair, Brandon Carr's Video Podcast Threat of Revoking Disney/ABC's License, Hours Before Kimmel Suspended

I posted another post on this subject, a moment ago, but since then, I have found the exact video (via the Palm Beach Post) where FCC (Federal Communication Commission) Chairman, Brendan Carr, threatens license removal to ABC/Disney if they didn't remove Kimmel's show (and others).

*Note that I am providing links rather than posting the actual videos so as not to give Carr too much of a platform - because he gives a lot of double-speak meant to confuse, but keep your eye on the ball.

Despite his later double-speak to press about "financial decisions,"on the podcast, "The Benny Show" - filmed just hours before Jimmy Kimmel was pulled - he essentially confesses as to what he's doing behind the scenes  - threatening license revocation.

After making references to "companies being granted licenses by the FCC," Carr then stated this:

"I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Carr later appeared to try to back-peddle in this interview 2 days ago on NBC,  and try to make it about a ratings/financial issue, same as Colbert -  but both shows had higher ratings than most shows on their networks and millions of ad revenue coming in.

However, he then switched gears again and said "we're not done yet" regarding "changing the media ecosystem."

Specifically referenced by the interviewer were shows like "The View," "Seth Meyers", and "Jimmy Fallon" (though Fallon tried to roll over and invite conservative guests this week).

So sorry, Conservatives - the argument that "This was business decision by Disney not government censorship" that Carr himself has since tried to back-peddle with - is complete BS.

Despite his later double-speak to press, Carr told you straight up what was being done behind the scenes in that video podcast, just hours before Kimmel was pulled  - threatening revoking Disney/ABC's license until they complied and removed Kimmel's show.

AND he openly admitted, both on that podcast AND to press, that there will be more to come.

Which is actually worse than just a free speech issue - it's a government-force-exertion-over-business issue - something that normally sends you Republicans into a tailspin, but because it's Trump et al, it's not?

Also note he continues to use the words "public interest" - when it's clear he doesn't mean what we, the people, want - he means "Trump's interest." 😂

Speaking of public interest, power-drunk Mr. Carr needs to have his butt hauled before Congress and asked this question point-blank:

"Which is it, Mr. Carr - was a financial decision these companies, as you're saying now, or is it because you threatened license revocation, as you initially stated on this podcast?

Then companies can legally testify before Congress that they were threatened, likely previously prevented from sharing this  information publicly on-air, under Carrs'  FCC tactics.

That may not go well for Carr, not only because companies can now speak freely of Carr's tactics, but because Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul aren't having it  - they're actually taking our side on this one.

PS -- "The Least of These" Vs. Demonizing the Homeless: Homeless Camps Bulldozed in DC

The handling of yesterday's homeless man sleeping on our apartment office  bench brought to mind what had happened in Washington, DC, when Trump sent troops and literally bulldozed their encampments.

What do YOU see - and more importantly, what do you FEEL - when you view these photos, especially the last one?

This is a picture of Bill Theodie, a homeless man that was living in one of those tents. As you can see, there's another tent behind him with a wheelchair next to, meaning a disabled person was living there.

Bill works in construction, though he's been out of full-time work since 2018.

This is a picture Trump posted to Truth Social, just 4 days before bulldozing it - and Bill Theodie is in it.

And this is a picture of bulldozers wrecking the tent encampment.

Bill said "You know, I understand he doesn't want to see mess, that's why we go out of our way to maintain it clean. We're not trying to disrespect the president or any other person who comes by."

So what do you see/feel, viewing these photos and hearing Bill's story?

What I see when viewing these photos and hearing Bill's story is a sense of despair, completely powerless, but still trying to be hopeful, stay positive.

What I feel is sorrow, compassion, and then fear - not fear of the homeless, but fear of what more is to come.

Apparently, what Trump and others see is a gang of criminals, guilty until proven innocent. 

What they feel is disgust and fear of a different kind - fear of who are actually the most powerless people in America might do, what criminals may be lurking there, without proof.

(I wonder if these same people also avoid looking in mirrors 😂)

What they see does not reflect the America they envision, it's not within their scope of reality - so they just want them removed from their line of sight, their fantasy.

I understand, like yesterday, it can be unsettling if you don't know a homeless person is there - but in DC, everyone knew the camps were there, for years.

And my point yesterday was - there's a way to deal with it and a way not to. 

Because the reality and facts are that homelessness is increasing as a result of this economy - and not all of these people are drug addicts, mentally ill, or former prison inmates. 

Many of them ARE working, at minimum wage - and it's not enough to make ends meet.

Some, like Bill, were already living paycheck-to-paycheck, but hadn't had steady work in his field of construction since 2018 and the house of cards crumbled.

Moving them out of our line of sight may help US, but it doesn't help THEM. 

It also doesn't remove the reality of our economy and the increasing amount of homelessness in this country.

If you need to demonize them for their situation to feel better about  having the government remove them, feel free - but DO realize THIS - that is your fantasy of the world, it's not reality.

It's also the exact opposite of what Christ said to do, fellow Christians.

In fact, Jesus said he would judge humanity based on how you treated the least of these. 

Today's Christians seem to imagine that there will be some kind of heavenly reward for themselves for Christian Nationalism and supporting the kinds of things Trump is doing with homeless and immigrants.

That Christ will say "Well done, my good and faithful servant."

Not according to scripture.

Christ said the exact opposite will happen to you, if you treat the least of these poorly.

To include the reality of what would be said to you in heaven versus your fantasy:  "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 

Matthew 21:40-45

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."

 

So THIS Happened This Morning ...

 

What do you think this is, lying on the bench outside of our apartment office at 6 a.m.?

My neighbor texted me, after being startled by it, walking her dog at 6 a.m.

She asked me to look out and see if it was a person sleeping, and who to call?

I told her I had the number to security, but I wasn't sure, I couldn't see clearly from my balcony.

So I walked close and took a picture to send the office via email, as they wouldn't be open for another 2 hours, but I still wasn't sure.

Seeing the shoes, in case it was a person, I didn't want to wake and startle them myself. 

You never know what trauma somebody's been through and how they'll react if you startle them, right?

Most homeless people are harmless, but I'm sure sleeping out in the open like that, they're already guarded and likely startle easily, right?

So I called security to check it out - thinking if was a homeless person sleeping, they'd just wake him and ask him to move on.

Oh, no, though  - that's not what happened.

In the meantime, someone else called the police!

So it was a person, a man, and 2 cop cars showed up, got him up on his feet and he started yelling "Man, get the F off me, give me a second  to get my shoes on, damn!"

I felt sorry for him, actually, now worried he'd get in trouble for yelling at a cop - never a good idea - but the cops just left when he did, thank goodness.

And I wondered if all that was necessary, and if it hadn't been the cops, would he have reacted that way?

I got my answer from a maintenance man.

The maintenance guy said "He was here once before. I just asked him to wake up and move on, please, and he was polite and left without fuss.  The police scared him is all. I know you didn't call them, but someone did."

That's the thing - like I said, we don't know what trauma somebody's been through to get where they are, besides the trauma of being homeless - they definitely don't need any more.

I know if somebody were to wake my husband up like THAT, in the park just falling asleep or napping or something, as a former Army Ranger, they'd likely be in for a fight, just due to the startle alone. 😂

I understand it's unsettling to see that first thing in the morning, and you just don't know if they're harmless or not.

However, not everyone is homeless because of drugs, a criminal/former prison, or mental illness, and sometimes they are working, it's just not enough to make ends meet in this economy, which is why homelessness is increasing. Sometimes it's even temporary and they don't have family or at least reliable family (which can sometimes even be the source of the trauma).

So let's start out by being cautiously optimistic and give them a chance, rather than come in ready to fight?

That'd put anybody on the defensive.

Regardless, I hope that man finds a safe place to sleep tonight in a place that's less unsettling for people not expecting it, walking their dogs in the early morning.

PS - Interestingly, Google Corp Showed Up In My Blog Hits Yesterday ...

 

So yesterday, I was only semi-serious about someone having my blog taken down over the post, because frankly, I'm not important enough and I don't get a lot of readers - and I like it that way! 😂

So if that happened, it would be because someone I know reported it, just to be an ass. 

Here is a screen shot of the hits to my blog - and this is Google Corporate (who runs Blogger), which I've only seen once before:

(*Pay no attention to the 1.37K hits - those are mostly advertising bots from stores and sites, which happens when you have a new post.

This means 1 of 2 things ...

1) Google corporate is pinging out for terms like Charlie Kirk and checking posts automatically.

                                            -OR- 

2)  Someone did, in fact, try to report me and Google corp viewed the post - and considering I don't have many readers, it was likely someone I know - just to be a harassing a-hole.

And the reason I know that is because the time I saw that google.corp entry before, someone I know did indeed try to report me, just to be an ass and harass me - but failed miserably.

(Blogger/Google let me know it was reported, but I was not asked to take the post down.)

Remember, I have a tracker. Not a detailed one with your IP, but essentially, if you did, I know exactly who you are (but I already had a pretty good idea anyway). 

So read my last post now, ladies and gentlemen, in case I am asked to take it down - judge for yourselves -  was anything said that deserves removal?

Also, this morning, when trying to view my main blog page, I was asked to bypass a security certificate telling me my site was insecure and left open for hackers for the first time (which I don't have a screen shot of because I bypassed it). 

That may just be coincidence.

Regardless, I am in the process of upgrading to HTTPS now.

The process to change to HTTPS sometimes takes a bit to check availability of the address.

So if you can't reach my site for a bit, don't assume my blog has been taken down - it just means my address is changing to https, pending availability  😂

Also, just to be extra safe from past experience years ago, if, in the meantime, anything strange shows up here?

Remember, the lack of security certificate screen showing up does indeed mean it's open for those so inclined to hack.

And lastly, the only reason I wouldn't be able to upgrade my address to an https address is that somebody already owns it.

If I am successful at obtaining the https address, I will let you know  privately.

If I am not successful at obtaining the address, I will let you know HERE.

Which means, anything at that https address before I say so is NOT from me. 

Here We Go x2: Stephen Colbert, Then Jimmy Kimmel - Indefinitely Suspended

What did I JUST say, 2 posts ago?

I called my husband and said this, the moment I heard Trump said he was going to "crack down" on liberal groups...

"Here we go - Putin time, Kirk's death is getting used to try to silence the opposition. Trump's gonna use this just to harass his political opponents out of spite."

Exhibit A - Jimmy Kimmel's "indefinite" suspension from ABC late night talk shows.

Actually, Exhibit B because Stephen Colbert was first - canceled over "financial issues," despite being #1 slot for his time slot.

Jimmy Fallon, however, has essentially rolled over by having Greg Guttfield - trying to be Fox News' late night talk show host (and failing miserably) as a guest on his show.

C'mon, South Park - it's up to you now?

They were waiting for Jimmy Kimmel to make just 1 joke with a false premise and axe him - and though he usually uses video clips or transcripts to fact-check his own points - he didn't this time and it was a poor choice that wasn't fact-checked. 

Before I tell you what the joke is, for the record, the Tyler Robinson that was listed as a registered Republican in Utah is NOT the same Tyler Robinson that shot Charlie Kirk.

All we know is that Charlie Kirk's shooter, Tyler Robinson, isn't a registered voter and his mother has said that he has "turned more left in recent years," implying that he previously wasn't.

Thus, Jimmy Kimmel's joke was:

 

"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

Not sure if Kimmel based the joke on what his mother said or that false internet rumor about being a Republican or what his mother said.

Like I said, Jimmy's jokes are usually fact-checked by his staff, using video clips or transcripts to support them - not sure why he didn't this time. 

Regardless, Jimmy's jokes always take things to the point of the absurd - because it's a JOKE.

Trump makes up socially irresponsible, falsely-accusing shit every day, including that the election was stolen, resulting in a riot on the capitol - and he's NOT joking!

So ... more freedom of speech for me but not for thee, MAGA?

If anyone in America has ever behaved like Communists, it's not us - it's y'all!

As I said, that young man's murder was tragic.

But again, the hateful garbage coming out of that kid's mouth WAS stomach-churning.

That does NOT mean he deserved to die - and he has every right to say it, whether we like it or not.

However, making a sainted martyr of him is TOO MUCH. 

It actually makes me less sympathetic instead of more!

MAGA, you may have my blog shut my blog down for saying so and for my opinion if you like - but it won't change my opinion - it will only strengthen it :) 

And network TV?

Hope you realize you are now committing broadcast suicide.

You were already hanging by a thread next to subscription channels.

Truth be told, we got rid of cable/full streaming TV months ago, using only streaming apps because there's no reason to pay $90 a month for TV channels we don't ever watch.

In fact, there's only 3 network TV shows we watch - all 3 which can be viewed on subscription apps later, and we can do the same with sports events!

For the record, those remaining 3 shows are Ghosts (CBS/Paramount) Abbott Elementary (ABC) and SNL, (NBC/Peacock)  - and sometimes CBS Sunday Morning - all of which you can see via apps or YouTube later.

In addition to/through Amazon, we have, HBO Max, Hulu, and Paramount - at this point, only for Ghosts and  South Park - and we subscribe for about 3 months a year to Apple TV and HBO Max (only when a new/returning series comes out).

In fact, when is the last time someone said "Did you see ____ on regular network TV?"

It's been years!

Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Max is where it's at now and everyone knows it.

I mean, we like cop shows, fireman shows, SWAT team shows, FBI shows, and CSIS, but come on -  after a certain point, it becomes like the DC or Marvel Universe with super heroes - oversaturated!



So thanks for reaffirming, with this latest move, that there is now no reason to pay for full TV channels, cable or streaming TV, anymore!

RIP, Robert Redford ...

 I don't have much time before work, but the NYT just reported that Robert Redford died and I literally gasped.

I had tremendous respect for this man, not just as an actor, but for his political, environmental, and animal rights activism, his creation of the Sundance Film Festival (and the Sundance channel) to feature indie movies so that new talent to be heard and seen in film - and the way he lived his life - like an old rancher out West.

As for his acting, he could play the Ken he looked like. He could play a cold or warm character. He could play it tough and scary or soft and romantic. He had that rare combination of tough and tender.

Who can forget that final scene in The Way We Were, when Kate (Barbra Streisand) and Hubbell (Robert Redford) have a chance meeting in NYC, and she brushes his hair out of his face out of old habit, and he softly takes her hand, in fond memories - the way he looks at her, the way they look at each other, in a final goodbye?

This still image doesn't do it justice. 

His look said: 

"Our lives are so different, we never could have been, but I will  always remember the way we were. Thank you."

And hers is the same, both knowing they will likely never see each other again.

And less seriously and importantly - at least in my mind, Robert Redford and Paul Newman are still, to date, two of the most ruggedly handsome/sexiest movie stars of all time!

RIP, Sundance  ... thank you ...

Free Speech VS. Hate Speech, Quelling Political Violence or Silencing Opposition?

 

Yesterday, Trump announced that there would be a "crackdown" on liberal groups in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death. 

I called my husband and said "Here we go - Putin time, Kirk's death is getting used to try to silence the opposition. Trump's gonna use this just to harass his political opponents out of spite."

And that, of course, would be just a stone's throw away from ICE-like raids on people's homes - NOT because they're actually domestic terrorists or planning assassinations, of course - just to harass them.

And not just politically motivated - I can see people calling and reporting people they don't like, just to harass them - exhusbands and exwives, neighbors arguing over property, kids playing pranks, etc.

Again - I think what happened to Charlie Kirk is very sad, but I also fear it's going to be used as an excuse to silence the opposition - not just radical groups, but any opposition under the guises of preventing political violence.

Okay, so ... though political violence is becoming more common, in the past 50 years, who has been responsible for  domestic terrorism?

Well, of course, the most famous one in all our minds is the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which was, of course, performed by an anti-government militia - political far right.

The storming of the Capitol building, January 6, 2020 - which I DO consider domestic terrorism - political right.

But let's not just go with our memories, let's look at facts.

The following information was compiled into 1 report on Domestic Terrorism presented to the U.S. Senate in 2022. (Click on the link.)

Though the report was focused on social media as a form of communication between groups, it also references reports on Domestic Terrorism from the FBI, DOJ, and DHS, as well as the US Government Accountability Office (Congressional Committee).

The United States Government Accountability Office reported that since 9/11, 73% of all domestic terrorism acts have been committed by the political far right. 

"Political far right" is comprised of those who self-identify politically right, to include anti-government militia, white supremacists, and anti-abortionists.

The Department of Homeland Security reported in 2020 that White Supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat. 

The remaining threats come from a mix of ecoterrorists (left), animal rights activists (mixed), and radical Islamic groups (which are actually far right conservatives in the Islam faith).

Now, let's define Free Speech Vs. Hate Speech. 

The constitution does not specifically define hate speech, it simply protects freedom of speech from government regulation - including speech that is distasteful or offensive.

HOWEVER - the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the following speech is NOT protected under the constitution:

1)  Direct threats and harassment. 

2) Incites imminent lawless actions or bodily harm. 

3) "Fighting words" - words that intentionally incite or provoke violence -  towards others or yourself. 

Therefore, technically, if you go out and stir people into fear or panic and violence and encourage them to take action or intentionally cause a riot,  you are not protected constitutionally.  (Cough, cough, January 6th).

Also, though you might be protected legally by the constitution if you go around on tour and say a bunch of false  accusatory, inflammatory stuff about race, gender, or your political opposition, you also might not be protected - because your words could be construed as "fighting words" legally. 

Thus, you may be legally protected or you might not be - so if you're going to tour around making a bunch of inflammatory stuff , then providing your own security detail might be something you want to consider?

Now by saying that, please understand - I am NOT saying Charlie Kirk "brought this on himself." 

I actually was very sad this misguided young man had to die over Trump, as I initially wrote, and he had every right to say whatever he wants to say under the First Amendment.

However, we're also NOT going to pretend he didn't say a bunch of false-accusatory and inflammatory stuff about race, gender, non-Christian faiths, and Democrats. 

Are the kinds of things Charlie Kirk said legally considered "fighting words?"

I don't know.

I'm just saying whether you're protected by the constitution or not, if you're saying inflammatory stuff - and you're NOT the President of the United States with a secret service team - might I suggest that you invest in having security detail?

Because if you don't, some nut might try to take you out.

Regardless, political violence is on the rise, and though not equal - far right domestic terrorism still accounting for well over 70% of violent acts in America - to make this about one political side or the other won't solve the problem.

You know what will? 

Making it harder for those so inclined to commit political violence, regardless of political side, like ... I dunno, banning assault rifles?

Just a "shot in the dark," so to speak.

What, too soon for jokes?

Groan - okay, okay, maybe just bad puns.

"The Body Keeps The Score" - Bessel van der Kolk, MD

*edited for length

So after talking to that intake coordinator that I mentioned a few posts ago, unfortunately, there were only a few therapists available in my state, and they were booked up for 2 months.

I'm totally fine with seeing a therapist out of state, even would prefer that, because Kentucky isn't exactly a mecca of up-to-date mental health professionals, but apparently, that's not how these services work lol.

So I used another one, a bigger platform, and I really like her! Very smart, very funny, very knowledgeable.

She recommended this book and it just arrived ...

I asked her something like .....

"Is this one of those books where you feel like you're drowning in symptoms, but all the doctor does is describe the temperature of the water and what it feels like to drown, without providing any actionable tools to help you get yourself out? Because I've read all those" 😂

She answered honestly, something like:

"Hahaha! Eh, there is some of that that, but there are some tools that are helpful. The main reason I want you to read it is you're a reader and also work in healthcare, so I want you to fully understand the science behind what's going on with your body, why you feel like it's betraying you, when it thinks it's helping you."

"But the best part is, we have science to prove you're NOT permanently damaged because of the brain's neuroplasticity - you CAN retrain your brain at any age to use different pathways."

"This neural pathway you've created -  this pattern you've developed of running and hiding, giving overly competitive, sometimes even aggressive people exactly what they want - believing you'll lose if you fight back/compete because you did before - worked for you and was appropriate to survive your family and your exhusband." 

"However, in everyday life, running and hiding, giving overly competitive or even aggressive people what they want, is actually working against your survival financially."

Fair enough.

I knew a little bit about the neural pathways formed during trauma that were developed to keep you safe but don't really work in the everyday world, but that there is neuroplasticity, proving you can create new ones - but I could learn more, for sure.


Now, in reading criticism of the book, some trauma researchers have felt that though a better perspective on trauma than in years past, there is still too much "victim-blaming" - too much focus on what the victim could have done/should do differently, and not enough focus on what society should do about their aggressors inflicting much trauma on others. 

I get both sides of that argument. 

When I first entered therapy in my early 20s in the late 80s, that was the focus - what percentage of responsibility I carried in my own abuse - what choices I made to get myself into the situation - what I could do differently to avoid this again and not bring this on myself. 

Because I already believed I was the problem, I came away after 5 years in therapy, blaming myself actually more than I already did, so I actually felt worse, in a way.

But in another way, I felt falsely empowered -  if I just practiced and used this stuff, made different choices, had good boundaries, communicated differently, my life would go better and this would never happen to me ever again.


BZZZZ ... wrong ... oh, if only it were that simple.

Though taking responsibility is an important part of therapy - as well as learning better communication approaches, making better choices and having better boundaries - if overly focused on, it implies that you have control over/are responsible for the behavior choices others make towards you, when the truth is - you're not that powerful.

It implies that had you just done A, B, and C, it all works like some sort of secret magic combination lock, so this would never have happened to you, when we don't know that.

Sometimes even if we say and do, A, B, and C according to textbook therapy/better communication, try to diffuse situations or conversely, set boundaries, people still are who they are and do what they do - and your efforts at "boundaries" now only pisses aggressive people off more.

A hypothetical/metaphorical situation to illustrate my point -  although granted, most problems aren't so so clear cut.

There is often percentage of responsibility to be taken. Sometime it's 50/50, sometimes it's 80/20, and sometimes, it's 100% someone else at fault.

Let's say you left your wallet in the car and forgot to lock it, either feeling overly safe in your neighborhood or momentary distraction - and it was stolen

You could say: "Well, if I'd locked my car, they wouldn't have stolen my wallet. This is all my fault."

No, it isn't.

Yeah, you could've done things differently to protect yourself - but the thief is still a thief regardless of what you did or didn't do.

Sure, you can learn to make better choices and protect yourself, but would that prevent a thief from being a thief or actually protect you?

Maybe for a minute longer, in some cases.


For example, a couple of years ago, we had car break-ins in the neighborhood, where some cars were unlocked, others weren't.

They stole from the cars either way, locked or unlocked - but actually smashed the windows of the cars that were unlocked.


Am I saying you shouldn't lock your car then and it's okay to leave valuable stuff in your car?

Of course not.

I'm saying people want what they want - and some people will resort to aggression to get it, no matter what "better communication" or "boundaries" you put up to protect yourself.

And with those types, they have absolutely no interest in resoving things with you or parsing out who takes responsibilty for what -  and if they can get you to blame yourself entirely, even better.

They want they want, and you can just eff off - either give them what they want or stay out of their way 😂


Overly competitive, aggressive people - even bullies - are still who they are, regardless of what you do or don't do.

(And let's face it, those types are running amuck, right now, without sanction or sentence; in fact, even rewarded for this behavior.)

Unfortunately, it's misinterpreted as "strength," when all it really proves is that we, as humans, are in fact still just a bunch of clever chimps 😂

But why we still go to therapy is to learn what you CAN do differently because that's all you CAN control, and it can be empowering; HOWEVER,  that does NOT mean you can prevent other people from doing what they do. 

So my goal in reading this book to help understand better what is going on with my body and the neural pathways I've created to deal with trauma triggers, recognizing that neuroplasticity exists and I can change the pathways - and that's what I will be working on in therapy.


That does NOT mean we get to blame me or my PTSD as an overreactive, weak freak for everything, that there wasn't a real "thief in my car," so to speak, or that I will never in my life run across another "thief" in my lifetime, regardless of what I do or don't do.

It means I've been metaphorically "stolen" from before and this person's behavior was genuinely similar enough to that original "thief "to take my body back decades - period.

And actually, on the plus side, it can sometimes even mean that because of my PTSD hypervigilance, I will notice a "thief" in the room before others.


Whether or not this person is or is not that metaphorical "thief" remains to be seen - it requires more evidence.

So for now, I just learn to protect myself better, thank my brain and body for trying to tell me something, rather than shaming myself for it, and observe the situation withholding judgment, neither fight nor flight.