Meghan Markle: Explanations For The Hatred, Please (via Email)?

(*Edited)

I just now had time to read the full WaPo article about Meghan and Harry to see what all the fuss was about. 

I don't get it - what's with the intense hatred?

So, first it was "How dare you marry our prince! Get out, you don't belong here," and now it's "How dare you leave our country half-time with our Prince!"

Danged if she does, danged if she doesn't, it would seem.  

And it's not like she was welcomed with open arms there, to begin with, now was she?  ;)
 
But then I don't follow her closely, nor am I from British culture, and I certainly don't know her personally - and it would seem the only info we have, other than direct interviews, is tabloid gossip, because the royals are pretty tight with personal information. 

Thus, I do not understand the pure hatred spewing out of people's mouths about her - what am I missing? 

What has this girl done that could possibly be so unforgivable and deserve this degree of intense hate-spewing?

I should think this decision to step back from royal life and only live there half-time would make Meghan-haters from the beginning very happy, but instead, you've found a new reason to hate her?

If any British friends want to explain it to me (via email), please do. 

Because without that information, it would appear to me that - okay, she's blundered a few times while still learning royal behavior, just like Lady Di did (and will probably take even longer because she's American)  - AND?  So what?

However, it would appear to me that unlike Meghan, Diana was very young, she was only 20 when she married Charles, and had no clue of who she was.  She was also extremely shy, not as self-assured and confident as Kate or Meghan.

Also, apparently, Diana had some pretty significant emotional issues already, going into the marriage, which were only worsened by being thrown into a loveless marriage and the royal fishbowl.   She needed a lot of extra affection and reassurance that you're not going to get from royals because royals are trained not to publicly display too much affection, plus they don't have the time and bandwidth for those sorts of issues, they're busy people.

It appeared Diana desperately tried to learn and change and get media/public/royal approval and love, but she did not succeed, at least fully, until after she divorced Charles, and especially after she died, in hindsight. 

In fact, it really bothers me how the press now says "The media loved Diana, but not Meghan" because that is, quite simply, total bullsh*t - how quickly we forget.

Don't let the media fool you, younger folks, reading what the media says about Diana now, in hindsight  - that may be their guilt talking and essentially causing her car accident - nobody was good enough for Prince Charles, either - not Camilla, his true love from the beginning, not Diana, nobody  ;)

And Kate wasn't originally given an easy ride, either, at first, so it makes me laugh that now she's the British darling, because they weren't exactly kind about her at first.

However, the "not good enough" arrogance has reached an epic hatred level with Meghan - and I don't get it.

What is similar (but worse for Meghan) is that exactly like Meghan, the media loved Diana's wedding, but shortly afterwards, the media -  especially tabloid paparazzi that we inexplicably still read, and some even now call "news" and rely on as gospel truth  -  were absolutely merciless with Diana propaganda, too, at first.  In fact, she was somewhat of a joke to the media for years. (I will admit, it IS worse with Meghan, though.)

Though the public at large had begun to love Diana over time and embrace her fumbles, that mass-love we see now for Diana did not blossom until much later - after she started embracing her differences from the royals, laughed along at her own mistakes, and most importantly - divorced Charles. 

Now, let's be honest - Diana had some pretty significant emotional issues before she married Charles -  and thus, was not well suited for the royal life (very few of us are, even without those kinds of issues) - so finally recognizing she was never going to get what she needed from the royals and vice versa and calling it quits was probably the best thing for both parties.   

HOWEVER, Diana was nonetheless still a devoted excellent mother, by all accounts, and should be given credit for raising two fine boys, as well as being an extremely compassionate, empathetic person, who only began to embrace that about herself, and herself in general, when she stopped trying to please everyone, in the end, expanding the role of royalty to publicly supporting various charitable causes personally.

Her emotional issues that worsened after being thrown into royal fishbowl should have secured our compassion and mercy for her, as Christians, but they initially didn't - millions of jealous women, and their daughters, gave her hell for not being good enough for the prince.

Diana was treated mercilessly by the media, for years, and though public sentiment began to accept her over time, the anti-Diana propaganda paparazzi was still in full force, right up until the day of her death - which, may I remind you, was the result of being chased at high-speed by the tabloid paparazzi!

Conversely, it would appear to me that Meghan is older and much more self-assured and confident than Diana ever was (though she began to be, later) - every bit as self-assured and confident as Kate. 

Speaking of which, it's okay for Kate to be confident and self-assured, but not Meghan - why is that, again? 

At age 36, Megan already knew who she was, before marrying Harry.   She also was used to at least some paparazzi from her movie/TV career, as she had been around the block a time or two with paparazzi and tabloid, already know going in that it was only going to get worse and she'd probably never get especially British public approval, particularly with people who'd already made up their minds not to ever accept her.

It appears as just like Diana, Meghan does try (and fumbles), but unlike Diana, it appears Meghan realized what it took Diana years to figure out -  the futility of pleasing everyone, particularly people who made up their minds they'd never accept her from the get-go - she's danged if she does, danged if she doesn't. 

However, unlike Diana, Meghan refuses to beg, grovel, plead, manipulate, and ultimatum anyone for love, acceptance, and approval, like Diana initially did.  

Meghan appears to have recognized and accepted much earlier than Diana that she's likely never going to get these things from people who made up their minds before she ever married Harry -  and she's okay with that, as well as her fumbles, still trying to live a normal life and care for family regardless. 

And yet the "fishbowl" aspect does clearly affect Meghan - perhaps more than she anticipated - perhaps she underestimated the extent of the effect the upgrade to "royal fishbowl" would affect her and her family.

So why do people excuse Meghan's blunders even less than they did Princess Di?

Why do people see Kate's confidence and self-assurance as a good thing, but not Meghan's? 

Is it because she's American/not British?

Is it because she's American AND half-black? ;)

It it because this pretty American girl dashed the dreams of millions of British women and their daughters, who never had a chance with Harry anyway, but incessantly b*tch to  men about her, out of jealousy, until the men can't take anymore and hate her too? lol

Is it because she refuses to abandon her own culture completely?

In fact, the worst thing I could find on her was that although she's trying to learn the new cultural rules and royal traditions, she also has made clear that she wants to retain some of her own culture and traditions and refuses to bend over backwards to please people that have already made up their minds to never accept her regardless of what she does - is that the problem? 

Again, so what? 

Is that a bad thing?

***  Wait, I take that back - the absolute worst thing I could find was some nonsense tabloid story about the Queen and Meghan having a fight over a tiara, which I doubt ever happened, and is very clearly misogynistic BS propaganda -about both the Queen AND Meghan - as if either the Queen or Meghan are immature and petty enough to argue over a tiara LOL. 

I literally laughed out loud, when I read it - because that story totally sounds like it was completely fabricated by the type of man who has no clue about what's really important to women, and thinks all, or even most, grown women throw fits over things like tiaras LOL.


I suspect the answer to the above questions is some combination of all of the above:

"How DARE some "uppity" black American girl marry our prince and still hold on to some aspects of her own culture - she's needs to know her place, act appreciative, and play along."

Is that about right? 

IF that is the case -  how deliciously shallow, petty, jealous, arrogant - and above all, racist - of you.  

(And in some cases, misogynistic - with jealous, petty women helping the misogynists out.) 

In fact, for all British claims of impeccable manners and well-bred behavior, I'd say it appears that the Meghan-hating Brits, at least, actually behave emotionally and behaviorally like American 13-year-old girls. 

Congratulations, Meghan-hating Brits!  I thought Americans had become the most merciless people in the world, but you have proven you definitely still wear that crown!

Despite how you initially treated Harry's mother, Diana, too :(

However, perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope someone sheds some light on this for me, but I doubt there IS a reasonable, rational, plausible explanation for THAT much hatred being spewed for some poor girl we don't even know, whose behavior, for better or worse,  has no affect on our lives whatsoever, in the end.

Thus, how about chilling on all the hatred, if for nothing else but Harry's sake - remember how his mother died?

History is repeating itself with Meghan, with a vengeance - cut the poor girl some slack, we don't even know her :(


I feel sorry for both Harry and Meghan, quite frankly.

PS

I've added some more info about NOLA to the post below, as well as I just want to clarify that the post is NOT an insult of the Catholic church OR protestant churches or  Christianity.

I am a practicing Christian myself, and I have a great respect for the Catholic church having "parented" my own chosen denomination of Episcopalian (which is nearly identical in service), as well as a great respect for Judaism having parented Catholicism and "grandparented" my own faith - in fact, without the mission work of Catholicism or Judaism, there would be no "us" as protestants.

However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything - even within my own denomination.  I'm allowed to interpret scripture for myself and differently - that's the beauty of freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

I'm also not going to pretend along that my faith, nor my particular denomination of Christianity, has treated those of other denominations or other religions or races any better than any other faith, and it's not without it's own glaringly apparent flaws.   

Though I am particularly proud of the more recent history of the Episcopal church (the last 100 years or so), every faith and denomination on this planet,  including Episcopalians, have at some  point had a dark history and skeletons in their closet - things they'd rather cover up and not remember they did towards their fellow man.  However, acknowledging those dark histories is necessary, in order to improve ourselves.

This means I'm also not going to turn a blind eye to, and willfully ignore, the factual history of our faith, all of it - the good, the bad, and the ugly -  because I think it's important we keep what's good, leaving the rest in the past, while still openly acknowledging and repenting for our faith engaging in these wrongful practices towards others and this planet, considering we are stewards of others and this planet, doing our best to do better/make amends and move forward.

Make sense?  Good talk :)

Sancta Simplicitas

(*Edited x2 - also see recent post clarification) 

I've just read a timely passage from a book I'm reading, after having two very different conversations on faith in the past week, so I thought I'd share what I read for them both to read.  Though coming from different perspectives, this was the common thread between conversations - how the true message of Christ has been hijacked by most churches and politicians today. 

The book itself is actually unrelated, it's about the history of New Orleans (I just started the book, so I won't share the name until I finish it and can tell you if it's worth the plug;).   

However, there's a passage from this particular chapter that's relevant, but bear with the setup? :)

The chapter actually begins regarding New Orleans being the only major city in America where the above-ground cemeteries are part of the major tourist attractions (Arlington's National Cemetery in Virginia being a close second), but as it turns out, the fact that they are above ground is not just for the reason we non-N'awlins folk believed (that it was because NOLA is below sea level).  

St. Louis Cemetery #1 - New Orleans, Louisiana 

As it turns out, people were buried below ground in New Orleans, just like everybody else, until the late 1700s, and there's a few reasons for this change, having more to do with suddenly having more bodies than burial land, in swamp territory, after not just flooding, but city-destroying fires and epidemics, as well as they were simply following French-Catholic fashion custom at the time.  

In fact, the famous Parisian cemetery, Pere Lachaise, is also above ground, and was also built during this same time period (because they, too, had a land shortage for burial, at the time). 

Pere Lachaise Cemetery -  Paris, France 

More importantly was the influence of the Catholic church,  because New Orleans was heavily French and Spanish influenced, which was largely Catholic at the time.

Thus, New Orleans was, and still is, largely Catholic - the difference being, you can be both Catholic and a Creole Voodoo queen and still be buried in the above-ground "family death condo" in the Catholic cemetery, as the faith there is often a mix of the two.

Incorporating beliefs together in a mix is not unusual - in fact, all faiths are a mix and incorporation of prior faiths, no faith is pure - but in New Orleans especially, Catholicism and Voodoo are not mutually exclusive - much like similar Santeria, a mix of animism and Catholicism, is very popular in Cuba and Latin and South America.

It's actually not a stretch, because both faiths believe in the active afterlife of souls and saints after death, still somewhat connected to the earthly plane.  In Catholicism, it's not about praying or worshipping saints, it's about asking them to intercede in prayer for you, from their elevated spiritual plane - to pray intermediary/intercessory prayers on your behalf.  

In Voodoo and Santeria, however, this is a spectrum - it ranges from intermediary prayer to asking for favors, all the way up to saint worship.  

Regardless,  both faiths otherwise appreciate departed souls, generally behaving as if they are still living, because they believe they're still around, still watching over you :)


(Most modern Asian Buddhism is the same way - because although Buddha himself said not to pray to him, he's not divine and won't hear you, he's dead - the prior preferred religion of ancestor veneration was later incorporated into Buddhism.)

It's interesting how many cultures believe your loved ones are still near you, though, whether doing so is officially recognized by the religion or not, isn't it? 

Back to the New Orleans-style Catholicism/Voodoo combo; in fact, the famous Creole Voodoo queen, Marie Laveau, is buried in St. Louis cemetery, and she both attended mass every day and was a high priestess in the Voodoo religion.

However, sorry to disappoint - the truth is, though she did also practice Voodoo, she likely had no magical power at all, but let everyone believe that, because what she did do was  just collect secrets and gossip as a hairdresser to the degree that people just thought she had magical powers of premonition, and she was okay with that - it kept her from slavery or anybody ever messing with her ;)

In fact, this was essentially the only the way a poor woman of color could obtain power, money, and prestige to the point of middle/upper-middle-class status, living in one of those pretty little gingerbread Creole shotgun cottages in the French Quarter.

Not that race was ever as much of "a thing" in New Orleans, like it was in the rest of the country, anyway, until later.  

Much like in France, at the time, they were ahead of everybody else on realizing the absurdity of judging based on skin-color or gender, but it was still unfortunately all about wealth and the class you were born into (and still is).

The social class you were born into mattered more than your skin color or gender because race-mixing was already a common and accepted practice in New Orleans.

Being that New Orleans was a fairly isolated city from the rest of the country, people often "hooked up" with whatever "sexual resources" were available (much like white men marrying Native Americans in the west).

Thus, the culture became so racially mixed it became known as "Creole" - Mostly French and Spanish white plus West Indies or  African black, with a dash of Choctaw Native American for good measure.

In other words, unlike "Cajun" (short for "Acadian") - who were white French-Canadian Catholics who migrated to the area to avoid religious persecution - "Creole," by definition, means that your heritage always contains some element of white plus black.

Thus, nobody could really tell your social class based on just skin color anymore,  so skin color really didn't matter as much as how wealthy or "high-born" you were - in other words, how close your genetic connection was to wealthy white aristocracy - which of course still has racial ties.

This is because New Orleans was still under Napoleanic code until 1803, they were still under Napoleanic law - meaning that unlike everywhere else in colonies or in the South, not every person of color; according to Napoleanic Code, New Orleans was the only city in the country where you could actually buy your own way out of slavery.

That is NOT to downplay the practice of slavery itself, which did still exist in New Orleans   - remember, Harriet Beecher Stowe was inspired to write "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after watching the horrors at the slaves markets in New Orleans, originally the major slave trade center for the South.

However, not only was New Orleans the only place in America where you could buy your own way out of slavery, but also according to Napoleanic code, marriage between slaves was legally recognized, it was illegal to separate families, or mistreat/exert violence/kill slaves - and New Orleans was the first city where slavery was abolished in the south.  

But yes - people did still own slaves in New Orleans despite their mixed heritage - including lighter-skinned, wealthy Creoles actually owning darker-skinned, poorer Creoles and people of color! 

That floored me, when I discovered several years ago, that some mixed-race people actually owned other black and mixed-raced people as slaves themselves, but it's proof that it's not the race itself that predisposes people to abuse of power, it's wealth and power that predisposes/corrupts people - regardless of their race or gender.

***Although having said that, we white people especially sure did take that ball and run with it - in fact, we actually sanctioned greed and power abuse as "normal," and in fact, we have incorporated greed and power abuse into our faith, imagining that financial prosperity is proof of "God's favor and blessing" for us, instead of proof of our own greed and ruthlessness -- poor God, always getting the credit or blame for things we did ourselves or how we treated each other :/)

For example, the infamous New Orleans slave-torturer/serial killer, Madame Delphine LaLaurie, was herself "high-born" Creole.

She was eventually chased out of town - or more accurately, the intent was to hang her after overwhelming evidence was discovered, after a slave chained to the stove started an intentional fire during a party to draw attention to not just to herself, but the slaves being tortured and killed in the attic, but LaLaurie somehow managed to slip away in the crowd and chaos that ensued and fled the country rather than face trial for her crimes - with all her money :/

So though slavery was allowed in New Orleans, as stated above, the differences from the rest of the South were that their marriages were legal, families were not allowed to be separated, murder and violence towards slaves was illegal, and you could buy your way out of slavery.  

In fact - just in New Orleans, mind you - slaves were considered too valuable a commodity to help build shipping canals and lose their lives from yellow fever - that dubious honor went to "low-born," poor Irish immigrants that were flooding in from the Potato Famine - which again reconfirms that though abuse of power is affected by racism, it is not predisposed according race (although again, we whites legitimately are the biggest offenders of power abuse).

Additionally, as stated above, New Orleans was among the first cities in the Deep South to adopt the abolition of slavery, abolishing it in 1864 - a year before the Civil War officially ended (much to the dismay of pure-white plantation owners, but yes). 

So in other words, though the social structure value hierarchy of just about everywhere else in America went like this, prior to 1865: 

Wealthy white men. 

Wealthy white women. 

Middle/Merchant-class whites. 

Working-class whites.

Poorer whites, Asian, or Latino immigrant labor and Native Americans.

Free men of color. 

Free women of color. 

Slaves.

* Note that in everywhere else in the South, however, there was really no such thing as "free people of color" - that only actually existed in the North, the West, and New Orleans, prior to 1865.

Everywhere else, in the South, if free people of color were found, even if just visiting family from the North, they were rounded up and arrested under "vagrancy" laws under false pretense and sent back into slavery.  Thus, free people of color only existed in the North, the West, and New Orleans prior to 1865.

In New Orleans, the value-hierarchy social strata was more like this:

Wealthy white men and wealthy white women (*according to Napoleanic law, women could hold property, bank, run businesses, and even vote on local issues long before 1920.  They were the only city in America to do so, actually losing these privileges after the Civil War until 1920).

Wealthy Creole men and women. 

Middle/Merchant-class free Creole men and women.  

Working-class free Creole men and women and white Cajun (Acadian) men.

Cajun (Acadian) women. 

Slaves. 

Poor, "low-born" immigrant labor of any race (typically Irish at that time). 

So racism affected NOLA, but to a lesser degree - not every person of color was a slave like everywhere else.  In New Orleans, it was more about money and "old money" especially.

However, the threads of racism that existed remain even today.  For example, never confuse your Cajun words and food with your Creole words and food -  it's considered an insult going both ways - and if you're not sure, ask which the word or dish is, Cajun or Creole.

Conversely, Marie Laveau,  was also mixed Creole, but was not high born; thus, being a middle-class professional Creole, with the reputation of being able to work Voodoo. kept her from slavery and anybody messing with her, you see ;)

By the way - if you want to leave flowers, food, drink, or other gifts for Marie at her tomb at St. Louis cemetery, that's fine - *HOWEVER* - the city itself, the Save Our Cemeteries Foundation of New Orleans, the Catholic church, as well as still-practicing Voodoo practitioners in NOLA, all kindly request that you please stop leaving  X's on her tomb in permanent ink - and if you still feel you must do so, please at least use chalk.

Despite tradition, this is actually more tradition than Voodoo practice.

Well,  there is a similar Voodoo practice, but it doesn't involve permanently desecrating the tomb with permanent X's, but instead used other temporaries like brick dust, certain ground herbs, or dirt/earth - and there is a heavy life /soul price to pay for the request - heavier than just bringing her flowers lol.  

Having said that, tradition also says you shouldn't visit her tomb empty-handed - bring her something as a visitor, whether you request something, lest she curse you lol - again, more tradition legend than actual Voodoo, but just to be on the safe side, perhaps bringing her flowers, sweets/a beignet/chocolate, Mardi Gras beads, a hair barrette, or makeup?  ;)

Regardless, leaving permanent X's with pen, marker, or neon paint has become not only  an eyesore that the city has to paint over, every year, but as of 2015, you can no longer visit St. Louis #1 cemetery for free - the local Catholic churches decided there would be no more free tours, only fees for cemetery tours with a guide, with all the proceeds towards preservation, restoration, and cleanup.

Additionally, the church feels they need to reconsecrate them, and the Voodoo practitioners feel they need to "reseal" the inappropriate portal that has been made between earthly and spiritual planes, and both faiths believe that asking actual favors from the dead, without knowing what you're truly dealing with, is spiritually irresponsible -- not to mention that desecrating a tomb like that is just as much an insult to the departed souls in Voodoo as it is in Christianity (or any other faith).

Back the "family hi-rise death condos," at the time, the church was famous for telling people you didn't want your bodies to "float away," so they should instead pay more for the multi-leveled artistic death condos, which of course made the church a pretty penny ;) 

Anyway, for whatever reason, the author later goes off on a momentary tangent about those times that the Catholic church overstepped and forcefully and violently exerted control over the world (Oops?), and the fate of Jan Hus, whom I'd never heard of before, so I looked him up. 

Apparently, he was a Czezchoslavakian priest, Bohemian of course, and was a pre-Lutheran pre-reformer, who gained quite a following by saying such "heretical" things like, "Hmm, maybe the entire church, from the Pope down, should return to the meager, monastic way Christ and his apostles lived, not accumulating wealth, owning land and hoarding gold."

He also said that such "liberal" additions as the pope selling indulgences (essentially absolving your sin for money, a practice which has since been abolished), and other things like confession were not part of the original apostolic church and were not scriptural, they were created to make the church money, as well as keep tabs/social control on its parishioners.

Also, a new idea (well, he considered it what Jesus intended) - the worst infraction of them all, according to the Catholic church -  that women should be priests as well as men because their souls were just as viable and valuable as men, especially after Jesus elevated the role of women at the stoning incident, only to have Paul tear it down again in adherence to OT law, trying to please the Pharisees.

You know, basically the same sort of complaints we still have today, and not just about the Catholic church, but in fact, the very same protestant churches who originally made those reformation points -  ironic, isn't it?

Ah, greed and the love of "Mammon" - it's a surreptitious soul killer - one that knows no particular religious or political denomination.

 Anyway, long story short, at the time, there were two popes claiming the right to papacy, East and West, and even though neither recognized the other and vied for the "throne," they also both hated Hus and excommunicated him, and yet he didn't care and continued to preach in Czechoslovakia, because he believed his ideology was more closely aligned with the original church conducted by the apostles of Christ, as well as the true teachings of Christ  - but doesn't everybody believe they are adhering to the true teachings of Christ? :)

This, of course, royally pissed both popes-in-waiting, but Hus had gained quite a following and was too far away to do too much about.  So at this point, they devised a plan to invite Hus to the Vatican under the false-pretense promise of reformation negotiation, assuring him that no harm would come to him, and yet when he arrived, of course they burned the poor man at the stake.

 Hus likely knew what would happen to him because he made a will right before he left - and when offered to spare his life if he would confess and repent to the bishop, right there at what would be his own funeral pyre, Hus refused, saying he was prepared to die and doing what Jesus would do. 


Anyway, supposedly, they couldn't get the fire lit - so an old woman threw dry kindling on it and so it began - and the last thing he uttered was "Sancta Simplitas" in Latin, which literally means "Holy Simplicity," but really means in context something akin to, "Such a simple immoral act this person does, believing it holy and wholly righteous."

Not exactly Christ's "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," but a similar, perhaps more human: "Holy narrow-minded ignorance, Batman! The poor misguided idiot has completely lost the plot!" LOL

So next time you see someone of our faith, or any faith, doing something absurd, harmful, or even immoral, supposedly on behalf of their faith, believing it to be righteous - for example, in our current day, those who say you're not a true Christian or even demonic, just because you don't support their political candidate, politics, political party, or denomination -  simply say to yourself, "Sancta Simplitas" :)

You're in good company - because Hus is revered as a national hero in the Czech Republic, now, as he also believed the scripture should be accessible to both clergy and laymen alike, that "conservative Christianity" in fact means more closely adhering to the lifestyle and actual words of  Christ above all others (including later apostles such as Paul and other politicians),  and that the church should leave room for varying interpretations for the spiritual growth and evolution movement that Christ began - to the degree that both Christ, and Hus, were willing to die for it.

Then in 1999, Pope John Paul II publicly apologized for the church's deceit, treatment, and murder of Hus, and commended him on his moral courage - and stopped just short of canonizing him as saint (although he is unofficially revered as a saint in some more Eastern Orthodox churches :)

We Love You and Believe in You, B - Keep Going :)

(Links now added)

We had dinner last night, and about a 4-hour talk with my future son-in-law ;)

Okay, he's not really my future son-in-law (yet) lol.  My daughter lives on the West Coast and thus, they haven't even met yet, but I think he's perfect for her, they would get along so well - but they both have much more to accomplish first :)  

I've mentioned him before in this post (which is also further down on this page.) 

He's extraordinarily busy, but made sure he made time for a dinner with us (he's a former intern for my husband at the Lexington/Fayette County public schools) at my favorite Indian restaurant and we spent a good 4 hours in good conversation.  (We also owed him dinner for helping us move 2 years ago lol) 

So, I got to see the personal pictures and behind-the-scenes stories about what some of the candidates were like in person, at the debates, when the cameras were off, and read excerpts of his paper on the algorithm he wrote to track Russian bots on Twitter (which hopefully will be published soon) and their efforts to influence American elections.  

This is a kid who had the foresight to start taking Russian in high school, because he began to realize long before 2016 how powerful Putin had become and began noticing increased Russian efforts to exert influence on other politics in the world, particularly the US, particularly through social media, and the dangerous potential of that  - and he wanted to learn to understand and speak Russian so he could discern for himself what was being said.

Let me tell you, his conclusions do NOT look good for American Republican susceptibility to Russian disinformation influence -  with the higher ups knowing full well these things aren't true and using it to manipulate a win, and your everyday conservatives eating every word as gospel truth without proof.

Speaking of the dissemination of Russian/American Republican disinformation, he also shared his suspicions about the General Soleimani/Iranian situation, which were similar to my own. 


Trump has proven repeatedly, both before and during his presidency, that he doesn't care about risks to national security or who is an actual threat to the US or the world at large - he only cares about who he perceives as threat to his own personal security and  financial/political power.

Quaddafi, Jong-Un, Putin, Xi Jinping, bin Salman, just to name a few. You can try to justify and spin it all you like, but it's the very definition of corruption, at its worst.


I mean, hell, (Link - ABC News) Trump was friends with, and even illegally provided housing on his New York estate for, crazy-ass Libyan terrorist, Moamar Quadaffi/Gaddafi, until NY court ordered him to remove him off the premises -  *** note the article is dated 2009*** - long before Trump's presidency or this level of political division and politicized press. This is a fact, not speculation - use any source you like, both conservative and liberal press reported it, at the time. 

Additionally, he has openly bragged about friendships with questionable members of the Saudi Royal Family, (link - NBC News) claiming that crowned prince bin Salman was innocent of Khashoggi's murder, publicly contradicting CIA and other security agencies' findings, both domestic and foreign, without providing evidence to the contrary - just his word that they were his friends/could be trusted.  Also a proven fact, not speculation - use any source you like, both liberal and conservative press reported Trump's direct quotes on the matter. 

In fact, one member of the (link - BusinessInsider) Saudi royal family even bailed Trump out of personal bankruptcy by buying his yacht in 1991, bought the 45th floor of Trump Tower in 2001 for $5 million, and members of the royal family bought 500 nights at Trump's DC hotel in 2017 - again, proven fact, not speculation, use whatever source you like - and though they often don't report negative information about Trump, even Fox News reported them/were concerned. 

All of this despite (direct link -  9-11commission.gov) the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report proving funding for 9/11 was wired from American banks in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.Check the very detailed addendum for which banks were used and from where  - again, fact - not speculation. The 9/11 bipartisan commission's investigation into 9/11 was very thorough, very detailed and has never been disputed - but Saudi and the UAE have also never been investigated further as to which wealthy members in those countries financed the terrorist acts from men other, poorer countries.

If you finance terrorism, using poor pawns from different countries to keep your nose clean - does that make you any less a terrorist?

Yes, Soleimani was truly a US enemy - but one of many, and considered a lower-level threat to the U.S. at that,  for a long time, so ... why him and why now ???

Despite Pence's tweet, no - there is absolutely no evidence to support that Soleimani was involved in 9/11 - that has already been investigated by all our national security agencies, and by both parties in the bipartisan investigation by 9/11 congressional committee, previously and repeatedly - and we're still not certain what the impetus was for the recent US Embassy attack in Iran, which needed to be sorted out first.  

Soleimani has certainly done or plotted to do a lot of other nasty things, but there is no evidence to support that he was in any way involved in 9/11.

Thus, my suspicion is that killing Soleimani was more of a political and US power display, as well Trump's attempts at pleasing Republicans who were both overly paranoid about Iran (when there are worse threats) and on the fence about Trump's impeachment, than it was a justified assassination of a known threat to the U.S.

In short, I believe Trump assassinated a lower-level, lesser-powered threat, just because he could - then beat his chest in dominance afterwards, like the purely brain-stem-motivated gorilla he truly is. 

And yes, we're a bit concerned, because world wars have been started over similar situations (World War I), so that is a not beyond the stretch of imagination and a very real possibility, here. 

But I digress, back to the dinner - sorry, but I can't share any of  the photos or any of  behind-the-scenes stories at the Democratic debates, but I CAN tell you that some of the ones you'd least suspect are actually rude or cold when the cameras are off.

(Okay, I will tell you that one of them actually slammed into B with a revolving door and didn't bother to apologize and they did notice they had done so, just didn't care - and it's someone I would never suspect of ever doing that to anyone.  That person has no idea of who they just hit in the face with a revolving door without apologizing, and mark my words, in about 20 years, they're going to regret that. ) 

Never underestimate the seeming "nobodys" of this world; if the Golden Rule doesn't already inspire you treat others as you would like to be treated, then please realize, if nothing else, though they may have no importance to you now, you never know who they might become later or who they might know - and they will remember how they were treated ;)

These are the little things candidates don't think about that actually have a huge impact on people trying to decide who to vote for - how they treat people when those cameras are off, how important they think they are versus the masses.

If you're one of our Democratic candidates, I understand being a bit guarded and security concerns, but never start behaving as if you're more important than your supporters, lest you be an elitist hypocrite and fail Basic Dem Ideology 101, and then the Republicans have a point (they're okay with elitism and classes versus the masses, mind you, but the fact that we claim not to be, but are, does make us hypocrites.)

And I do have to say there was one story about another one of the candidates, who has since dropped out (I think), that so disappointed and disgusted me, that I can't even look at them the same way anymore, ever again!

Also, some of the candidates left immediately after the debates were over, but 2 stayed and talked with, allowed selfies with, and even hugged every single person in attendance (Biden and Warren), with Warren staying until long after the cameras and crew were gone so she could talk to/find out opinions of every person there.  I was told that she was the most genuine. 

I'm not sold on any of them still, and I still have issues with Warren - I think she has a "truth enhancement" problem and has recently resorted to Trump-like petty attacks, deflecting off her own misdeeds onto other candidates - but she did go back up a few points in my mind after I was told that.

However, I will tell you the negatives I heard of how some of the candidates behaved and treated people when the cameras are off made a huge impact on me and are from a source that I trust, and thus they've thus been crossed off the list - how you treat people when the cameras were off is THAT important.

That is a character litmus test for me, one I learned to value from Johnny Cash (versus other celebrities), who I had the great honor of knowing personally at a very young age and his philosophy and version of what was actually most important about Christianity had a tremendous impact on me, but that's another story - one I've never mentioned to B (and most people don't know), but I might share next time we have dinner ;). 

I need to add that there were no negatives said about Bernie, whom I love, but I am more concerned about his health, now.  I have a deeper respect for his commitment despite his health problems (he's a trooper), but yes, just not sure if this whole thing is good for his health. If only he were even 10 years younger  :/

Anyway, folks, this young man we had dinner with (my husband mentored during his internship with the public schools) is a very sincere, hard-working, compassionate young man, chocked full of integrity and good intentions - which I hope he keeps despite this jaded world, especially in politics today.   

(In fact, apparently I'm not the only one at FCPS who had tried to fix him up with their daughter, so I guess we'll get in line and take a number lol. However, half those people are conservatives, so I do hope we at least get in the first choice for consideration category, considering our like-mindedness? lol)

He even shocked me with his ideas of how to overhaul campaign finance and do away with things like large corporate and lobbyist donations and replace them with a system that makes things more equitable as far as donations (I can't tell you what it is, because it's his idea, but of course it's brilliant.) 

Also, he had ideas about how to provide healthcare for all, but still leave us with the power of choice on whether to do public or private insurance - and also to make sure, that unlike Obamacare, the commercial insurance companies no longer dictate treatment choices, clinicians do. I can't say more about that, either, but again, brilliant.

Agreed - although I personally believe that nothing is going to help much until we start regulating the cost of healthcare with legislation. 

I think it's way past time we stop letting big pharma and insurance mandate clinical treatment rather than clinicians themselves, and the cost for that treatment should now at least be curtailed by government legislation because it's gotten out of control, IMO. 

Because you know dang well it does not cost Big Pharma $100 to make a 1-ounce vial of easy-to-make insulin (that according to "fair market" rules, should be cheaper because there are so many competitor, yet it's inexplicably not), nor  does it cost them $30 to make just 1 anticoagulant pill when there are now several competitors in that class.

Big Pharma has still yet to explain why, or even really be fully questioned by congress on why, considering all the generics that have flooded the market versus branded medications, the prices never go down more than a couple of dollars? 

Now look, I'm a believer in fair market - but I also believe in consumer protection and anti-trust laws - and that the market can become "unfair" through greed - unchecked abuse of power, monopolies, and shady business practices that benefit a few while sinking your average American, greed running amok without consequence.


Be that as it may, I'm telling you, B is an up-and-comer in the political world, already on the national Dems radar because of his actions as the president of democrats at his university, as well as his studies on political bots and Twitter -  and even in this age of political division, he's somehow still much beloved by both liberals and conservatives alike, both at his university and while interning at the public schools where my husband works - so keep on the lookout, because in about 10+ years from now, I know you'll see his name on your ballot boxes.

However, since he attends university in another state, I asked him not if, but when he becomes senator (and then president, of course), which state would he want to live in and represent? lol.  He wasn't sure yet. 

Though I would love it, if it were Kentucky, I wouldn't blame him if he chose elsewhere to try and represent that's less of a lost-cause battle and he agreed lol. 

Anyway, it's important to us to keep this young man encouraged - so I'm leaving this here, once again, if he ever gets homesick or needs a momentary reminder of belief in himself :)

B,  

It was our great pleasure to take you to dinner, last night - and I hope you're still sipping on that wonderful chai tea like I am! (I'm not kidding, it's the best I've ever, right?)  

Thank you for allowing me to pick your brain - I hope you didn't feel interrogated? However, we all laughed a lot too, so I hope you had at least some fun :)

You are brilliant, of course, but more importantly to us is the fact that you're an honest and good person with a big heart - the best :)  

Keep that big heart, don't ever let it go, no matter what happens - and if ever you're in a situation where you have to choose between your popularity and your conscience, please choose your conscience - I know you will :)  Name your moral price for what you want and don't go one step past it, promise us? 

Also, learn from what you saw when the cameras were off during the debates, how that made you feel, and promise yourself you're never going to be like that/treat people that way, no matter who they are or how important they are or aren't.  

How you treat people, when in a more powerful position, can make or break people in lower positions, and they're looking to you for hope. No pressure or anything right? lol.  But you can do this - you know this :)

We just love you, sweet boy, we're so very proud of the man you're becoming and are :)

BIG hugs to you ... 

~ Mark and Chrystal Chaplow - your adopted Uncle and Aunt (and hopefully your in-laws someday? lol)

PS - Your advice about The Rise of Skywalker was also heard, confirming the worst possible scenario I had already heard and what I feared most about the game they've been playing with the identity of Rey's parents.  We were going to see it at the Kentucky Theater, this weekend, but now I think we'll wait for streaming lol.  

Though I loved the last two films, I was already becoming a bit bothered by the newer-film notion that "the force" was  in any way genetic and the tendency towards good and evil may be somewhat possibly genetically predisposed, rather than the force being a spiritual gift bestowed upon certain individuals, obtainable for even the the most low-born in the universe, choosing in free will how to use it - the power of free-will choice (amen)! 

So the premise of this film sounds as if it will totally disappoint me further along those lines, with the worst possible outcome, and asks me to suspend my disbelief a bit too far - thanks for your insights.  

Ah, Hollywood - when will you learn that sometimes, people just want a ending that comforts in a believable way, not one that keeps them guessing and chasing red herrings past the point of even making sense anymore and disappoints. 

PPS - Whups, just wanted to add that I didn't mean to imply above that my preconception of this film came entirely from B, it didn't -  it came from several people - plus I was already confused about the increasing implication that there was a genetic component to the force in the prior films, myself.  

I have edited that a bit, just to be clearer what I meant. 

However, B was one of the 4/5 people whose opinions of film I trust (because they're analytical people who appreciate good film as much as I am/do) that were disappointed.   I may still see it at the Kentucky Theater (old Art Nouveau theater in town, we shall see - I tend to have my own, weird perspective on stuff anyway ) :)

Nope, I'm Not Back - Just Leaving a Copy of My Comment Under a Med Tech Article

*Edited.

Nope, haven't changed my mind - I still feel the same way that I wrote about when I left, in November,  about blogging/social media.  

However, after just learning that Bezos and Amazon jumped in the medical transcription AI/VR game, none of us are too happy about it - so I left a comment under a medical technology article and needed to leave a copy of it to verify that it was me (considering a certain someone likes to impersonate me).

Here it is below - which I felt was a necessary thing to do, on behalf of all the (mostly) women and (a few) men still in this field, whose livelihoods have been affected by the tumultuous transition our field has undergone, in the past 15 years - followed by a New Year's note to all my fellow transcriptionists/editors (and only here) :)

_________________

For starters, Amazon/Dr. Alexa being responsible for collecting and tracking people's private medical information? I don't think so - like, ever. Security risks and HIPAA? No security system fortress in the world is completely impenetrable and un-hackable. Everyone always says their system is safe because it's encrypted, but so were Anthem's insurance claims, and we know how that worked out. Amazon collecting and tracking commercial products I buy is fine, but they're not welcome to collect my private healthcare information, sorry.

Bezos is not doing this "cheap" service out of the kindness of his heart, he's not exactly known for being charitable. There's always an endgame, with Bezos, so what is it? 

So that Amazon, via "Dr. Alexa," can sync that info and start recommending products from Amazon that patients can buy for their medical condition, without "Dr. Alexa" having any true understanding of the mildness or severity of that condition, nor considering other comorbidities patients might have that affect that condition (or vice versa) and it's treatment?

Well, that's a potentially health-dangerous idea. Not to mention, in that case, it's not just medical transcriptionists/editors like me who should be worried for their jobs - clinicians should be worried about the future of "Dr. Alexa," too.

Haven't we commercialized healthcare in the US enough?

If I found out that my personal doctor was using Amazon Alexa-ish software to do my transcription, I'd change physicians immediately lol.

And let's review our history and do an actual cost-savings recap of the transcription transformation that began in the early 2000s. First, outsourcing to India was the cheaper answer. Then it was VR/AI. Then EHR/EMR and "checking boxes." All of these "revolutions" ultimately resulted in hospitals and clinics finding out they still needed to pay humans to go back and proofread and edit them, with their first language matching that used by the dictator - and that the box-checking aspect of EHR alone wasn't working.

In the end, the cost of VR licensing, implementation, and tech support of EHR/EMR - plus tack on later adding editing contractors (the clinicians themselves do not have time) - eventually cost them the same, if not more, than just hiring a handful of human employees from the get-go, not to mention displaced thousands of American workers, contributing to the last recession.

Even Nuance, the current "best" in VR, is still far from "captain's log, star date." I know, because I've been a medical transcriptionist for 24 years, now editing Nuance-based VR software's mistakes. The going industry rate for doing so has now dropped to around 4 cents a line, regardless of contracting company, which works out to about $7 to $8 an hour on average (and that's if the dictation is clear, with no background noise and no accent ) - with no benefits - as we are all now subcontractors.

Editors are still needed because VR often cannot understand accents for even simple words, let alone complex medical terminology, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices, especially if there is background noise like beeping machines, babies crying, etc. They cannot translate slang, idioms, and figures of speech.  

They often cannot distinguish important medical terms like hypertension versus hypotension, which is extremely important for patient care. Cheaper programs cannot even distinguish between "discreet" and "discrete," and often even "their" and "there." 

Even Nuance VR/AI, the industry's current gold standard, still puts in things like "The patient had a cabbage" instead of "The patient had a CABG" (meaning coronary artery bypass grafting)" - even ones that claim to have "machine learning."

At some point, healthcare needs to realize that you still need humans for this one, at least to proof/edit them, because we're talking about the interpretation of human language and communication, and technology cannot pick up on all of the subtleties of language and keep up with our evolving forms of communication and perhaps never will.

That is because interpreting all the subtleties of human communication, especially medical terminology, is a specialized skill - a distinctly human skill - and the clinicians themselves do not have the time, nor did they pay all of that money to medical school, to spend most of their time proofreading themselves.

These are legal documents; thus, there's an inherent, imperative need for them to be accurate - not only for communication/coordination of proper care for patients between clinicians, but they are often used later in court depositions for disability claims or malpractice lawsuits. However, of even more interest to the readers here is the fact that both public and private insurance companies require these documents to substantiate the need for your patients to receive treatment and pay you for your services.

Since they're that important, it's important that they be accurate - and if you want that type of accuracy, you need to pay for it.

And not only have I personally seen patient care suffer due to VR and EHR "checked-box" mistakes, but you're being penny wise, but pound foolish, to choose this route, thinking you're cutting costs this way, because you will pay more in the long run, either due to having to hire scribes or editors or money lost from lost insurance payments due to inaccuracies on reports.

But please continue - realizing that despite all the previous promises this industry has heard, with the advent of each newer, cheaper, better idea, they have all ultimately resulted in the same thing - return of work back to the US to some cheap contracting company to edit them for you, who universally will exploit their subcontractors by paying them for less than minimum wage and no benefits, claiming they have to in order to compete with India and VR/AI. And in the end, with the cost of clinic or hospital-wide software licenses and launch, plus editors, the cost will end up being the same or greater than just hiring a few human transcriptionists or scribes outright as actual employees.

Lastly, this is healthcare - you're supposed to care for people - all people - including the people being exploited, sweatshop style, to edit these VR reports for you, to make sure your important medical-legal documents are accurate, so that your patients are well cared for, so that insurance companies pay for your services, and so that your butts are covered, when you get sued for malpractice or are called in to give a deposition on someone's condition for disability claims ;)

Please value the skilled work that we do to provide this service for you with the accuracy you require (and often demand), because it is a specialized skill - and if you haven't realized that yet, you soon will - after implementing VR alone with no one to edit it. At the very least, please make sure the contracting company you eventually hire to edit them for you are not exploiting their subcontractors (which is a rarity, especially with larger contracting companies).

_________________________________

Dear Fellow Contractors and Subcontracting Medical Transcriptionists/Editors,

I understand we've all been through a lot, in this field, the past 15 years - and there's little work for low pay, and that it has to be that way to compete with EHR/EMR checkbox systems, AI/VR and India.

However, just because the humanity of this field is being replaced by automation, doesn't mean we lose our humanity and begin to behave in an automated way (or worse).

There's no need to be overly competitive, cut-throat, rude, bullying, and/or verbally abusive, demanding perfection for pennies per line - resources truly are scarce, but there's still some work.  And there's no android apocalypse yet, there's no terminator saying, "Are you Sawah Connah?" yet, I promise :)

If it is no longer possible to pay people properly in this field anymore, because we've lost value by market standards, then the least we can do is continue to value each other.

Please be kind to each other. This business has become hard enough on us, nobody needs your nasty on top of it. Please give the same benefit of the doubt you would like others to give you - kindness doesn't cost anyone a thing.

Warmly wishing you bright days in the coming New Year - Happy New Year :)

~ Chrystal Chaplow

_______________________________

Otherwise, I've just put some favorite posts back up over the past year - either my favorites, other people's favorites, or otherwise had a private good memory attached to them (parking in draft any that revealed too much personal info) - enjoy :) 

(Comments are still closed, however, due to persistent harassment from a certain individual).

My best to you in 2020 :)

Since A Couple of People Mentioned Missing Seeing My Christmas Decorations This Year (Thank You) ... :)

I hope your Christmas was full of as much love and light, this year, as mine was :) 

New Blog Decision ...

I just pour out my thoughts, here, in my quiet little corner - sometimes in a stream-of-consciousness, unorganized fashion. I've continued to do so, to practice - despite a persistent harasser (why my comments are closed), despite miscommunications/misunderstandings sometimes occurring, and despite personal information being used and words twisted by those so inclined.

I would often read back later and edit, when I had more time, to correct typos, for clarity, and to try to prevent this happening and so there could be no misunderstanding - and in fact, parked more personal posts in draft so as not to give those so inclined ammunition - which of course led to said persons accusing me of "hiding" things instead.

For those who know me well, you know that I hide nothing - and if I make mistakes, I admit them (and have on this blog, to include issuing apologies).

Regardless, I began blogging in 2005, just to have a voice, in a marriage and family I had no voice in - like a message in a bottle, hoping someone, somewhere in the world that I'd never meet would know exactly what I meant.

At the time, in both my marriage and the family I grew up in, I wasn't a person, deserving of an opinion or feelings - do as we say or else - and I was shut down, labeled, and sometimes worse, when I tried to speak up.

And I halfway believed them myself, at the time, that something was wrong with me that I couldn't just play along with what seemed toxic to me - and that I didn't deserve basic human decency.

HOWEVER, I never spoke publicly about any of that personal stuff going on, back in 2005 - because at that time, that would be asking for trouble and my own abuse - it was only later that I learned to fight back - which did me no good, actually, it often made things worse.
Sometimes I overdid it. I said a lot of pent-up things I'd wanted to say, I let 'er rip. Sometimes that cost me relationships.

But having that said that; in some cases, I'm sorry those relationships were lost, and in other cases, not really - the truth is, I'd wanted to away from the toxicity for a long, long time, but didn't know how.

So I definitely found a voice - even if only I was the only one who heard it lol.


I'm not sure what I've learned - I've never really found that balance of remaining silent and letting people walk all over me and saying "No" or "please don't do that/talk to me that way"or "no, that's not okay" in a way that works out for me.  

People want what they want and if you don't give it to them, or stop giving it to them, even if it's not good for them or you, there's often hell to pay. 

Regardless, I had previously been told by college teaching staff that I was both a good writer and good communicator, so I began blogging trying to find that girl inside myself again and just write about ... whatever.

There was nothing personal and only occasionally political - mostly just fun stuff, creative writing or observational comedy, at that time - my blog now is a far cry from what my first blog once was - that one originally was very interactive and a lot of fun :)

However, things changed over time - for me personally and in society - in the beginning, there weren't as many malicious games and truly scary and unnecessary competitions over 15 minutes of social media fame - that came later.

Long before Trump and politics became so invasive and toxic, and before social media became a bathroom wall stall of the world and people behaved themselves - it was fun.

However, lately I just feel ... exposed, when I write here, and judged - even from my quiet little corner.

And over the past couple of years, I have come to recognize that whatever writing ability and good communication skills I once had, have been lost - perhaps I've taken on too much damage in my personal life or my teachers were wrong, I don't know. I have lost the ability to creatively write altogether, in fact - I can't write creative fiction anymore at all, it just doesn't come to me - plus it's just not fun anymore.

Regardless, I have made the decision to either mark this blog private and/or abandon it in a week, after anyone that does still read it, sees it.

I'm not hiding anything, and though I made mistakes I've admitted and was embarrassed, I'm not ashamed of anything I'ever ever said, as even mistakes were never made with ill intention, and if you simply didn't like what I said, it probably means it was truth you didn't care to hear.

I'm simply doing either going private and/or abandoning this blog exactly for the reasons stated above.

Thank you to those who read this still, but in fact, I didn't care if anyone ever read it - it was about finding my voice again - but perhaps I shouldn't have lol.

Anyway, I'm leaving this up for about a week so anyone still reading knows why - and my best to you all and much love,


Chrystal Chaplow (Chrysalis)

Fall Mantel ... Almost Finished ... :)

... I'll just add some baskets and gourds/pumpkins to the fireplace below later this week and voila, it will be all finished and ready for Thanksgiving :)