"Free-Speech Karen in Chief" (Trump) Legally-Threatened Late-Night Comedian/Talk Show Host, Jimmy Kimmel - Again

So let me get this straight - the man on trial for his false claims about ... well, everything ... is trying to legally threaten Jimmy Kimmel for  misquoting the actual amount that Truth Social has lost?  😆

Apparently, on November 15th, Jimmy Kimmy stated in his monologue that Truth Social had lost $73 million since its inception and that it was a "colossal failure."

As a result, MTMG (Trump Media and Technology Group) sent a legally threatening letter that both he, and ABC, must retract it and apologize - because it had "only" lost $31.6 million (according to what MTMG reported to the FTCC which is, ya know, questionable 😒

So of course, in typical Jimmy Kimmel style with Trump, he mock-retracted his statement to correct the amount lost and stated:

"In other words, in fairness, Truth Social isn’t a colossal failure, it’s only an abysmal failure,”

“I have to say, demanding a retraction for reporting the value of his company incorrectly is pretty darn hilarious considering the fact he is on trial right now for reporting the value of his company incorrectly. Maybe he should sue himself.”

“But in all fairness, TMTG demanded an apology, so from the bottom of my heart I want to say, Donald Trump and everyone at the TMTG, I’m deeply sorry you’re so bad at running companies, I guess.”

😂😂😂

In other words, in the interest of getting the amount right, he corrected the amount, but also stopped just short of saying "Do it, "Mr. Free Speech," I dare you."

Welp, we know that Jimmy is on Trump's revenge-execution list for sure, now. 😆

Oh, yeah, Donald Trump is all about "Free Speech" - when it's A) Positive about him,  and a related B), full of lies and false accusations in projection, and C) Trying to incite his followers to attack somebody or something.

Otherwise, he's a petty, over-privileged, thin-skinned Karen - unfortunately supported by a legal PAC fund - erm - I mean, campaign fund. 😝

Richard Reeves, the AIBM, and Do We Really Need to Define Masculinity/Femininity and/or Success?

 

(*Having technical difficulty adding pics, at present, so will add later)

Watching one of my favorite news programs this morning, CBS Sunday Morning (mentioned many times before). The first segment, this morning, by Lee Cowan, was about new statistics revealing that more women are enrolled in college programs than men, as well as women are now more likely to complete a Bachelor's degree, using any statistic you like, in America, any way you slice it - and apparently, this is cause for alarm! 😆 

So some dude named Richard Reeves from the Brookings Institute thinks this is some sort of crisis and blames it on men not knowing where they fit anymore or what it means to be a man, and says that even raising these questions causes eye rolls. 

He further says it's possible to support the struggles of women AND the struggles of men.

Absolutely true, and good point!

HOWEVER - shouldn't we study this statistic more and find out why, first, rather than push a biased, untested hypothesis?

And mind you, Reeves is an economist, not a psychologist or sociologist - might be best to leave human-behavior-in-groups and  human-motivation questions to experts in those fields to study? 😉

Because although his suggestion could be the reason, and I really tried to listen to his point, IMO, he didn't convince me - and that is because all he did was pose more questions and speculate without providing any actual evidence - and that is because it hasn't been tested or studied yet.

I mean, essentially, his hypothesis is that there are less men in college because they don't know what it means to be a man anymore, so what is a man?

I might answer:  "I don't know, and I'm not sure why we have to define masculinity, but for starters, my definition of masculinity might start with the kind of man who is secure enough in his own definition of masculinity that he isn't automatically threatened by having more women in college than men?"

😁

Now, I'm not saying he's wrong - but he hasn't proven to me he's right, either.  He asked some interesting questions and posed a hypothesis, but without answers,  he's just speculating.

All we know for a fact is that more women are enrolled in secondary education than men - but we don't know why. 

In fact, couldn't the reasons be multifactorial, as with other social sciences? 

But we'll get to those other possible factors later.

As for my own bias, I admit, when this story first came on, I kind of rolled my eyes and said "Well, welcome to the chronic identity crisis of women's world.  We have had to be mothers AND in the workforce for years, in our economy, and finding a good balance and fit is no easy task."

"And once again, we have older, fragile white male egos, so threatened by women becoming successful that they think this is a "crisis," mostly because right-wing politics says it is."

BUT - I don't want to discount how men are feeling, either, so I listened. 

But honestly, he didn't really tell me how men were feeling.  

Instead, he told me his opinion of how men are feeling, without providing any evidence whatsoever, and again, feelings are not an economist's territory of study. 

So he heads this American Institute for Boys and Men thing and has written a book called "Of Boys and Men" -  a cute boy-band sort of name - but at least from what I saw, there is no real evidence to support his hypothesis on why this is occurring, only his presumption?

So let's find out why then - and by that, I mean via objective study rather than biased speculation, shall we? 

And again, as we know, or we should know, this is social science - so the answer could be multifactorial.

For starters, why are we ignoring the economic factor?

I mean, we do have a $1.77 trillion of student-loan debt in the U.S.

So who - male or female, not already wealthy - wants to sign up for becoming part of that statistic right after high school?

In fact, I've always thought it might be wise for some teenagers to take a year or two off, work and have to pay bills in the real world and settle down and decide what you want to do first before jumping into college, but it depends on the person, too.

Also, on a related note, what we do know for a fact is that America families are struggling such that that many young men feel they have to contribute immediately to the home, as an adult, and thus don't have time for college, much like in less-developed countries - so how "developed" are we then, really?

Secondly, at least the boys/men interviewed today said they just didn't feel ready for college, they were bouncing off the walls,  unfocused, undisciplined.

Okay, so ... does that automatically mean they're lost in their definition of masculinity?

I don't think we have enough information to assume that.

And actually, from another perspective, one could ask "Do boys feel like they can now take their time getting to college versus women? Do they feel comfortable being slackers at mom and dad's house or is it something else-?"

I'm not saying that either, I'm saying I don't know, WE don't know yet - I'm just saying that's an argument one could make which might actually be a good argument against Reeves's hypothesis  - which again, is reason for further study. 

Lastly, we can't ignore recent politicians making our need to define gender and masculinity and femininity, on both sides.

Well, more accurately, IMO, though both sides have made this an issue, the political left tries to be about acceptance (perhaps with some confusion) of others along the gender spectrum, while the right has pushed fear on the issue, that this is somehow a threat to white men - that accepting and giving rights to people who have less  somehow means they are endangered.

As a result, we are more polarized than ever, on these issues, with no end in sight, because we keep pushing for a rigid definition, when in my opinion, I'm not sure we need to, except in certain health or legal circumstances.

I think the problem itself has more to do with ancient, rigid definitions about what it means to be male or female that, although they may have served their culture at the time, were actually  already inaccurate, and usually design by a government (or today, a corporation) to suit their own purposes, particularly  military service.

For example, I just had this conversation with my husband: 

Me:  "Okay, so what is your definition of masculinity?" 

 

Mark:  "Pushing forward with what you need to do despite adversity." 

 

Me (linking twice in silence a second, giving him a chance to realize what he said): 

 

"Oh. Do women not do that?  And if we do, it means we're masculine or-?" 

 

Mark: "Wait, I've seen you do that, actually, but maybe that's just ... you.  Wait, what just came out of my mouth?  Women in Africa go out and have a baby in a field and then go back and work that same field an hour later,  I couldn't do that. What am I even talking about?" 

 

Me (taking it easy on him, after he realized himself his own  personal definition did not match his military definition):  "I don't know, but I think you realized the difference between the cultural definition, despite evidence to the contrary and your own personal beliefs about women :)" 

"And for the record, there's no way I could have had McK in a field and gone back to work in it an hour later either, lol.  

"But what women in Africa having babies in fields and  working those fields an hour later DOES provide is proof of how our definitions of what's expected of men and women are cultural, not inherent in our gender." 

"We've been indoctrinated into these definitions despite much evidence to the contrary, and they're very narrow and rigid - either you're a conquering, emotionless hero or a vegan, yogafied meditator, when it's actually a spectrum, isn't it?  Why are there always just two boxes, in either/or?" 

"When maybe it depends not just on culture, but also on the situation and the person, having nothing to do with gender, but our our personal experiences, our personality." 

"For example, if it's an emergency health issue or something which requires diplomacy, I'm the calm one, UNLESS I'm dealing with a clearly unstable person.  If it's weaponry, that's your department. Also if you've determined quicker than I have that all diplomacy efforts are going to fail with this person lol. Not because we're men and women, but because that's us as individuals. "

Also, growing up, my Dad felt that the only men who like cats are effeminate - real men only liked dogs, and they must be BIG dogs - and I knew many men in the South who agreed with him.

???

So what does that mean for women?  And can't we like all animals? 

That's so stupid. And untrue. Who started that nonsense? 

I'm glad our culture has shifted on that one, that men on both sides of politics have realized that they can love cats as well as dogs and it means nothing about their masculinity or femininity!

This masculinity/femininity stuff is the same thing, we just need to evaluate it and go "Who said that and why?" remembering that at one time, a culture defining what is masculine and feminine served a social-control purpose (at least for those in power, especially when it came to the military)

As for those emotions, or the lack thereof, mentioned above, I'm all for people in general getting more in touch/self-aware regarding their emotions and what motivates them to do and say what they do, but I think many have misunderstood that this means - such that they begin to believe their feelings are more important than others and should be acted on right away.

Nope.  Sometimes we have to compartmentalize them (different than stuffing them), just to get things done, or based on prioritizing whose needs are more important at that moment, or wait for the right time to discuss them; that is, if anyone wants to hear them anyway 😆

And sometimes, whether they do want to hear them or not, it's important to tell people that their feelings are impinging on yours, too 😉

And as far as gender issues, let's just put it this way - although as mentioned, I support wherever you lie on the masculine-feminine spectrum, or even the gender and sexuality spectrum - I have to  also admit, thought a strong lefty, I AM mildly annoyed with my fellow lefties pushing us to define and label things ourselves, like it's a mortal sin if we don't use the right pronoun.

Because this is how the brain works, people - it is human nature for us to categorize things, all of us.  So if we get the pronouns wrong, sure, please correct us - but don't expect us to be psychic - be as kind about it as you would like us to be towards you, yes? 

On the other side of politics, Trump has been the biggest proponent that white men "should' feel threatened by other groups getting more rights share and defining masculinity - which is ironic, because he is the most emotionally volatile president I've ever seen, acting the most fragile and "girly" and Karen-ish out of any male I think I've ever seen - according to our rigid definitions 

(But his supporters like to pretend like he isn't, or at least that his  whining, belligerence and anger are justified.) 

Meanwhile, we women still aren't allowed to be angry at all because it scares the supposedly most masculine men in our society, which kind of argues against how strong they really are then, right? 

I mean, these types of "macho" men believe they can handle incoming missiles at their heads or a hand-to-hand combat with their military enemy, but God forbid their girlfriends or wives are  mad at you, oh, no, then it's time to put on the riot gear and call the national guard, that's the scariest thing around? 😆

OR is it simply that men with this mentality simply feel than can forcibly control women easier than they can control versus a military enemy? 😉

(As an aside, though I've mentioned, my husband was in the military and did lots of masculine things, he is is NOT the sort of men that feels threatened by smart or strong women, so it is possible.)

Okay - but do these type of men have to have control over everything, and should they have control everything to their liking?

Because we women have had to sit with little or no control for years, and I promise you, you'd live, if it came to that, it's just unpleasant.

But sometimes there's just gray areas in life, no one has total control or there's a balance - why isn't that okay? 

And men stuck in this erroneous definition never seem to understand that the quickest way to get the situation under control with women is to try listening to her perspective to avoid escalation? 

Doesn't mean you have to agree, but at least value her perspective enough to listen?

Lastly, Reeves really starts to annoy me when he asks "What does a successful male look like?  We don't know anymore."

And again, I would say "What is your definition of success, and do we have to have a standardized definition  success?"

Because it might depend on the person.

Now, If you mean a financial success, well, maybe not - and just because they go to college doesn't mean they will be financially successful, anyway - again, having $1.77 trillion of student loan debt in the United States tells us that already.

And let's say either a man or a woman either lost or didn't have a father or a mother, growing up.  What if all someone wanted to be was "just a mother" or "just a father" - thus, they sacrificed the 90-hour work week so they could accomplish that goal.

Does that mean they're masculine or feminine?  Does that mean they're not strong?  Does that mean they're not a success?

Or let's say a particularly intelligent man decided to go into an arts-related field rather than math-related field, though equally good at both, just because he enjoyed it more - does that make him less masculine?

Or a particularly intelligent woman, who is also nurturing, choose a career field that kept her intellect stimulated and busy, but also refused the C-suite 90-hour-work day, so she could also be a mother?

Does that mean she's not successful?

If you ask them versus our standard definition, you might find their answer surprising. 

So just like our definitions of masculine and feminine have been  overly rigid and culturally pushed from those in power and erroneous from the start, so are our definitions of success, then yes?

So instead of viewing this is some kind of crisis, Mr. Reeves, perhaps we need to just need to start thinking outside the box a bit more - but I understand why this is "scary" to people who can't do that and need things to fit neatly into them (despite most things in life not being that way).. 

Regardless, Richard Reeves, might be onto something - but I think he's not just oversimplifying the issue, but jumping to conclusions about these statistics, based on his own bias - and as we know, if we study statistics further based on a biased hypothesis, the results will be skewed and will not stand up to peer review. 

Because if I were an academic at X Ivy League School, and you presented these statistics without your biased hypothesis attached to, I'd definitely support a grant for further study - UNLESS - that's your biased hypothesis from the get go, when we now know that most social-science conclusions are often multifactorial.  

Took us long enough to figure that out, despite already knowing that humans are very complex psychological creatures 😀

Which is my final thought - Reeves is an economist, not a psychologist or sociologist.  Best leave the question of what is motivating/not motivation men to attend college to experts in the fields of psychology and sociology to study, hmm?

People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive Reveal on Jimmy Kimmel ...

 

So Jimmy Kimmel has once again teamed up with People Magazine to help reveal who this year's Sexiest Man Alive is, and it didn't disappoint. 

The SMA had to stand there with a CGI-ed pictured of a bearded dragon over his face, then a donkey, while the audience asked yes or no questions. 😂

Don't you know about half of them were about whether or not he played football and had ever dated Taylor Swift!  😂

Nope, turns out this year's SMA is none other than 57-year-old "Dr. McDreamy," Patrick Dempsey, who will be starring in two upcoming movies this year :)

Yep, agreed!

Speaking of Tay Tay and Travis, I haven't weighed in on the whole Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce thing, I'm not an official Swifty, but I will say that I do heart Taylor Swift, always have - and what a brave lad Travis Kelce must be, knowing that if it doesn't go well, Tay Tay will write a song about it 😂

Heck, even if it does go well, she will 😂

However, something is different about this one - it almost feels like a marketing ploy, and we all know that Taylor Swift is, if nothing else, a marketing genius.

I would hope she wouldn't actually fake a relationship, though, - that's not been her thing, her whole thing is being real, but we shall see. 

Regardless, Ladies, here is our 2023 Sexiest Man Alive - Patrick Dempsey!

YES! Democrat, Andy Beshear, Won His Second-Term as Our Governor! - *Pay Attention to How, My Fellow Dems Nationally*

 

Though not by a landslide, he managed to win again, despite COVID protocols, despite our being a deeply red, gun-loving, Trump-supporting state (unfortunately) and despite Trump giving Cameron his endorsement.

IMO, his win was due to several issues (National Dems take note:  Follow Andy's recipe):

1)  Andy has won over many fiscally-motivated Republicans by bringing new business to Kentucky with attractive tax incentives, while still holding to Biden's tax plan for personal income taxes, as well as he continues to protect retirement pensions for teachers and first responders (which Bevin tried to reduce, as would Cameron), as well as he supports a minimum wage hikes and other union actions (but not always, it depends on the ask).  

In other words, Andy's about financial balance, not extremes.  In fact, he's like that in general.

I guess he can best be described as a moderate conservative (centrist), but socially liberal (center-left) - ya know, like most people who critically think for themselves,  it actually depends on the issue:  How much it does cost, who benefits, who loses, and none of those things should be based on what color their skin is, what gender,  what religion, what sexual orientation,  or how much money they make or don't make - UNLESS - it's to protect those people with less from power abuse.

 

*2)  Andy's quick, personal and financial response to the 2021 Western KY tornado and 2022 Eastern KY floods.  

In fact, you'll note those counties -  who voted for Trump and normally vote Republican - instead voted heavily for Beshear; in particular, note the blue swath of counties southeast of Lexington, who were the hardest hit by the 2022 floods.  

Also - and even more importantly - Andy never once reminded them of his help, nor demanded their loyalty during his campaign (as you know Trump would).

 

3)  Cameron's extremist abortion views including rape/incest of minors (Hadley Duvall) and non-viable infants - i.e., the couple on the most recent commercial whose ultrasound revealed the baby would be born without a brain, would suffer, would not survive anyway. 

(You'll notice that the  Daviess County, county seat of Owensboro, is where Hadley Duvall is from -  the young girl with verified rape and pregnancy by her stepfather at age 12 - also voted for Beshear,  Go Hadley!)  

 

4)  Cameron parroted an unpopular former governor's (Matt Bevin) cuts to healthcare and education, to include possible reduction of pensions (two of our biggest employers in the state, and in some counties, the only employers in the county).  

True, Trump voters have never seemed to realize that Bevin/Cameron's policies ARE Trump policies, but essentially, when Trump policies hit their own wallet, they  noticed, but they instead blamed just the governor, for whatever reason. (I know, it makes no sense.) 

 

* I put an asterisk by #2, because I think it's the most important lesson - Pay particular attention to the blue swath of counties to the southeast of Lexington - those were the counties hardest hit by the July 2022 floods. 

 Andy acted quickly both financially and personally to get both state and federal aid to the victims, to include using the state park lodges for immediate temporary housing and food until federal aid arrived, visiting and staying in the region, literally rolling up his sleeves and helping clean up (as did Biden later).

Rural people generally do not trust outsiders and "city slickers"  - particularly in Kentucky, because of the coal wars - BUT - if you help people in need, and not just financially from afar - if you come in, roll up your sleeves and work alongside them, and most importantly, keep your promises on quick aid, they won't quickly forget you did.

And again, don't remind them or demand their loyalty for it via votes or donations to his campaign, either (like Trump does).. 

Andy never once reminded them of his help during his campaign, nor ever asked for anything in return -  he didn't care who they voted for, what political party they belonged to, what color their skin was, what religion, what sexual orientation, or even what political party - he only knew that they were people in his state that needed help - period.

So national Democrats, take note - despite the proven effectiveness of negative power of suggestion -  using fear-mongering, lies, and intimidation -  nothing beats real-life positive personal experience with individuals or groups that a population was previously unfamiliar with - it will  "trump" lies, smears, and fears every time!

Ziggy's Sick New 2-in-1 Thanksgiving Toy 😆

 

So this arrived for Ziggy today.  It's kind of sick/funny.  Ziggy loves it (he makes a cameo at the end)!

Forgive my dry hands (oops, lotion time) - and our balcony, our apartment community says it will be re-stained in early spring (they just replaced three new boards which you can see in the bottom video.

Is that not the most ridiculous dog toy you've ever seen? 

😆😆😆😆😆

He also has another new one, three plush racoons in a trash can, he has to dig them out.  He's obsessed with that one, at the moment, doing zoomies with it, so video forthcoming 😆

Okay, here it is ... 

Anna Lapwood, Chief Music Director at Pembroke College (Cambridge), and Midnight Pipe Organist at Royal Albert Hall ...

 

If you haven't seen her midnight sessions at Royal Albert Hall in the UK, you're missing out.

At age 28, Anna Lapwood is the youngest CMD at Pembroke College (Cambridge), and thus is reviving an appreciation for the organ, particularly the pipe organ, along with introducing a new generation to the instrument, through viral TikTok videos of her midnight rehearsals ... 

 

On the quieter side, with one of my favorite pieces of music of all time, Debussy's Clare De Lune ...

As a side note, Clare De Lune was the only song that would soothe my previous pugamuffin, Snuggy, to sleep when he was agitated, before he passed. 

Bringing it back up again, here's Anna in collaboration with Bonobo for a light show performance ...

In other news, I just received an offer for a new job, which I accepted  - and these were my congratulations flowers, brought home to me from my awesome husband, Mark :)

I will still be doing spillover work for my old job on weekends, etc - which I loved, as well as having I have the best boss I've ever worked to date there :)

What is it?

Still transcription, but for a digital health company, which is one of the many companies owned by a certain British gentleman we all know, who turns pretty much anything he touches to gold.

(Well, not everything, but most businesses he gets into ;)

I was pretty much resigned to the fact that my job had been completely replaced by EMR systems and AI, so I was of the mindset of "If you can't beat them, join them" and was applying for training of AI voice recognition.

However, the good news is, although this company does employ AI for some things, they have recognized that human intuition  and interpretation (particularly with accents) is still required for transcription is still needed.

Hallelujah, and I mean that!

Soooo very grateful for this opportunity :)

Food for Life Breads Cost HOW Much Dough?

So I'm making a Clicklist at Kroger for a pickup order, but they are apparently entirely out of non-white bread. at the moment? 

With the exception, of course, of Food For Life's Ezekiel 5:9 Bread, which ranges from $7 to $10 a loaf.






So I looked up Ezekiel 4:9 in the bible because there's a verse I don't know, despite being raised as a charismatic Christian that became a Jezebel (according to them, not me - I'm still a Christian, in my view ;)

Ezekiel 5:9: "Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and use them to make bread for yourself."

Well, you certainly ARE making "bread" for yourselves, at that price, my fellow Christians, aren't you? 

What are you making that bread with, mana from heaven or-?😂

And didn't Jesus feed 5,000 with 5 loaves of bread and two fish -  for free?

Well, Blessed All Saints Day to you, too!

And people wonder why church attendance has declined.

Maybe because Christianity has unfortunately become synonymous with three of the things Christ abhorred most, if his sermons are any indication: Greed, power abuse, and hypocrisy.

Or maybe it's because instead of giving back to the poor, after you've overcharged them for things like healthier bread, you "donate" it instead to Trump's legal fees/campaign - and yes, the slash is there on purpose, because it's the same fund.

And you realize your one loaf of bread is about the same price as a week's worth of diapers for some poor family, right? 

Oh, that's right, I forgot - only rich white Christians deserve good health and God's blessings - God's blessings curiously coming in the form of financial prosperity, according to today's Christians, despite Christ saying exactly the opposite - I forgot ;) 

I had a friend once say something like "Beware of any non-religious product, or a check to pay you with, that has a bible verse on it." 

LOL, sad, but true.

And you just know that if Trump wiped his backside with the holy bread, they'd charge even more.

"Yes, I'd like to trade one authentic Trump sh*t loaf for a Trump-as -Maverick-the-fighter-pilot FTC trading card, please."

What a sweet deal, take it! 

😉

Tsk, tsk, tsk, my fellow Christians  - idolatry, greed, bearing false witness?  

Pretty sure neither God nor Christ were fans of neither, if both the Old and New Testaments are any indications :/

Happy Halloween, But ... "No One Will Save You” Muwhahahaha! 💀👻 👽🎃😉

So my title is referring to a Huluween movie (meaning a Hulu original film) called "No One Will Save You," phrased that way just to sound spooky - see what I did there? 😛

So let me just preface what I'm about to say with what I've said before; there are only two things I'm snobby about/look down on - film and architecture.  

That's because I figure if you have the money to do either, do them right - don't just be throwing sh*t up in our faces, assaulting our senses, just to make a buck. 😏

So the movie was definitely NOT in my title because it's necessarily a recommendation.  

Well, it could have been a recommendation, and an awesome one at that - but it so was not - unless you like those "create/interpret your own ending" movies?

I ... do not 😒

Now, I am NOT talking about movies with ambiguous endings, where you don't know, but you do know - movies that don't explicitly spell it out, but you can make some safe assumptions, at least for now.

You know, movies like "The Shining" or "Donnie Darko"   which I actually consider among the best - where someone died, meaning others lived as a result, or even that you find out the main character's  perception isn't reliable, (again, Donnie Darko or Black Swan).

Or like in less horror-genre examples, people decided to go their separate ways, at least for now, but you can hope for the future, or you can safely assume that they got back together or at least are going to give it another try?

No, I'm talking instead about movie endings where you have to interpret an ending that could have several meanings, or you literally have to create your own ending, because they left you THAT clueless.

Movies where you just spent the last 2 hours getting into this movie and caring about the characters, only at the end of those 2 hours, you find yourself saying, to yourself and others around you, "I honest-to-God do not know WTF just happened" -  so you just sit there, like confused. 😂

Because you know you could never get away with that sh*t in a book. At least they give you some indication to make assumptions with.  And some things in books can be left up to artistic interpretation or discussion, but books still have definite endings, even if just leaves you with assumptions.

So how are these "create/interpret your own ending" screenplays  even written, do they literally just say "(Insert Your Own Ending Here)," or does it read something like "Sam looks out the window, then up into the sky, when a look of excited surprise crosses her face?" 😆

Now, you know dang well, if a book ever ended like that, you would go "AND?!?"  

You'd think it wasn't finished, and get all frustrated, having wasted time, right?  

Regardless, ever since the movie "Birdman," which is one of the few films that did this "interpret the ending yourself/create your own ending" fairly well (but it still bugged me) ...

... lots of films started doing this, and not nearly as well.

So it being Halloween, Mark and I recently watched the Hulu original movie, "No One Will Save You,"  because it had an 82% critics' rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and I tend to agree with the critics more than the audience score (and if both scores are high, it's a hit and usually worth the watch and the money.)

Not that we won't watch bad horror movies on Halloween, that's kind of the point, but we were in the mood for something truly spooky.

And thus movie had well-deserved praise, truly scary - until the end.

I haven't a clue what that ending was supposed to mean - and it really bugged me lol.  I kept tossing the possibilities around in my head, ultimately landing on nothing definitive, which bothered me immensely, like "It could mean THIS, but it could also mean THAT."

That is not fun for me, that's maddening.  You can speculate all night with your family and friends, and you'll still never know.

I mean, I get it that visual art is always open to interpretation, but you just told me a literal story for the last 2 hours, then abruptly stopped - so the "but it's art, art is open for interpretation" excuse isn't gonna fly here sorry.

Thus, I hereby am renaming this movie, "No One Will Save This Movie."

I don't know why critics love movie endings like this, pronouncing them brilliant, I truly don't.   

IMO, it's not brilliant, it's just ... lazy. 😆

To me, it's even lazier than wrapping up a movie whirlwind fast because you: A) Couldn't figure out how to end it properly, B) ran out of budget, or C) you ran out of time, resulting in leaving ends untied and unanswered questions; not because you were hoping for a sequel, but because you just thought we were either too stupid or too attention-deficient to notice, or you lost the plot and forgot about certain parts of the story yourself lol.

So let me get this straight - you just charged me anywhere from $5.99 to $12.50 - all at once or via subscription - and I just invested 2 hours of my time  in your story, only to not know WTF really happened at the end of that 2 hours  - either because you didn't know how to end it, or you were too lazy?

Therefore, you oughtta pay ME to for having to write an ending for you?  

😂

Matthew Perry 😢

Irreplaceable .... as both an actor and a human being.

I chose this particular photo because I think it captures him well - the sweet sensitive, hiding behind the smirk - because Matthew the person, and Chandler, the character he portrayed, were apparently very much alike.

Though the multitalented Jon Favreau almost got the role of Chandler, only Matthew Perry could’ve nailed that snarky, rapier-wit-to-mask-deep-seated-insecurity-and-sweetness thing down.    

So I guess I needed a couple of days to be sure this wasn’t a net hoax, this really happened, because I can’t believe that any of our favorite “Friends “ are gone! 😢😢😢

Chandler was actually my favorite character from the beginning as the funniest (close tie for second being between Phoebe and Ross - but they were all funny, playing off each other).  Even though the show wouldn't have worked with a single cast member missing, I honestly think Chandler's sarcasm was the glue.

(I just wonder if Matthew knew that, in the end, considering all of his substance-abuse issues and self-esteem struggles.  I wish he could see now the outpouring of love for him, right now - it's like the entertainment world is flying flags half-mast today over him, not just here in the U.S., but around the world.)

In fact, I still remember the show's trailer, with Chandler dancing around singing, mocking Joey's part in a Pinocchio ... "I'm a little wooden boy." I remember seeing that as a summer of fall shows in 1994 as a preview, while pregnant with my daughter.

Mark, on the other hand, initially thought him snarky and arrogant and chose Ross, but changed his mind, saying Chandler grew on him to become his favorite. 

As anyone who knows me knows, Friends is my all-time favorite sitcom, the ensemble-cast chemistry between the six actors, none of them more important than the other, has never been replicated and never will be 😢

In fact, shows have since tried to replicate "The Six" ensemble with some success - The and  Big Bang Theory - which I also loved,  it was like Friends with ultra-nerds - and How I Met Your Mother, which I didn’t  but they were never really able to replicate that fully likeable collective chemistry of all 6 - there was always one in the ensemble you didn't like or got on you nerves lol.

In fact, other shows tried to replicate it even down to the set. Because if you look closely at even the stage setup on TBBT, it was nearly the exact same across-the-hall setup; Penny's smaller apartment on the left of the hallway, Sheldon and Leonard's huge apartment on the right, 

In fact, even the apartments themselves, down to the carve-out  space with large industrial window -  only on left side of the apartment instead of the right.

Monica and Rachel's apartment ...

Sheldon and Leonard's apartment ...

Same exact base set, right?

Don't get me wrong, TBBT is also one of my favorite all-time shows, but it did use Friends as its base premise; and of course, Sheldon is Sheldon lol.

But their chemistry together was special and you can't fake it or we could eventually sense/feel it, if one got to big for their britches or something.  They balanced each other out, worked it out, almost like family more than friends, actually.  I'm sure they had spats, got on each other's nerves, etc., but there was real love and concern for each other there, you could see it.

And I remember hearing long ago, when they renegotiated salaries, it was all or none - all of them get the same raise or no one does, despite other projects. That’s extremely rare, even today.

And as Matthew Perry put it in his book, "Friends, Lovers, and The Big Terrible Thing," during his alcoholism/drug addiction, the rest of the cast treated him - like penguins lol.

“It’s like penguins. Penguins, in nature, when one is sick, or when one is very injured, the other penguins surround it and prop it up. They walk around it until that penguin can walk on its own. That’s kind of what the cast did for me.”

Too bad not many humans are like that :(

So Mark was on military tours in the early 90s and just saw a couple of episodes and figured the show was about some rich kids from New York and turned it off, which is kind of true, but not like you think - and they struggled, trying to make it without their parents’ help - and if they ever forgot what it was like to struggle and be less privileged, or whined about petty stuff, Phoebe gently but hilariously reminded them. They reached in and found what’s at the core of all of us - and made us laugh at ourselves.

This is why he told me he didn't watch it when he returned from duty, didn't really watch it until we were dating, and I said "Well, give it a minute, you judge too quickly - there's a reason this was my favorite show of all time, and an average of 25-million-plus viewers; must be something there.  This show is timeless, very few sitcoms are."

He finally watched a full episode, and started laughing his ass off, he was hooked - and now considers it his favorite sitcom of all time, like most people do.

They influenced our culture, even  the way we speak, still today - even the British!

We binge-watched from the beginning, not long ago, and it’s funny how fast things seem to happen when you watch it that way, isn’t it? Like Ross and Rachel were together and “on a break” in the blink of an eye, but the episodes were spread out over weeks and months apart in real time, prime time network TV.

So when I first started writing this post, I was waiting for a mammogram, which is often awkward and uncomfortable, , the tech and I couldn’t stop talking about it, sharing favorite Chandler moments, and the time went by fast.

And she, though my daughter’s age, said that with a few exception episodes, is still fresh and relevant today, and the show was her "comfort show."

Amen, me too!

In fact, I’ve mentioned on here before when I was super sad, like when Marian died, after a few days, I put on Friends so I could laugh again.

Now, we can't watch an episode, or even a clip from an episode, without crying 😭 but we will in tribute, because he gave us so much joy 💓

Poor, sweet man - it's a shame that in the end, his demons may have gotten the better of him, though we don't know.  His health hadn't been good as a result of his past ways.

Rest in Peace, Matthew Perry AKA "OH ...MY ...GAWD. We LOVED you, Chandluh Bing!” said like Janice.  Wish you could see how much, around the world, today.   We miss you … and thank you 🙏❤️😢

"The Lake Beach" on SNL ....

Hahahahahahahaha!

OMG, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying, because I've seen every single one of these things happen at Southern "lake beaches." 

Three feet of muddy leaves at the bottom, getting stuck to your feet; a dirty diaper floating in the water; nobody watching the toddler wreaking havoc; 10 girls with the same haircut in Daisy Dukes; some big fat guy with a mullet, taking cornhole too seriously; a racoon or possum in the water (dead or alive); somebody getting hurt by unsafe fireworks or fires,  with an ambulance rolling backwards down the hill or boat ramp to try to get to them - all of it!

(Well, except maybe except for the snapping turtle stuck on some guy's stuff, but yeah.)  

And yeah - that includes my grabbing a red Solo cup, thinking it's my drink, but it's actually a dip cup or soggy cigarettes! Ewwwww!

Hahaha, the ambulance rolling in backwards down the hill.  Actually, it usually goes up and back down several times, trying to get to the person, and becomes the entertainment! 

I'm not kiddin' - people'll turn their 70s lawn chairs around just to watch the ambulance try to get down the hill, like, "Errrrr up? Errr ...down. Errr ... up?"

Mark laughed just as hard, being that he has now accompanied me to some Kentucky lake beaches, he has now seen it all, too lol.

Except here's the difference - he's not related to most of them, like me! LOL

That's stand-up comedian, Nate Bargatze, in the center, from Nashville, TN, right down the road from us, so he definitely knows what he's talking about.

PS - In case you're wondering why the hosts of SNL are former cast members, stand-up comedians, or musicians, right now, it's because the writer's strike ended, but the actor's strike is still ongoing/being renegotiated ;)

And that's Dave Grohl stepping is as "Uncle Ned" with the mullet.

Well done, recent hosts, good job! 

Ripley, The Emperor's New Clothes, and the Power of PTSD: What Have I Learned?

 

You may have noticed that I have deleted my last few posts.  That's because I seem to have a knack for innocently walking into situations and witnessing something I shouldn't have, then stupidly asking too many questions out of self-doubt -  and at that point, I may be in trouble lol.

I'm not sure how or why I've witnessed so many crazy-unbelievable situations, accidentally stumbling across stuff at the wrong time, but I have - and I certainly didn't seek them out. 

But I do understand why people might not believe it, perhaps because of the sheer number of these events, it must look like to some that I crave drama or something lol. And I even gaslight myself, most days, plagued with self-doubt.

Then again, as it turns out, I was later proven right, over time, in several of these toxic situations that I just walked away from, letting karma do its thing (mentioned below).

Mark says that it's partially because I'm too open and I give people too many chances, too much benefit of the doubt for too long, instead of trusting my own instincts - and that I've been conditioned by my family to gaslight myself and ignore red flags.

Hmm, well, although that may be part of it, I would say that the biggest reason  I've come across so many situations isn't because I love drama or am some kinda genius or am "too nice for too long"   - I think it has to do with the hypervigilance symptom of my diagnosis of PTSD, making me notice odd things in my environment that other people don't notice. 

Hypervigilance can be both a blessing and a curse; it can keep you safer than other people, but it can alienate you from other people and from going out and having fun, cause you to rarely sleep, and generally drive you slowly insane, if you let it lol.

Because people with diagnosed PTSD have hypervigilance for life; heightened instincts and awareness of surroundings, as well as your central-nervous-system alarm bells go off easily - and sometimes falsely.

We of the PTSD become more observant of our surroundings and we can't shut it off, because we needed it to survive; additionally, our brains created new neural pathways as a result, despite the fact that usually, this alarm system isn't necessary in everyday life.

As a result, we don't discount red flags that other people overlook; we investigate them, so we can be sure it's safe enough to turn the alarm system off!

(*I'm speaking of people with PTSD alone, now, and its associated anxiety and depression - not people with dual diagnoses like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, OCD, or personality disorders, etc.)

In other words, whereas people without PTSD might witness something odd and just go "Hmm, that's super odd. Oh well" and walk away, people with PTSD will instead go "Okay, my instincts are screaming at me and my central nervous system alarm system is going off.  Let me check it out to see if this is an actual threat or false alarm, so I can shut it off." 

MOST of the time, I can turn the alarm off later after ruling out the threat as false alarm, or at least I assess the threat level as not being serious - but I do need to check it out, first, so that I can safely turn it off without residual questions. 

But as examples of those crazy situations that I stumbled upon that happened to be true?

For starters, here are the best examples of situations that I stumbled into and was gaslighted about, that were later found to be true (which I provide more detail on below):

A shoplifting former coworker - - a former sexually-harassing boss -  - an internet stalker of someone else on the internet, who then targeted me when I stumbled onto them - - what my dad was actually doing for a living versus what he said - -  that something deeper was going on with my mother's mental health than PTSD alone.

I hoped they were one-offs or that I WAS crazy and paranoid and making them up, and even believed the gaslighting that I was crazy, for a while, or "triggering" from past experience. 

It sure would've made my life a lot easier if I was that crazy -  I could've just taken antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers and it would've all gone away lol.

But in fact, my knack for accidentally stumbling across crazy situations, and getting myself in trouble for asking too many questions, so that I can turn my PTSD alarm system off, is one of the reasons Mark calls me Ripley, as in from "Aliens" lol

EXCEPT, I am far from a bad ass! :)

(Well, unless it's about someone I care about or vulnerable that needs protecting.)

Although he agrees that my being conditioned to not trust my instincts/gaslight myself is partially to blame, he also sees some similarities to what happened to Ripley in Aliens.

Because if you've seen the film Aliens, Ripley in the beginning is an excellent representation of PTSD for women.

(I would say men, too, except men don't usually have to go through the extra-trauma of not being believed.)

You may recall that the corporation that Ripley was piloting for had written Ripley off as a kook who was making everything up about what happened to her crew, ignoring what little evidence they did have, because the planet her crew had visited contained new resources, and they had just  recently colonized the planet while Ripley was in hypersleep. 

To say that her briefing in front of the board of shareholders for the corporation didn't go well is an understatement; they didn't believe her, she lost her shit on them, and thus, the case is closed, she's written off as mentally ill, and she's demoted to a forklift driver rather than a pilot, because that's all the company will allow her to do for a living.

(Just an background information on the films, it takes place in the 22nd century, where a single corporation and government are now combined on earth - they control commerce, trade, law, and even the military.). 

As a result of her experiences and not being believed, she stops talking about it, tries to forget about it, and tries to move on with her life - but she is also having increasingly worse nightmares every night, waking up in cold sweats, and nothing is making them go away.











A year later, Burke, the lawyer who represented her with the company, comes calling - along with a company navy lieutenant - telling her they've lost contact with the colony and asking to board the ship with special ops as a special consultant.

Although there's no apology or any acknowledgement that she may have been right, they make her an offer that if she does this, they will reinstate her pilot license.











At first, she tells the company that they can eff right off - she experienced this trauma, they made it worse by not believing her, writing her off as a kook and demoting her - but they're now asking for her help?

But then she tells them that actually, her biggest reason why she can't help them is that she can't bring herself to go back, because she wouldn't be any help to them if she did, she's too damaged.

But then the nightmares won't stop - and she thinks about the number of children that were at the colony and worries for their safety - so she signs up, both to confront the thing she fears most, as well as save the colonists, if she can.



But in fact, the moral of this story - and Ripley's biggest threat - wasn't the aliens - Ripley's biggest problem was Burke.











Burke knew all along she was telling the truth, but his plan was to not only save the colonized planet due to its lucrative resources for the company, but also as a private moneymaker - to capture an alien and take it back to the company and sell it to them, so they could study and genetically engineer it to create better soldiers.

He had hoped that he could he could eventually convince Ripley to go along with this plan as restitution for what she endured and what the company did to her afterwards.

However, when she uncovers his plan during the mission, Burke tells her "We could be set for life, Ripley - set for life. I thought you were smarter than this" to which Ripley replies; "I'm happy to disappoint you :)"



Unfortunately for Burke, Ripley wasn't motivated by money and wasn't vengeful or vindictive - she was motivated by caring for the safety and welfare of other human beings, especially children :)


Ripley then realizes that Burke, and other humans like him, are actually worse than the aliens, because the aliens were just trying to survive and reproduce; Burke, on the other hand, was trying to use the situation to his advantage so he could make a few extra bucks.

He was even willing to let Ripley - and a colonist child, Newt - become impregnated by the aliens, (which occurs by forced ingestion and then the "baby" bursting out of the chest cavity once gestated) so he could carry them back undetected through customs.

He said he was hoping physicians back on earth could find a way to detach the aliens before "burst-out," despite the fact that Ripley's testimony had included that their ship's physician/surgeon documented surgical removal was not possible without killing the human host.

Or in other words, as Ripley put it:

"I don't know which species is worse, at least you don't see them screwing each other over for a God-damned percentage."



And of course, when she catches on to his plan later, he tries to gaslight her AGAIN, telling the rest of the team that she's delusional.

However, the team knew the company gaslighted her the first time, then enlisted her help for this entire mission.

Also, when she and Newt were sleeping in the lab's safe room, someone clearly knocked over the live alien specimen tube, made by the previous colonists, took her rifle, locked her in the safe room with the live specimen, and turned off all the comms to the room - and they knew there was only one person who could've done those things, the last person seen leaving the lab - Burke.

Hicks and the special ops team want to deliver justice to Burke right then and there, but Ripley begins to stop him, preferring to bring him back to due process of law and justice back on earth, to set a precedent, and if nothing else to prove that the worst of our species can be humanely handled by the best of our species (but they are interrupted by the aliens arrival to their stronghold in through the ceiling vents.)

Back to me, so like Ripley in the beginning, I often see myself as crazy or too emotionally damaged from my trauma to be of any use to anyone.

But then just like with Ripley, the truth in my situations often came out later to everybody, several months to even years later.  

Well, not every time, at least not yet - but of the above-mentioned situations:

1)  The popular former coworker thief was arrested a year later,  and not just by local police, but by the FBI after a sting, for being part of a regional crime ring that had stolen tens of thousands of dollars' worth of products and sold them across state lines.

I had previously told some of my coworkers that I thought I saw her stick something in her purse she hadn't paid for, and they said I was crazy, she'd be the last person to ever do that, "She's a devout Christian."

 

Then they really thought I was crazy when I was on a call at the counter one day, and after the customer hung up, I heard "Recording ended."   

 

I told my coworkers I heard that, I'm sure I did - but they told me that my pregnancy hormones must be going haywire, because that's crazy. So I asked security, who said it wasn't them, so ask the store manager. He said they weren't sophisticated enough to do that, even security doesn't even have that ability (in 1994).

But as turns out, I was also right about hearing that phone message, because we were being recorded - by the FBI as part of the sting operation.  They were recording calls coming to and from the department store as part of the sting operation (back before cell phones). 

Needless to say, you can't imagine how many calls I got on my maternity leave, when they arrested her and it ended up in local and regional newspapers and TV news, people saying "OH.MY.GOD, we really started to think you were mentally ill, but you were right!  I feel so bad, I'm SO sorry!  She had us all fooled, but you.  Even before you saw her steal, you said you didn't trust her. and you refused to go to lunch with her.  That really bothered her, that you refused to go, she was kind of obsessed with it and why.  We thought she was the nicest person in the world."

I was like "Me too! LO! I was convinced I had completely lost my mind until I read that in the paper today, so no worries!:) 

 

2) The former sexual harasser was fired 6 months after I quit, after doing it again, to another new girl.   

 

I had quit the company, leaving a letter, after being group bullied, everyone believing I was sleeping with the boss (which he instigated, after I rejected his advances).  He was fired after he did it again and a former  employee and victim finally came forward.  

 

3)  The internet stalker of someone else, who at first claimed to be the victim, then turned their attention to me after catching on, was put on a leash through civil action rather than criminal, 5 years later, because they refused to ever stop.  

It was a civil action rather than criminal, because this person - and their little online helpers -  lived in other countries and could never be extradited, even for terroristic threatening. 

It's a lot harder than people think to prosecute stalkers, if they haven't ended up physically hurting you yet, and the FBI can't help unless it's actual murder across state lines or more than a certain amount was stolen or defrauded, and especially hard if the crimes mostly occurred over the internet and they do not live in your country, or even your state.  Even rape can't get you extradited here from other countries (i.e. Roman Polanski).

I'm told they've been criminally prosecuted since in their country and state, for doing it again to someone else, but I'm not sure that's true, because I still see them around the net sometimes, but it's difficult to say because the sentencing for even proven cyberstalking/hacking/terroristic threatening is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

4)   My mother was finally diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features (possibly schizoaffective disorder?) after a psychotic break in 2011 -  

40 years after I, alone, witnessed a couple of psychotic breaks as a teenager, when my older sister was at college and my little sister was only 4, and no one else was around. 

She went to some pretty desperate, well, abusive lengths to try to hide/deny it and silence me - sometimes employing the same tactics as her abuser, my Dad -  not only because she was as a psychiatric nurse and a trusted charismatic evangelical who believed she could hear from God (and her church believed she could) - but because, I believe, she feared she wouldn't be believed about Dad's abuse if she admitted that, even to herself.

That makes her sound more awful than she is, or at least who she is now - but there is a happy ending to this one - she is currently on medications, has been since 2011, takes them regularly, and is doing well.  She's like a different person, in fact, and quite frankly, genuinely doesn't remember much of it.  

But I never stopped loving her, forgave her a long time ago (though I sometimes trigger from residuals), it's just she wasn't safe for me to be around until properly treated - so it's been very healing for us both, reconnecting :)

She still doesn't own it much, and nobody in the family or her church (except our mutual friend who recently died) wants to admit that I was right or what I went through with her, preferring to blame all of her troubles on the trauma from my Dad. 

But yes, first a family member admitted she was diagnosed as bipolar (with psychotic features), but she just admitted that herself, to me, that this was her official diagnosis to me just a few weeks ago.  

I responded "Thank you for sharing that with me, that's a brave thing to do, and there's no judgment here, you can't help it." 

And you know, that doesn't mean that you hallucinated Dad's abuse - but I could understand your fear of people thinking that, especially back then, they probably would have said that in court. But his abuse of you was VERY real, your daughters saw it, and there is objective evidence of it; the police took photos of your broken ribs  and arms, busted lips, and a school friend's mom took the pictures as the police photographer." 

(My mom chose to drop the charges every time, either out of fear or forgiveness.) 

I also told her "Mental illness it's not your fault, in fact, it's not anyone's fault, although Dad's abuse didn't help it, but you didn't do anything wrong to have it - in fact,  it's some combination of genetics,  environment, and brain chemistry that we don't understand, just like cancer. That doesn't mean responsibility shouldn't ever be taken like the rest of us, but you cannot help it, or control it, without medication." 

 

5) We're not sure if my dad ever went to prison or not for what his criminal business activities or not before he died... 

None of us were in communication with him for the last 25 years, and nobody feels like digging too much and finding out, we're just glad he's out of our lives.  We don't even know how where he died or how, just that he did, in May of 2018, when my mom was filing for social security benefits.  

... but what we do know is that most people finally knew what my Dad he had really been doing for a living by the time he died.

So though plagued with doubt and lingering questions, in writing that out, actually ... that's not a bad record, is it? 

I have pretty good instincts, just tons of self-doubt; thus, why I stupidly ask questions until I'm in trouble lol.

Mark also says he calls me Ripley, not just because of the above, but because he believes that in emergencies, my bad-ass side comes out, like when it's an actual physical threat or there's an actual emergency or natural disaster. 

I don't know if I'd say that lol - but I'd say PTSD does have its positive side.

Because that is not a testament to me, really, it's a testament to the positive symptoms of PTSD, the power of PTSD.  

Because although we, with PTSD, tend to be all weak and wobbly in everyday, normal life - if there's an emergency or catastrophe, a natural disaster, war, or apocalypse going on (lol) - you really want someone with PTSD on your side, believe me.

That is because our brains know what pathways to go down, now,  they've already been created, because we've been there before when others haven't.

We stop feeling and start thinking. Our problem-solving skills, reflexes, and even our physical strength go into hyperdrive due to adrenaline output - not just to survive, but to keep everyone safe from harm - the latter being especially true if it's a woman with PTSD (but this also depends on the woman or the man, too).

It can almost feel superhuman, but it's not - every human has this capacity, it doesn't make us "special"  - or there wouldn't be so many people with PTSD that unfortunately had to have something, or some things, that were truly horrible to happen to them to get this disorder.

Speaking of which, PTSD symptoms are exactly the same in men and women, but we often study and focus male PTSD because their PTSD is the result of military experiences or first responding, and I get that - not because it's worse, but because there were third-party witnesses, the trauma can be proven and objectively evaluated for study.

However, we really shouldn't discount the severity of the trauma of women, because when trauma happens to men, most of the time - if not the result of childhood trauma or natural disaster - male trauma is the result of military or first-responder situations - trauma induced by complete strangers during war time or crime.

With women, on the other hand, most of time, female trauma was not inflicted at the hands of a total stranger or enemy - it was the result of a person they  loved and trusted; a family member, friend, or trusted person in the community - the Burkes of the world ;)

Making it worse is that women tend to be dismissed and gaslighted, in our society, often with us women helping that out ourselves.

IMO, that is partly due to residual misogyny, and female tendency to be more open with emotions but also because we humans in general like to think we're safer than we actually are in our own community, automatically trust people with money or power as being stable or safe when that's not the correct criteria to evaluate safety.

But mostly, IMO, it's not JUST about misogyny and gender, but also because people don't like to think about or deal with threats in their own community to give themselves a false sense of security so they can get through everyday life.

This is also why some of our politicians don't like to focus on domestic terrorism, and instead focus on foreign terrorists, as if they are worse than what's right here at home, within our own country, race, political party, and even our own religion.

Now, having said that, it doesn't mean I was never wrong, I certainly have been.

And sometimes I jumped the gun without enough evidence, which only tipped the person off, if they were guilty, to now look innocent, just to make ME look nuts lol.

And there are other times, I don't know, I still question myself on, because the truth never came out.

And lastly, there are a few other situations that I'm 100% sure of that happened, the truth just hasn't come out yet - but I have faith that the truth will come out, even if it's long after I'm gone, because the truth always does, even if centuries later :)

But with some of the biggest situations I've mentioned above, I actually have a pretty good track record, in the end, which I didn't even realize until I wrote it out.

So - what have I learned?

Never speak of it again, let everyone think you're crazy and made it up,  because at least you, or the people you care about, will be safe  from any retaliation or harm - then get the fuck out as soon as you can lol.

Also, not to let the injustice of other people getting away with something become your life sentence  - find your joy :)

A watched pot never boils - you can't wait around for karma or for justice, it can consume you.

And sometimes you're never going to get justice or resolution, and you have to find a way to heal anyway, to avoid a lifetime stuck in pain, bitterness, or even obsession with revenge. 

You just have to compartmentalize it, share the residuals that bubble up sometimes with trusted others, and then let it go again, so that you can just get on with your life and find some joy :)

Also, trying to convince people that don't want to see it, especially if you have PTSD and your CNS alarm system is going off,  will do no good, even if you're holding the proof in your hand - they don't want to see it and so they won't. 

In that case, it will only turn out like Ripley in the board roam - you look crazy and possibly aggressive, helping the gaslighters out yourself - and in certain, more rare situations, doing so can even be dangerous.  

And ya know, they never actually finish that story ,about The Emperor's New Clothes.  They don't say what happened to that kid who pointed out that the emperor actually wasn't wearing any and had been grifted ... 

... but I guarantee you, nobody rewarded him,  They were too embarrassed to admit he'd been right and they'd all gone along with it, with many still clinging onto what they needed to believe until they day they died. 

But I can tell you what probably happened - they either gaslighted him until he ended up in a mental institution or they took him out back and beat the shit out of him or worse lol.

Regardless, Roger that, Hicks ... easing down off the throttle, now. 

 I think you're right, we're out of the woods and we'll be okay.  That is, if I can just follow my own advice above.. 

Love you :)