So last night, Valarie Honeycutt Spears - longtime reporter on Fayette County Public Schools for the Lexington Herald Leader - who writes with absolutely no tone or bias, and publishes only what she can prove (never "sources say") - published on the front page of the Herald Leader (with news alerts to those subscribed) - that Superintendent Liggins had just resigned.
She stated that she was sent this statement from the Fayette County Public Schools school board, who also stated there would be a school board meeting to discuss new leadership tonight.
However, you can no longer find this article - it has been replaced with 2 entirely new ones (see below).
"I have not resigned. I remain the Superintendent of Fayette County Public Schools. I have only requested that the Board engage in discussions regarding a potential separation agreement. At this time, no resignation has been submitted, accepted, or finalized.”
????
So WTF does THAT mean, he's thinking about resigning if the money is right?
Now, Valarie Honeycutt Spears never gets it wrong, and like I said, she only publishes things she can prove and sources with names, never "sources say."
There's always a first time - but she did receive an official statement from the School Board or she wouldn't have published that.
So either somebody went rogue or the school board has accepted his request for discussions about a potential separation agreement as his resignation and will finalize it publicly at this board meeting, is all I can figure?
It's interesting because his best buddy is Tyler Murphy, chairman of the school board, who rubber stamped a lot of his stuff and there have been calls for him to resign, too.
People in the comments section of these news stories posting GIFs of like them eating popcorn 😂
Also, my husband, still working at Central Office (but stepped down into a different capacity due to health issues), has already been asked 3 times if he bought his popcorn for the school board meeting tonight! 😂
Mind you, these people are black AND white, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Because those at Central Office already knew the superintendent's shady self-luxury spending habits and unqualified cronyism - interestingly with mostly white MAGA, despite being a supposed fellow lib Dem - even before the mass firing.
And and they know that this isn't racism or bigotry, as his small group of supporters try to claim - as much as we all initially wanted to believe the backlash WAS just racism and bigotry.
They realize, essentially, this is the black, Democrat version of Trump.
The church says the money was used for rent, computers for kids in extra-help tutoring classrooms for children and ESL classes for Latino students, as well as new furniture.
So ... the school itself needs new technology and laptops for students, but you're giving $225K to a favorite church without board consent?!?
Now look - I'm all for those extra services for the kids, they sound great - but I'm also for separation of church and state.
That should go for Democrats AND Republicans, donations should be above board and approved, going both ways, funds going to or from churches.
And why just that one large church - trying to garner support for yourself, Dr. Liggins, in case things started to unravel, as you had to know it would with your spending habits?
That story was published after Liggins - and their financial consultant, Kyna Koch - tried to blame former leadership for the budget collapse (even though Kyna Koch was a consultant then, too, so it made no sense she wouldn't have caught it) for the budget collapse.
Then came firing of over 200 low-level administrative staff at central office.
Then community people started uncovering some of the shady spending that people at central office already knew about, such as this church donation.
So we have friends who are members of that church who say he can do no wrong, of course, and it's racism.
We wanted to believe that, too at first - but they haven't seen what we and others have seen, working at central office - black, white, Latino, Asian.
Like I said, he's the black Democrat version of Trump - and we've told these friends that attend that church this ,but they won't listen (just like MAGA won't listen). - and there's no point in arguing because people in denial just become angry when you try to show them truth and fact.
That is because when you meet Dr. Liggins, he is warm, personable, and remembers your name.
But also, everything he does is to reward cronies - most of them actually white MAGA - and benefit himself - just like Trump.
IMO, he needs to get in his decked out Hummer with a special heated parking space - paid for by the school budget - and go.
This is way too much instability drama, and chaos - and we need to go "scorched earth" and get rid of all his cronies, especially the unqualified ones.
Turning a blind eye to this stuff in our own party makes us lib Dems big fat hypocrites when criticizing Trump or MAGA.
Lastly, can I just say that my biggest fear with allowing Trump carte blanche power and putting unqualified people in power out of cronyism has been that it normalizes it, we become desensitized to it, it creates ripe conditions that this will happen on the left, too?
Recently, a couple of former Trump supporters have asked to (or about) me,"You/she knew from way back that Trump was a monster; how did you/she know?"
(Can I just say this is not the first time I've been asked this question, years later, just never about a politician.)
I'm thinking to myself "How did you NOT know?" 😂but nevertheless, I just say I saw the warning signs very early on.
I've often wondered why many of us seemed immune to his cons and rejected following him (or anyone) in total blind faith.
In fact, the hero-worship idolatry of Trump and blind faith in him without question or tolerance of criticism is the most cult-like part of MAGA and the scariest part!
I have never seen such scary blind faith in any politician, in my lifetime.
Though I'm not sold on this video completely - keep in mind he is NOT a psychologist - he does postulate some interesting theories on why some of us were immune to Trump's spiel (spell? lol) from the beginning.
In fact, I added a few more.
In case you don't want to watch it, the first one is something I've actually said to people before about why there is discrepancy between rural votes and metro votes.
1. You are educated, and not JUST book or college educated, but educated in positive personal experience with people not just like you - different races, religions, sexual orientations.
You learned that "outsiders" aren't a bad thing - that people different from yourself and the way you/your family thinks can be a good, positive thing.
Next, though number 2 and 3 might seem contradictory, keep in mind for #2, all you need is at least one person in your life that modeled empathy and compassion, not the entire family.
2. You came from a core family that modeled empathy and compassion (or at least one person modeled that for you).
Not just sympathy (feeling for people who have experienced what you have), but empathy (feeling for others who are experiencing things that you haven't.)
3. You were the scapegoat in a dysfunctional family with authoritarian leadership who demand absolute loyalty without question or criticism, appreciation, and your allegiance to a strict - but somewhat limited - moral code, that the leaders themselves are exempt from.
#3 hit me hard because that is totally my role in my own severely dysfunctional family and I definitely can see its application here, as dysfunctional systemic groups are basically larger versions of dysfunctional families.
So you come from a family that must blame someone else or even "the devil" for all their problems and faults rather than self-examination and realizing it's rarely one person's fault, it's a group system dynamic.
For example, Trump would be nothing without his enablers and those who kowtow to his will and help him scapegoat and bully.
Sometimes, it really is just one person's fault, but in group dynamics - politicians in particular, i.e. Trump - we cannot ignore the cultural system already in place that allowed Trump to gain and stay in power.
As he mentions, the scapegoat is specifically chosen and targeted for blame because they are different in some way, often simply because they questioned the actions and attitudes of the leaders or the group as a whole, when the rest of the group just wants to pretend it's all normal, even though it works for no one.
The enablers - those aren't the power-holders OR the scapegoat -will often bully along (or turn a blind eye to bullying) because they imagine they will still benefit somewhat if they do and that the person who does not deserves punishment.
The scapegoat is actually usually the person or persons who hold the least power in the group.
This is true not only for family scapegoats but group scapegoats - i.e. immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ, and often just newcomers to the group.
In fact, this can even happen at work, and this is why some companies have high turnover, referred to as "toxic culture" - constantly blaming problems on new people and/or people who see things differently, rather than examining their internal system, so it keeps happening again and again with new scapegoats.
And when conservatives start to talk about some crime and immigrants, I say "Okay, do you watch news murder shows like Dateline or 20/20 or serial killer documentaries?"
The answer is usually "YES!" with conservatives.
"Okay - how many murder news shows or serial killer shows are about illegal/undocumented immigrants, people of color, or LGBTQ that have murdered?"
*Crickets*
"How many school shooters are undocumented immigrants, people of color, or or LGBTQ?"
*Crickets*
Because they know the answer to that question is a resounding 2 or 3 versus 100s being overprivileged white males or females - mostly white male - they just don't want to admit it because then we'd have to look at ourselves rather than "outsiders.".
In fact, IF immigrants or people of color were even involved - not always - but they are usually poor and paid by the privileged white masterminds to do their dirty work and take the fall for them and keep their own noses clean.
In fact, I've seen 2 cases where the murderer chose to dress up with dark makeup and a wig to make their hair look African-American on security camera!
As for LGBTQ, I have yet to see one Dateline or 20/20 about an LGBTQ person committing or plotting murder.
(I do know of 1 or 2 cases that exist, but they are rare in comparison.)
It is important to add here, with mention of my own severely dysfunctional family, that my siblings are also NOT Trump supporters and never have been, they are liberal Democrats - only my mother supported until January 6th.
(My mother is still a Republican and evangelical Christian, still upholds conservative values - and she doesn't necessarily believe in our voting system - but found the Jan 6-ers violence unjustified and inexcusable, and thinks Trump is a selfish snake in the grass in the Republican Party.)
And yet, they cannot or will not see the the similar dysfunctional group dynamics going on within their own family and its harmful effects (particularly on the scapegoat rather than the enablers/go-alongs) and perhaps never will, just like many Trumpers never will.
4 - You've been conned or defrauded by a con-artist leader before in business or personally, including church leaders - so you recognize a con artist when you see one and you won't be fooled twice.
This can be business or personal, and includes church cons (which is the case with me).
At this point, I will add my own theories:
5 - You are not a "black-or-white" or "either/or" thinker who believes that all people fit into either good or bad categories, based on a strict-but-limited moral code, disallowing for gray areas or situational circumstances.
You do not need people to come in pretty, shiny little boxes with labels and stereotypes so that YOU can feel more in control of the world, whose sole existence is transactional for you and based upon how they will somehow benefit YOU and YOUR needs or not - AND you know and exemplify what reciprocation means.
You allow for human messiness, mistakes, or situational choices, and are empathetic for those choices - to a point..
Because people are messy just as YOU are messy, they make mistakes - and not always are they the same mistakes you have made - and that's okay with you (as long as it isn't thrown AT you, repeatedly).
#5 is actually closely related to #3 and dysfunctional family behavior.
6. You either have no substance use disorder and/or mental illness or you have been fully and chronically treated for substance abuse/mental illness -
I cannot tell you the amount of alcoholics/drug addicts in Kentucky who are Trump supporters that follow Trump blindly, every word he says is gospel. Their minds are muddled and they aren't thinking and functioning clearly, but think they are.
Even semi-treated ones who do not fully understand themselves nor the family dysfunction that contributed to their need to cope with substance abuse - who think it's just a matter of will power and stopping behavior (when it never is) - are subject and suspect.
7 - You value your own beliefs - including religious beliefs - over fact, science, and truth without question or balancing your beliefs with reason.
#7 is actually very closely related to #'s 1, 2, 5, and 6, in that you were raised by a family that values their own moral values, according to their own interpretation, above everyone else's without question or even having much knowledge at all about other points of view.
Most importantly, there is the belief that you need something or someone outside of yourself - a savior - not a divine one, but a human moral leader to keep you in line, guide you, and make you feel better, like a magic drug.
Everyone needs help or guidance sometimes, there's nothing wrong with that - I'm talking about dependence on something or someone - another human or leader as a "savior" to prevent you from doing harm to yourself or others.
Religion, in fact, can and often does become it's own replacement addiction for addictive personalities and people with substance abuse.
There is a sort of "high" they get from religious experience, forgetting that part of religious service is stewardship to others and this planet.
Sometimes they will tell you "God healed me."
Maybe that's true for some - but for others, what could also be true is the person just replaced one addiction for another - never addressing what motivated them to become overly dependent on something or someone outside of themselves to begin with, so they aren't healed at all - they've just found a "safer" and more socially acceptable drug.
Now, I'm not going to spend a lot of time going up my own arse about how I now check all 7 of those boxes (but previously didn't in my youth), other than to say that had I not had long-term therapy nor had those early church and family experiences, I might've have been a Trump culter myself.
Once you "woke," you woke - and I do NOT mean "woke" in the political way (although it can be), so much as I mean waking up to dysfunctional group system dynamics that we continue to enable because there's comfort in familiarity, even though it doesn't really work for anyone and never really has.
It's like Adam and Eve suddenly realizing they were naked - you can't take back awareness. You can try, but the truth found in awareness will always nag at you.
Or like the scales falling off St. Paul's eyes (which I'm not sure they ever did completely, but that's another post lol).
It can be lonely, seeing how emperors are not wearing clothes when others can't or don't want to, yet, you may doubt yourself many times - but consider the alternatives if you do pretend along - not to just yourself, but to other people and the long-term consequences to society for doing so.
And if you are the scapegoat from a toxic group, remind yourself that even though it may get lonely out on that limb all by yourself, you may still question and doubt yourself - how much worse and more toxic it was for you when still in it?
And forget you, was how much more toxic it is for others, especially the most powerless people at the bottom, the scapegoats, right?
So ... remember when I said in the last post that there's a very fine line between copying the work of your directing influences VS. paying homage to them (while adding your own mark) - and that Murai had nailed that?
(I later added that Murai only directed the first 3 episodes and I was eager to see the ones he didn't direct - also with different writers - to see if they kept the vibe consistent).
Donovan was able keep consistent and actually top Murai, in Episode 4 (I corrected the post below) - but unfortunately, by Episode 8 - they did not.
In fact, it was a copy rather than an homage.
The difference?
A copy is when you straight up copy (steal) someone else's storyline completely.
An homage is when you momentarily nod at your directorial influences, but then add your own distinct mark to it.
In Episode 8, they essentially copied the storyline of Halloween completely - and did NOT make their own twist or mark.
Super disappointed in that. Like I said, I think it's a bit too early in the series - AND Murai's career - to start switching up directors and writers.
Though that happens, it's usually reserved for directors whose style is already well known AND with series in their 3rd or 4th season.
In this case, neither is true - few people know Murai's style AND this is only the first season.
However, that's a new thing with these streaming series, switch directors and writers mid first season - whatever their intention, cost of staff, etc., - it instead comes off to me as a bait-and-switch routine?
Like they get you invested in the first-string and then put in the guys on the bench, who are on the bench for a reason, either rookies or just not as good.😂
The only positive thing about it is that it does vindicate Patricia - and that's about it.
Otherwise, for those wondering why Tom literally kicked Wyck (with his foot, in the chest) off the boat in Episode 7 and Wyck thanked/praised him for it?
(Episode 7 was actually really good. Not sure it was consistent, but it came close.)
So ... don't overthink it, as I initially did.
Yes, it does relieve Wyck of his own "curse" of guilt and "being haunted" by kicking his friend off him while they were both drowning as children - but that's a byproduct.
IMO, the main reason Tom kicks Wyck off the boat is the simple fact that no one born on the island can ever leave or they will die.
Thus, with Tom now realizing that at least some elements of the curse are legit - kicked Wyck off the boat just before they reached the buoy or hWyck would certainly die.
Yes, there's the argument that Wyck could've drowned in the dark, turbulent water anyway, but at least he had a chance to live (which he did) versus certain death if he went past the buoy.
At least that's my theory, it's just not spelled out clearly for us?
Episode 9 has not dropped yet, and I'm hoping they'll return to the Murai formula - because if they don't, this series risks cancelation before it even gets off the ground due to repeating others storylines, even though this series has - or at least it had - so much potential!
So we have a 7-day free trial of Apple TV and wanted to catch up on some shows, and then started watching a new one.
It's called Widow's Bay, with Matthew Rhys - and it is brilliant!
There are a few kinks to work out, being a new show - but it has some truly original elements within in it, which may, in fact, shoot it into superstardom?
Provided a few kinks are worked out, like I said.
For example, it's a bit predictable at times - at least for me, a student of movies as a once-aspiring screenwriter for many years.
In fact, if I can figure out what's gonna happen within the first 10 minutes, I lose interest.
However, there are just enough twists to keep this intriguing, mostly the slow-burn history of the island's inhabitants and spooky history.
However, that's another kink that needs to be worked out - as much I like slow-burn mysteries and backstories on each character, it's almost a little too slow, asking us to assume the pasts of the characters without enough information yet.
What is it about?
First know that it's actually listed officially as a comedy, but it's more along the lines of a newer genre, horror comedy.
So the basic premise is, the mayor of a Northeastern Island (Matthew Rhys) is trying to turn his town into the next Martha's Vineyard beach-vacation town, but there is just one problem with that - either the town is genuinely cursed or the quirky townspeople simply believes it is, based on old superstition - or both.
The island has genuinely seen more than its share of tragedy, as well as super creepy people being drawn there (including 2 serial killers) - but that could be explained away by the town's isolation, geographic location on a rocky coast with turbulent waters, many incidents happening by self-fulfilling prophecy.
-OR-
The town truly is cursed.
-OR-
Both are true.
Regardless, mishaps abound, preventing this island from becoming the next Martha's Vineyard at every turn, whether brought on by paranoid superstitious belief or genuine bad ju-ju, that's for you to decide (and again, it may be a combination of both.)
Yes, it starts on the premise of a story we've heard before - a cursed coastal town where the residents can't (or won't) leave - but with new twists and more humor.
Imagine if the British comedy Doc Martin (Best Medicine in the American version), David Lynch's Twin Peaks, and anything NE coastal spooky by Stephen King all had a baby - PLUS made its own mark on the world - and you've got Widow's Bay.
Katie Dippold is the show's creator, but the magic here, at least in the first 3 episodes, is the Director, Hiro Murai.
(Hiro Murai is an up-and-coming director, with only a couple of streaming movies and shows under his belt, who may actually be best known as music-video director, directing Childish Gambino's critically-acclaimed "This is America" video.)
It's a fine line between copying former director's work and paying homage to your influences - bit Murai nails it!
Not sure how to convey how exactly he nails it, without also giving a spoiler alert, but I'll try?
(Correction: The scene I'm talking about was actually Episode 4 instead of 3, which was directed by Sam Donovan, who managed to keep the tone, ambience, and give us a master class in directing scene that rivals Murai's.)
So the scene in which Patricia is trying to give a party, which we all realize is too good to be true, and yet can't explain - gives us little split-second, blink-and-you'll-miss-it hints about what's really going on in the room (hint: watch moment on the dance floor, and even if you miss that, watch the mirrors) - and yet we still aren't fully prepared with the truth of what is really going on at that "party."
Absolutely masterful scene!
Also, the lighting, the ambience, the quirky camera angles and dialog (done before, but kept consistent), the quality of acting - excellent.
Genuine jump scares in here you don't expect, too, so be prepared for THAT.
Murai only directed the first 3, though, Donovan did the 4th and did a great job, so we'll see if it holds. IMO, it's a bit early for the director switch-up, both for the series and for an up-and-coming director - in terms of others being able to capture his style yet - but he still executive produces it and gets to put his stamp of approval on everything, so we shall see.
Overall, 2 thumbs up on this one (and it's been a while).
Hope they don't cancel it before it's found it's footing/audience (which has become a huge problem in recent years with both network and streaming shows, but particularly streaming!)
Thus, give it a try?
You might surprised - either in a good way, a spooky way, or both?
_________________
PS - I have recently read a few articles about why people with anxiety disorders or even PTSD often like watching horror movies, which seems contradictory.
In fact, I've heard people say "If you really have PTSD, wouldn't you avoid horror movies?"
So the oversimplified answer is - "It depends on the personal triggers - if the premise hits too close to personal trauma, yes - but if the premise is absurd and unreal, then no, it's a good distraction from your own anxiety"
For example, I personally don't like gory "slasher" types of horror movies, unless they're particularly clever or absurd.
I prefer supernatural spooky stuff instead.
However, I've noticed other people with PTSD are the same (although some do avoid sad or scary altogether).
However, research supports the reason why many with anxiety disorders or PTSD actually love scary movies.
The oversimplified answers - which are own personal answers - are these, supported by research:
1) It's an innate, unconscious or semi-conscious effort to "retrain" the brain's neuroplasticity to deal with fear or a safer, more controlled environment, and thus "desensitize" the brain to not overreact to normal life stressors."
2) Similarly, they provide enough stimulation to distract from personal anxiety. People with high anxiety have a hard time distracting themselves for long unless that activity provides enough stimulation to fully distract from worry.
For me, as much as I love movies, sometimes regular movies don't provide enough stimulation enough to distract me for long unless they are thought-provoking or thrilling, so I have to watch them in increments.
Thus, my go-tos are reading, hiking, strategy-style/time-management video games, supernatural movies.
Also, as much as exercise is a serotonin-boost, unfortunately it's not the best distractor for the mind, because exercise isn't the best mind distractor unless you're you're watching something stimulating/distracting while you're exercising!
(Hiking works because nature can be its own form of distraction/stimulation.)
So I've gotten a few of these invites from various "supposed" honor societies based on my 4.0 GPA to my personal email, and I'm not sure how they're getting my information - perhaps public information from the Dean's List or external scholarship applications?
HOWEVER, this one is legit - it came directly to my UC email.
It's an invitation/nomination to join Phi Theta Kappa - which is the equivalent of Phi Beta Kappa, but for 2-year programs.
They offer scholarships, which is good to know, considering Trump's Big Beautiful Bill goes into affect July 1st, cutting financial aid in half for half-time students (my program is only offered half-time).
Even if I don't get a scholarship, it looks good on a resume, right?
Plus my husband says he wants a bumper sticker that says "My wife is an honor student." 😂
Edited - with something I thought of later, which was this: So unless she also planned to kill herself in the process as well and failed, I'm still not sure about the "premeditated" part, and the fact their good friend was in the back seat also prevents me from being sure of that.
Not because I don't think she's capable of murder, she very well may be - but even a NASCAR or Formula 1 racer, or let's say even someone with a Doctorate in Physics - could have planned a crash at that speed that would ensure her own survival - and we're talking about a 17-year-old.
_______________ ORIGINAL POST __________________
So a friend asked me to watch "The Crash" and give my thoughts.
It's really hard for me to pronounce guilt or innocence unless I've seen all the evidence myself, particularly in the actual courtroom, which I haven't.
Edited: UNLESS I have seen most of the evidence from both sides and/or all documentaries from all sides - and neither side is claiming evidence was suppressed.
For example, Alex Murdaugh or Bryan Kohberger. I've watched all sides to those arguments - and I mean, DNA doesn't lie, so fairly certain they are both guilty.
Having said that, just based on what I have seen ... honestly?
I think there's not enough evidence either way - for me, or anyone, to conclude that she is guilty OR innocent beyond reasonable doubt.
However, that's just based on one documentary alone, and sometimes these things are biased.
I think the other possibilities of temporary distraction, joyriding too fast, or medical issue were not fully investigated and therefore not ruled out, but they ARE less likely.
Thus, it came as a surprise when the judge convicted her of premeditated murder - of not just her boyfriend, but of their friend riding in the car, too (which actually doesn't make any sense)?
So ... I'm not sure if even a NASCAR or Formula 1 driver - maybe even someone with a Doctorate in Physics - could've planned a crash to kill not just her boyfriend, but her friend in the backseat as well, but leave themselves as the driver alive - much less a 17-year-old?
I think the most likely scenario is - IF it was intentional, it was an impulsive act in the heat of the moment.
However, again - my theory, along with other theories, cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In fact, there's not much proof of anything?
Also, with the exception of what she said when trying to get back in their apartment and what she said to a teacher, nothing the prosecution presented off her social media accounts was anything I haven't heard or seen before out of the mouths of hormonal, emotional, overdramatic teenage girls - and this describes most teenage girls - and actually, I've seen and heard way worse, from both teenage girls AND teenage boys.
Teenage brains, both male and female, aren't fully developed until after age 26 - thus, they have trouble controlling their impulses or thinking through the consequences of their words and actions.
And most of the time, they don't even mean them when they say this crazy stuff.
Stuff like "OMG, her voice makes me want to kill myself" or "If she says that again, I'm going to punch her in the throat."
They're meant as jokes, but to the wrong audience - let's say like in her case, you're on trial for murder later - all those "jokes" you made, especially on social media?
They can and will be used as evidence against you.
Still, there wasn't a shred of evidence that she ever said, nor even implied, "I want to/am going to kill my boyfriend."
I also saw nothing whatsoever that made me believe she was the "If you break up with me, I'll kill you" type of girl - and in fact, as we learned at the end - with text proof - that it was actually HIM that texted "I'm going to crash this car if you do." .
Hell, it's possible they BOTH said it before on separate occasions, neither one really meaning it, it was a toxic relationship.
Teenagers in general can be manipulative and can say some awful things, especially when mad, that they don't really mean (and 5 minutes later they're over it and back together) - but that was especially true with these 2, who seemed to have little parental supervision and a toxic relationship that both their parents missed?
(Their parents appeared to be overly permissive, by allowing them to smoke weed and drive, move in together when she was 17 and he was 20, and he sold mushrooms.)
Don't get me wrong, she said some awful things that shouldn't be said to someone you love - but then - so did he.
(Don't forget, he said "because you're dumb" - on video, and she just laughed).
I also don't think not remembering what happened just before the crash is unusual - in fact, it's typical - it's the brain's way of protecting itself from trauma.
I know 2 people involved in horrific car crashes that don't remember anything but waking up later - that's actually more common than remembering what happened just before the crash.
Now, what do I believe happened?
I'll percentage out my belief - but again, that's all it is - belief.
60% possibility she may have impulsively and intentionally crashed the car in the heat of the moment while angry/arguing with her boyfriend - which would make it vehicular homicide manslaughter without intent to kill.
35% possibility she was distracted or joyriding and the road ended before she realized it in time.
5% - there was a medical emergency like passing out or seizure.
The problem is, this is all speculation - because despite her conviction, there actually IS no proof either way.
Now - I do think she was a little spoiled, didn't have enough parental supervision, and may have impulse-control issues that need treatment - even beyond what's considered normal for teenagers (which is a lot).
But there was nothing whatsoever that convinced me this was premeditated murder of both her boyfriend and especially their friend in the backseat.
I also think that at time, their deaths didn't seem to affect her as much as you would think they would, which I admittedly found odd - but I also know that too much weed can make you care less about anything, it can sort of numb you out.
I could be wrong, but that's the problem - there is no proof either way.
As for the 5% of my belief being possibility of medical issue?
The prosecution is correct - "POTS" syndrome would cause you to pass out and your body would thus relax, making it LESS likely you'd push the pedal to the metal, but it's not impossible for weight of collapse to cause that.
A more likely medical scenario would be that considering she has had "blackouts" before, it may not be POTS syndrome, but rather a type of seizure that has gone undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.
In particular, tonic-clonic seizures cause your body to tense up/go rigid for a few seconds to minutes, then subsequently relax and you pass out - and they are often misdiagnosed as POTS.
I'm not saying that's what happened and actually think it's the least likely option, but it should've at least been investigated and ruled out - but it wasn't.
However, my suspicion is that this was vehicular homicide/manslaughter as an impulsive act without intent to kill - and thus, she does deserve an appeal trial - with a new lawyer because here's clearly sucked!
As for the parents believing it was murder, I think parents often want someone to blame regardless and they will see it as "murder" even if it wasn't.
And of course, her parents are going to claim she's innocent until the day she dies, even if she isn't.
I will say that this case does have a slightly misogynistic feel to it that I can't quite put my finger on, other than the above - which doesn't surprise me for Ohio cops, to be quite honest, I've seen way worse with actual DV cases in Ohio - in some ways, Ohio is worse than Kentucky or even the deeper South when it comes to women, for some reason.
And lastly, just because she's not super likable doesn't mean she murdered someone - likeable people have murdered, too.
So my classmate and friend were talking more about these group projects, and unfortunately, she's in one with a "Bulldozer."
So in my last post, I neglected to mention those school group projects where one person is a know-it-all, tells you what to do, refuses to take your input or any help from others because they want it done their way - and then has the audacity to claim no one would help them and nobody appreciates them enough.
Grr ... I HATE dat, that's almost worse! 😂
I call such personalities "Bulldozers."
And I hate to say it - but they're usually women.
Not always - I mean, we have a Bulldozer president, right now - it's just women seem to get away with it longer.
Now - when I said in the below post it was usually me and one other person who ended up doing most of the work and everybody else just signed off on them, it was NOT that.
I meant because others didn't show or went MIA, so we just ended up doing it to get it all done lol.
And we never snitched about that to our professors OR complained about being appreciated. (I think the professors pretty much know who does what anyway, if nothing else by your other grades.)
And I don't CARE if my classmates "appreciate" me, I'm lucky if my classmates or professors even notice me 😂
With one exception - appreciation in the form of compensation for actual work tasks on jobs is nice, right?
I don't need a "thank you" for working OT, just pay me, right? 😂
Also, as I mentioned, I took input and feedback on the work I did, because I know I DON'T know it all - AND other perspectives help you see things in a different way you hadn't thought of before, I welcome feedback (well, as long as it's not screamed at me or thrown AT me).
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one bothered by that type of personality.
I thought it was my issue/personal pet peeve, being a product of an older sister with a "Bulldozer" personality - but apparently, it irks just about everybody but the Karen herself - erm - I mean person herself, with this personality.
On that same subject, we started to talk about personality traits in general that we don't care for.
But the truth is - I pretty much like everybody - even people who don't like ME. 😂
(Well, except for certain politicians wreaking havoc, racists, bigots, bullies, physically/verbally abusive people, pathological liars, manipulators etc. - but if in a work situation, I still manage to either find common ground or be civil to them, while perhaps trying to avoid them/try not to piss them off - if I can lol.)
There are certain things that get on my nerves, sure - but that doesn't mean I necessarily dislike somebody - because hell, I have an anxiety disorder, there are tons of things I do that get on people's nerves, I know! 😂)
Along those lines, I KNOW I'm not everyone's cup of tea!
In fact, up until about 2 years ago, if I received negative feedback about myself, I would immediately assume they were correct and then I worked on whatever it was.
But then, don't you know, somebody else would invariably give the exact opposite feedback!
Example: "You're too quiet"VS. "You talk too much."
So since then, though I will always listen to and consider feedback - I've given up trying to change myself just to make people happy.
Though I still have a bit of social anxiety, it's 100x better now the longer I'm away from toxic family - and I'm STILL somewhat of a people-pleaser - but that's just exhausting, so I gave it up for Lent. 😂
I dunno, perhaps also because when you're in your 50s you put up with less BS and care less what other people think, so I just let my freak flag fly! 😂
(Well, as long as I know I meant no harm - and after I've checked myself first to see if I'm the one in the wrong.)
And then there's something to be said about the source of the feedback, too, and what is potentially motivating them.
This is something I previously didn't consider, I always thought the feedback they gave must be gospel truth and third-party perspective was shared by everybody, until I found out it wasn't.
So sometimes, once in a blue moon, after considering it for a second, I realize it's not really about me, it's about them and their own issues - and at that point, it goes in one ear and out the other 😂
(Video added as a soundtrack to the second experiment 😉)
So my friend and classmate and I were talking about group projects. We're in different classes now, but we still chat. She was talking about having a group project to do, and we were talking about how that worked online.
I said "Now, in f2f life, if memory serves, group projects usually mean you get together, eat snacks and drink, do very little work, so like you and 1 other person will end up doing it all later and the rest just sign off on it."😂
Thinking more about those old days at the University of Kentucky, I remember my 2 most memorable group presentations were for my Sociology classes (the study of human behavior in groups), always my favorites.
Those classes often ask you to do social experiments like ... stand the wrong way in an elevator or glue a quarter to the floor at the mall and see how many people try to work to get it up and how long they try, and of course, record the results.
In other words, they always asked you to stir some shit - erm - I mean, challenge social norms to see what happens when you do - and they're usually kind of hilarious. 😂
For one class - we actually decided to do a SNL sort of skit, challenging stereotypes and gender norms - and it ended up being hilarious!
Everybody actually showed up and contributed ideas, that time, which is a rarity for these class group projects.
I remember we all met at the off-campus house of one of our classmates sharing the house with 3 roommates.
They offered us ramen noodles, Pringles, and Milwaukee's Best beer as any good broke college students do! 😂
So the skit was, we decided to dress me up all flowery and feminine and pretend to go to a party (in the skit) - but behave like a man.
So I sat with my legs open (I had leggings on, no worries).
I pretended to scratch and adjust my stuff, if you know what I mean.
I partook in tobacco dip and spit in a cup (which I really did for the skit, and it was disgusting, but I did it.)
I talked about "getting some" the night before and high-fived the men about having done so.
And then it concluded with my chugging a can of beer (filled with water) and burping loudly. 😂
Let me tell you, it was hard to keep a straight face - especially when the dip kept falling out of my mouth! 😂
I started to crack up, which only made the dip falling out worse, so I stopped looking my skit-mates in the eye, and just played it up, by picking up all the pieces that had dropped and shoving them back in my mouth, which only made our audience laugh more! 😂
As soon as the skit was over, R handed me the cup and I spit the whole thing out immediately, that was NASTY!
(To which everyone just laughed harder.)
Then R said "Give it up to Chrystal for being a trooper and doing that! I couldn't look at her while trying to dip, especially when it started falling out of her mouth, or I'd lose it."
Then I stood up and did a little lady-like little curtsey 😂
So the point was, of course, to mess with heads about stereotyping and gender roles - and does the class watching our skit get "the ick" with how I behaved?
And forget women - should this behavior okay for MEN?
For the record, I don't think anyone should be loudly burping at parties, men or women, because it's just rude and gross!
I think our point was made - but the class just mostly found it hilarious 😂
However, the one I'm proudest of now, looking back was before that, Sociology 101.
This was the one where we all got together and mostly ate snacks and drank and messed around, but I came up with an idea during it, that they all liked.
Now, before I say this, let me add the caveat that Greeks on a Southern campus in the late 80s and early 90s were not like Greeks in metro areas or more urban environments.
Let me also state that I realize that not all fraternities and sororities are like this, and in fact, I'm married to a former frat boy (from Detroit) now.
Anyway, none of us in the project group were Greek, with the exception of one guy in a black fraternity.
During our snack and drinkfest, we decided to call all white sorority girls "bowheads" at the time, because they all wore these giant bows on their heads.
And we noticed they all had different reputations like the rich ones, the pretty/handsome ones, the party girls/boys, the athletic ones.
BUT - mind you, this was mostly a cover for our insecurity and fears they wouldn't accept us if we tried - black or poor or from broken families, even some issues to work out maybe.
HOWEVER, after making fun of them for like a half hour, I felt bad and unfair because I didn't really know any of them.
So I came up with the idea to find out if white sororities/fraternities were really as overprivileged and shallow as they appeared, did they self-accept their reputations - or were we misjudging them, which made us hypocrites?
So I typed up these surveys with these questions on them:
"What kind of person do you want in your sorority/fraternity?"
"What kind of questions do you ask candidates during pledge week?"
"Would you accept someone that doesn't drink/party?"
"Would you accept someone overweight or unattractive?"
"How much does intelligence play a role?"
"Would you accept a person of color?"
"Would you accept someone Jewish?"
"Would you accept someone who was gay?"
"Would you accept someone disabled?"
Then myself and a group-project member went around to all the "most reputable" white Greek houses and explained it was for a class and asked them if they could have 2 people from each house answer them and the answers would be anonymous.
And would you believe they did it - and answered honestly?
When we got together again as a group and revealed the answers, our group was like "Whoa - this is gonna stir some shit. We CANNOT reveal which sorority and fraternity said this stuff, right? Redact who said what."
As predicted, when I presented it to the class of 100 people (could never do that now) - they were right, it caused an uproar.
Because here were the answers from 6 most elite sororities and 6 fraternities - and no, just like then, I'm not telling you which ones said what even now, only that this was at the University of Kentucky in 1989:
"What kind of person do you want in your sorority/fraternity?"
Sororities: "Pretty, fun" was the answer 10/12 times (2 people, each house), as if they had a rubber stamp, regardless of sorority or fraternity.
The 2 outliers from the same house said they were looking for socially conscious, smart women.
Fraternities:"Likes to party"all 12 times, but also"rich, fun, good looking, athletic."
"What kind of questions do you ask candidates during pledge week?"
Sororities:Mostly normal questions, but the standouts were:
"What does your dad do for a living?"
"Do you have designer clothing?"
I kid you not.
With the exception of one sorority, who asked about social causes and charities and GPA.
"Would you accept someone that doesn't drink/party?"
"Would you accept someone overweight or unattractive?"
Answers ranged from"No"to "HELL no" to one standout:
"If they were a legacy or came from the right family, then yes."
"How much does intelligence play a role?"
They said there is a GPA they must uphold and half of both sororities and fraternities essentially said high achievers/smart members were the icing on the cake and made them look good.
And as already mentioned, the one sorority said GPA, social causes, and charity work was extremely important to them.
"Would you accept a person of color?"
Answers ranged from "No" to "HELL no" to "They have their own, make them go there"to one sad, coward who sad to one sad answer that simply said"We say we would, and I would, yes - but it will never happen unfortunately."
One standout sorority said"Yes, and we have. - if they can afford it"
"Would you accept someone Jewish?"
See above answers on race, the answers were exactly the same.
Would you accept someone who was gay?
You can imagine how well that one went over, about the same as race or religion answers - with the surprising exception of again, 1 sorority, who had one member openly gay already.
"Would you accept someone disabled?"
"No" to "It'd be hard for them to keep up with activities" to "Not unless they were already a brother/sister before they were disabled."
So ... this went over like an anvil, of course.
I barely got through the answers before the white greeks in the room went nuts.
The black greeks in the room just started laughing loudly, saying 'Yep, I knew it! That's why we don't even try. Fuck y'all"
Then the white greek men said we made these things up and demanded to know who said what.
Of course, I refused to give up my sources as if a journalist, as well as answering honestly that they were anonymous so I didn't know myself the actual individuals who filled these out, only the organization itself they were from.
I looked at my professor, who just looked around the room, then at me, with a smile on her face, winked, and then mouthed "keep going."
Then they accused us of writing them up ourselves, which we were prepared for.
Having redacted which sororities and fraternity they were from, we compared each of the surveys on the overhead with to our own handwriting with a dry erase pen on a whiteboard - live.
Of course, it proved the handwritten answers were not written by anyone in our group.
I finished the presentation by saying this:
"Remember, the point of this experiment was NOT to bash Greeks - it was to find out if we had misjudged them without knowing them personally, because if so, then we're being exclusive hypocrites."
"Unfortunately, most proved our previous perception correct - with the exception of one sorority who surprised us and taught us not to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
In fact, I would pledge this one myself, if they would accept me, if I had the money, but I don't. And there's the other issue - how many are ruled out not because of who they are, but because they simply don't have the money?"
"If you don't like the answers your brothers and sisters gave, then maybe there's more self-improvement work to do - and in one case, having the courage to be more vocal about who you DO accept rather than who you don't, and proving it."
"Because there's not just one side to any of us - and nobody likes to be pigeonholed - so are you pigeonholing yourselves?
"Thank you for your time."
Then I stepped down to a standing ovation from the non-Greek, Jewish Greek, Black Greek students - and my professor.
The white Greeks booed, one even threw a wadded up piece of paper at me.
Me, forcing a smile at them for a brief second, dripping with sweat and trembling, picked up my books and promptly just left the building. 😂
Interestingly, though, one of the fraternities invited me later to be in their "Women of UK" calendar - fully clothed, only for women who also had a high GP, the only non-Greek invited A - which was sort of a weird compliment that they heard me, I guess - in their own misguided frat-boy way. 😂
Baby steps, right?
(It was never released, though, because the frat ran out of money to mass produce them.)
And I was later invited to be on Student Government representing the College of Social Work - all Greek but me.
So the question is, would I still do it today?
It's probably more important than ever to do today, but I can't public speak if my life depended on it anymore lol. Too much trauma and drama since then!
And this time, I wouldn't be partially motivated to do the experiment out of my own insecurity or fear they wouldn't accept me, either, that I wasn't good enough.
And if somebody asked me the question, or told me they asked the question "What does your dad do?" and asked if I had designer clothing, instead of feeling "less than" about myself, I'd probably tell them to go F themselves, IN their designer clothing. 😂
And if I did somehow manage to remember how to public speak without soiling myself, I'd like to think I'd not leave the room in a tremble, I'd be a little bit more confident in my findings, and remember my wit and clap back in a funny way.
But am I still the sort of person who likes to challenge labels and stereotypes and social norms, as well as challenge MYSELF with any biases that I may have - groups such as Greeks, or I daresay, Republicans?
Yes - because people are individuals and lumping them all into one category is just as unfair.
(I might argue that there's a big difference between racism and bigotry VS. bias against groups who have a choice in membership),
However, it was also interesting to note that sometimes, that first perception is the correct one, too - but at least I gave them a chance to prove otherwise, right?
And I always will.
But I have learned how many chances to give since then, too, regardless of what group the are a part of.
As Maya Angelou said, "If someone tells you who they really are, believe them."
Amen.
So I heard this song the other day I'd forgotten about, and I think it may fit here as the soundtrack to all of that above.
The stuff we hide to act like we've got it all together, whichever side of the fence you're on.
The jealousy and feeling inferior to others as teenagers and young adults - but at the same time, realizing they're not the sort of people you'd want to fit in with anyway?
And yet wouldn't it be good to have come from a family like that, who supported whatever you did - a life like that, where there's no financial worries, no need for a job, no embarrassing family secrets or abuse you hide, because when you did try to tell people in high school, it didn't go well - nothing but fun and partying and sisterhood/brotherhood - even if it was for just one day?
Nik Kershaw's "Wouldn't It Be Good" from the Pretty in Pink Soundtrack
I got it bad You don't know how bad I got it You got it easy You don't know when you've got it good
It's getting harder Just keeping life and soul together I'm sick of fighting Even though I know I should
The cold is biting Through each and every nerve and fiber My broken spirit is frozen to the core I don't wanna be here no more
Wouldn't it be good to be in your shoes Even if it was for just one day? Wouldn't it be good if we could wish ourselves away?
Wouldn't it be good to be on your side? The grass is always greener over there Wouldn't it be good if we could live without a care?
You must be joking You don't know a thing about it You've got no problem I'd stay right there if I were you
I got it harder You couldn't dream how hard I got it Stay out of my shoes If you know what's good for you
The heat is stifling Burning me up from the inside The sweat is coming through each and every pore I don't wanna be here no more
These BuzzFeed celebrity interviews with adoptable puppies are always adorable, but how much do we love this one with our Pedro?
My husband told everyone at work about seeing The Mandalorian and Grogu, and then suddenly, all the ladies circled him like a wolf pack, saying how much they love Pedro! 😂
He said "Ladies, I hate to disappoint you, but his helmet doesn't come off until way into the movie, and then not for very long. Someones removes it."
And they were like "Wait, what? His helmet comes off? Yay! But did he have to kill everyone later who saw him without it?"
