People I Wish Lived Next Door To Me ...😂 (UPDATED)

 

*Edited - I added more people added to my fantasy imaginary village/neighborhood, to also now include Southern and Midwestern liberal (or suspected liberal or moderate) comedians - because I get them! 😂

The problem is, my little fantasy neighborhood is rapidly becoming a fantasy village! 😂

In fact, though I thought of many others from other countries I'd love in my village, this list started to become too long already, so for now, it's limited to American/Canadian celebrities (though their spouses might be from other countries).

NOT because I'm crazy MAGA and fear/hate non-Americans, far from it - but only because if I included everyone globally,  my post will have moved from a fantasy neighborhood to a fantasy village to then a fantasy city and be way too long! 😂

I may eventually write a post about that now fantasy global city, but for now, there's only one exception - only because I already had him on here, I can't bring myself to remove him and move him to the global list because of how much I adore him as a person and I'd definitely want him as a close neighbor - Sir Paul McCartney. 😂

_____________________________

And so, being a bit overwhelmed after yesterday, I decided to just cuddle up with my pug and watch YouTube videos all day.

I've decided that if I could pick who lived next door to me, here's who I'd pick

Why?  

Hilarious, intelligent, creative, quirky, and kind, as well as they appear to be very authentic - AND - I feel like you could have a deep philosophical conversation with them, if the mood struck them, too. 

It's not everybody that can do both, right?

So here they are, in no particular order ... 

Trixie Mattel/Brian Firkus and Mr. Wonderful (his new mystery fiance)

The Levy Family ... 

Billy Porter

Maya Rudolph and Paul Thomas Anderson 

Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest

Stephen and Evie Colbert

John Krasinski and Emily Blunt 

Tina Fey and Jeff Richmond

Amy Poehler

                                        Will and Viveca Ferrell 

(Just don't ask him for an autograph when he's out with family, he hates that!)

Molly Shannon and Fritz Chesnut 

Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Brad Hall 

Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard 

Jason and Amanda Bateman

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce 

Jim and Jeannie Gaffigan 

Trevor Noah 

(Yes, originally South African, but lives exclusively here now)

Parker Posey

Sandra Bullock 

Cardi B

Celine Dion (French-Canadian, lives here now)

Ryan Gosling and Eva Mendes Gosling

Eddie and Paige Murphy 

Wanda and Alex Sykes

Emma Stone and Dave McCary

Jennifer Lawrence and Cooke Maroney 

Michelle Buteau and Gijs van der Most

Ali Wong and Bill Hader

(Yes, I know they've broken up, but I'm in denial and have hope 😂)

Anna Kendrick 

Jennifer Garner

Octavia Spencer 

Pedro Pascal 

Zendaya and Tom Holland

Kumail and Emily Nanjiani 

Colman and Raul Domingo

Keanu Reeves

Viola Davis and Julian Tennon 

Sir Paul McCartney

(Again, I limited this list to American/Canadians and their spouses because it's getting too long, but Paul McCartney would be at the top of any list I ever made and I can't remove him! 😂 )

Brittany Broski (Texas)

Fortune Feimster and her mom, Ginger Feimster (from North Carolina)

Leeanne and Chuck Morgan (from Tennessee)

Tom and Rita Hanks

Barack and Michelle Obama 

Morgan Freeman 

Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively 

Yes, I know she's controversial - and I'm NOT taking sides with her VS. Justin Baldoni.

However, what IS true is that after Blake filed her lawsuit complaint of sexual harassment, Justin DID literally contract a famous PR "hit team" to publicly smear-campaign her online.

He literally hired the same Los Angeles PR "hit team" to smear campaign Blake online that Johnny Depp had hired to sway public opinion towards him versus Amber Heard.

(I think I even wrote a post about that, during the Depp VS. Heard thing, that I don't know what to think, but it does appear to be to be a very orchestrated smear campaign online going on, particularly with a barrage of YouTube videos - turns out it was!)

Again, NOT taking sides on either of those cases.

(And actually, in Amber Heard and Johnny Depp's case, I think they were toxic together, they were both dishonest and effed up, and neither of them came out smelling like a rose.)

All I'm saying is -  regardless of guilt or innocence -  hiring a famous PR "hit team" to smear-campaign a woman to sway public opinion in your favor, just because it's easy to do to women?

Ewww - if anything, even if you're innocent, that makes YOU look worse/guilty.

Now - it's unfortunate that she handled things so publicly and dragged friends into it like Taylor Swift.

However, having been smear campaigned online myself 20 years ago, during early days of blogging and social media - by a little troupe of known online smearers/harassers/impersonators  - arranged by a blogging competitor and a person I rejected, jumped on later by my exhusband) -  no judgment from me - because God knows I made mistakes handling it!

Because until you are in a situation yourself where you've been smeared-campaigned against and/or cyberbullied and/or impersonated or even hacked, orchestrated or not?

Then you wouldn't know that there IS no appropriate response to it that will help your situation - ESPECIALLY as a woman - to include "ignoring it" and remaining silent.

Previously, the most mature and best method of handling smear-campaigns and false accusations was to simply "rise above it" or "ignore it" and/or "refuse to grace BS with a response." 

However, nowadays - as we've seen with the rise of social media and in recent elections - for some reason, total silence or walking away/account deletion - rather than addressing it head on gets interpreted as a sign of guilt, for reasons I don't understand  - i.e. Hillary Clinton and Pizzagate?

But on the other hand, frantically fighting back for your career or your reputation can also be interpreted as guilt.

So as can losing your patience after months of ignoring it and your harasser keeps upping the ante until they get a reaction (like bullies do) - and it's actually worse if it's another woman smearing you!

So if you're a woman and this happens to you, you're basically sunk - because you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I think what Blake was trying to do was fight back, but made huge blunders in doing so?

Then again, there is no guidebook for how to handle it online and  STILL few laws to protect you.

And in the end, despite what you do or don't do, people will believe what they want - sometimes based on nothing more than the sheer number of people "piling on." 

Thus, having been through a smaller version of that 20 years ago, Blake gets more of a pass from me than perhaps she would from other people. 😉

Back to my little fantasy neighborhood - what a great neighborhood that would be, right?

In fact, they're so awesome, the first thing they'd likely do is kick ME out! 😂

Wrong Diagnosis Due to Clerical Error, Medical Gaslighting, And A Validating New CT Scan

 Hello everyone.

As I said, I had an uptick in pain over the weekend in my mid-abdomen and left ribs, so I went to my PCP. 

She said the CT scan didn't show any fractures there, just the 11th rib, and was a tad bit dismissive.

(This surprised me because in 10 years, she should know by now that I'm good with pain, so if I say something hurts, it hurts and there's a reason for it. She also has previously commended my logic/ability to ferret through my own issues.)

I had already explained the comedy of errors that happened at the health system's main ER on the night of the accident and that something could've been misread.

She said if anything, I probably cracked another rib already weakened by the accident myself, after trying to do too much too quickly, 

I went for an x-ray yesterday.

They told me 5-7 days for a read.

However, I was in my patient portal getting documentation for my attorney when the following visit note came in from my x-ray visit.

No report,no image, just this ... 

Um ... you read that right - it says "traumatic laceration of the liver."

I suspected this was clerical error as the x-ray hadn't even been read yet - PLUS - you cannot see a liver laceration on simply x-ray as it's soft tissue.

You can see blood pooling somewhere, but you can't see from which organ, so this made no sense. 

However, the reason I had the x-ray at all was to define new pain upper abdominal/left-sided rib pain, so I needed this checked into.

Now keep in mind that as I said, this whole time, I believed I had more rib fractures than just the one, and the original ER doc after the accident said I had no rib fractures, so I thought I didn't and it was all in my head until the report came back later with 11th rib fracture .

But hold that thought - because ALL of that is wrong.

So it's after hours so I can't reach anyone to ask what this note is about. 

I call the nurse line who advises me that if anything on any of my record says that at all, anywhere, to go to the ER immediately because that would be an emergency.

So I did.

I went to the Baptist Hamburg location this time because they took excellent care of Mark versus my experience at Baptist Main.

They took a new CT scan with contrast.

Here it is ...

What does it say?

In addition to the L1 vertebral fracture, it says "healing" fractures of ribs 5-10!

BOOM, there you go - FOUR RIB FRACTURES, not just one - and there IS NO 11th RIB FRACTURE!!!

More importantly, there is no liver laceration!!!

Now, let's compare to the initial CT.

Essentially, the only thing the same is the L1 compression fracture ...

Out of the 2, let's just say that I trust the one from last night at Baptist Hamburg's ER more than Baptist Main ER - and I wished they'd taken me there from the get-go.

(See previously posts on issues I had there.)

Honestly, if they had just listened to where I said the pain actually was from the beginning and read the scans correctly from the beginning, we wouldn't be here!

Most importantly, as I said there IS NO LIVER LACERATION - that was clerical error, as I suspected - but glad I went to rule it out because it confirmed what I felt all along - there were 4 rib fractures, not just one (or none)!

Also, there is no mention of an aortic mural thrombus on the new CT (though myself and my neurosurgeon actually viewed it on the first CT). 

So is it gone? 

Was that reading wrong? 

We don't know.

Lastly, the new CT scan shows a pulmonary nodule that was missed on the first CT scan that says "most likely post-inflammatory" (meaning after accident), but in the presence of risk factors (like smoking), get a PET scan, which I will do.

Ya know what?

We have paid out of pocket to see several doctors here because we haven't met our deductible and are reserving our PIP - and many of them were based on that initial wrongful information, that now, may or may not be reimbursed by a settlement.

Needless to say, I am beyond frustration, rapidly heading towards pissed off.

Worse, when I start to get too much conflicting information from too many sources, I start to feel like maybe I'm just crazy - is it me? Have I done something wrong?

Tack on the dismissiveness and gaslighting by some docs - gaslighting/dismissiveness being something I've had to deal with most of my life from family and my exhusband -  so I don't handle that well - and that's when I especially feel like it's me with the problem/I must just be crazy!

I'm the common denominator so I must be doing SOMETHING to bring this on myself, right? Can't be everyone else with the problem.

I really have no clue what I'm a magnet for so much crazy shit like this in life, despite years of therapy trying to figure that out!

Speaking of therapy, then again, my last 2 therapists (one retired) have contradicted these self-thoughts with the below (combination paraphrasing of both therapists): 

"Actually, you have a GREAT perception, you notice more stuff than most people do, thanks to the hypervigilance of PTSD. But don't expect people to thank you for it! 😂" 

"And if they sense you doubt yourself at all, if they're the kind of people that don't admit mistakes but see that you are, as well as see kindness or self-doubt as weakness, they will run with that ball and try to blame and gaslight YOU." 

"And yes, actually - it IS possible to be the common denominator for situations but not be you "with the problem," i.e. institutional or systemic group dysfunction."  

"Other people may have experienced exactly what you did, but since you don't know that, you think you're alone and must be crazy, when you don't know that. Lack of proof is not evidence either way."

"For example -  were the Nazis right? Are gang rapists right? Are crime rings and cartels right? Is MAGA right? I don't think so - and the latter is 50% of America. Just because there's more of them than you doesn't automatically mean you're the crazy one OR make systemic group sickness or mob rule right." 

"It's great that you examine and look to yourself to blame first and come in to self-improve - but there's a point that needs to stop - take what's yours and leave the rest with them. Even if there is something you could've handled better doesn't mean the whole thing was your fault. You're not powerful enough to control how other people behave, only yourself."

"The world is actually a pretty sick place and the sickest  people never even question themselves enough to set foot in a therapist's office or stay there when confronted. They're usually the same people gaslighting and abusing others, wanting to blame their victims for their problems."

"You're NOT crazy, you're wounded but healing, better than ever before. If anything, your perception is TOO on the mark for some people - the sort of people who couldn't see themselves in a room full of mirrors and refuse to look - it's easier to scapegoat and blame you because they know you will take it all on so they won't have to." 

"But seeing this stuff when others don't yet or refuse to  doesn't mean you're crazy -  worst case scenario, you were wrong -  so what?" 

"But the thing is, how many times have you been proven right later versus wrong? Probably about 95% of the time, by my unofficial tally." 

"You have GOT to learn to trust yourself - your instincts and your perception MORE, actually, because when you don't is when you run into trouble. It's been conditioned into you NOT to through systemic dysfunctional family gaslighting - but it's way past time to DECONDITION yourself out of it." 

"That doesn't mean you shouldn't self-examine and assume you're right -  but I don't think you're in danger of that EVER, anyway. 😂" 

"But what it does mean is, there's a point to stop questioning and blaming yourself for everything just because there's more than one person involved. You are not powerful enough to to wreak havoc on entire systemic dysfunction." 

"Though there ARE people running around wreaking havoc and victimizing others regularly, playing the false victim (cough, cough, Trump) - they for damn sure aren't sitting in a therapist's office getting long term therapy  like you are😂 " 

"Self-examination is great - to a point - as long as it doesn't dip into total self-blame and shame. Find that balance between what's yours and leave them with the rest. Just because sometimes there's more of them than you around you doesn't make them right. Look at MAGA in Kentucky versus the small percentage of blue people. Does that make them right or sane? Absolutely not."

 

Sigh, thank God for therapy or I'd probably be curled up in a ball, right now, not communicating with anyone. 😂

In fact, I don't think I will much today, so if I don't answer your calls or texts, please don't worry - I'm just confused and sorting through it, okay?

Once again, THANK YOU to those who keep checking on me!

Like I said, when bad things happen in your life, that's when you know who is really there for you and who says they will be, but then goes MIA - and it may surprise you.

People you think would never be there for you suddenly are, like every day.

Others you think will be will disappear and go MIA.

So we try to focus on the angels in the room rather than the (at least temporary) A-holes, right?

Having said that, special thank you and shout out to my previously estranged Mom and little sister, whom I never would've thought would've been there for me after previous family events  (and my older sister's lies) over my grandmother's will.

I don't know if the universe shifted or time has brought new insight or wisdom or what - but I shan't look a gift horse in the mouth - so I am INCREDIBLY grateful for your emotional support through all of this - THANK YOU, Mom and Ru!!! 💞

Chuck Lorre - Hmm, Never Mind?

(Edited).

Let me just start by saying I haven't read his book myself - and I don't think I'm going to, considering the fallout that's occurred since its release this past week.

So last week, I had written a post about CBS's odd moves in general lately, which included his hilarious clapback to Trump, after Lorre's non-publicly-televised speech that the White House apparently heard about, commented publicly on, and then Chuck Lorre clapped back.

(Although admittedly, his original non-publicly-televised speech was a bit crude and I don't think wishing anyone to die is EVER okay, but the rest was funny.)

This week, however, Lorre's new memoir came out called "Sitcom" - and it has me changing my tune about him.

Okay, so - we all knew Charlie Sheen was/is an A-hole, partly caused by substance abuse and partly because he's just an a-hole with a huge ego. 

We knew this because many of his antics played out in public for the world to see on film, including antisemitic rants - we couldn't help but see it.

We also know that Chuck Lorre finally fired him from Two-And-A-Half Men after several chances to get clean and sober and be more respectful of himself and his castmates. 

However, at the same time, Chuck knew what he was getting into when he hired Charlie Sheen already, right?

I also wondered at the time why Chuck Lorre let Charlie get under his skin so much, how he could push his anger buttons so easily, such that it spilled out so publicly, when others just quietly either refused to hire him/fire him.

I speculated that there was alcoholism around him already somewhere, such that it had this deep of an emotional effect on him.

I mean, I know myself that there are certain personalities that I avoid because I will "trigger" if I'm around them too long, so I get it.

And his new book reveals it, but only to a point - he doesn't appear to have any true insight into that yet or what that's really about.

Hold that thought for a moment, though.

First, let's talk about what famous people should and should not talk about in either interviews or a memoir book. 

Talking about his side of the public feud with Sheen is fine - it was already public and he deserves to tell his side.

Talking about your side of a story that hasn't been heard is fine - as long as you're not just dissing other people in  the business that you just don't like (which he borders on doing in his book).

Talking about how somebody screwed you over when you were coming up can be okay - *IF* - you're calling out power abuse or predatory behavior in Hollywood.

Then there's a couple of things you should NEVER do in a memoir regarding still living/working people in the business: 

- You do not out someone's sexuality.

- You do not out someone's private substance abuse struggles that they have not disclosed themselves publicly -  ESPECIALLY if they have said nothing negative to or about YOU (which Sheen did, but the others I'm about to discuss that he just dissed - have not).

- You do not diss someone else's lack of talent from your own opinion.

 

You *ESPECIALLY* should never do the above if you're in a greater position of power than the people you're dissing - like a producer, director, filmmaker or multi-sitcom creator - because it destroys careers (and likely the person themselves, already struggling.)

For example, Quentin Tarantino calling out Paul Dano as being a terrible actor in Django Unchained was cruel and unnecessary - and fellow actors flocked to defend him and Tarantino ended up looking like the huge power-drunk a-hole he has become.

(Paul Dano can play some really good psycho creepers, though.)

Sometimes people just aren't right for a certain role, but they do great in other roles - and it doesn't mean they're a terrible actor overall.

Other actors aren't so great, but we love them anyway and they work great in action movies (Keanu Reeves).

Even the best actors have taken on some roles they couldn't deliver on, they were just miscast.

There are a few directors that have said "I don't think we'll be working together again," which is fine - it leaves it with the idea it wasn't a good fit between them.

In particular, Chuck Lorre calling out Anna Faris on "Mom" - a show which ran for 7 years (which I never watched, btw) for her private substance use and actually leaving the show because of it rather than "pursue other projects"  as was publicly stated. 

He also went onto say her doing so proved him right about his reluctance to hire her.

(After several years on the show?)

Most of us had no idea she had substance abuse issues!

I mean, we did wonder because sometimes she acted loopy on interviews, but some actors are just loopy, with or without substance use lol.

Now, just know that I have no feelings or opinions about Anna Faris,  other than I found her hilarious in "Just Friends" and the Scary Movie franchise - but what he just did was NOT cool.

I get it that after Charlie Sheen, you'd be wary of ever hiring anyone else with substance issues.

But then again - Anna Faris is no Charlie Sheen.

We're not dealing with a Hollywood legacy dynasty like the Sheen family.

We never saw or heard about HER throwing public tantrums and shouting antisemitic rants at castmates, refusing to show up for work- because apparently, she didn't.

And the fact that she wasn't like Sheen at all is proven by the fact that all of her castmates have rallied around her after this public  diss on social media, saying they loved her and every minute they spent with her on the show.

(That is something Charlie Sheen's castmates did NOT ever do for him - they were glad to see him go!)

In fact, the public at large didn't even know Anna had substance abuse issues until you just told us!

To her credit, Anna has responded by saying she "didn't see this coming" and "can't pretend she's not hurt," and also that she has been "sober for a year-and-a-half now," and then actually expressed gratitude to him and everyone involved with the show for her time there. 

Can't think of a better way to respond to that, go Anna!

Also, Mayim Bialik, from The Big Bang Theory, has just publicly said it was difficult time working with Chuck himself during that feud with Charlie.

Chuck - take note of Mayim's compassion and mercy towards you - are you giving others as much compassion and mercy as Mayim is showing YOU, right now? 

Then we discover that Chuck Lorre was an alcoholic himself, sober for many years now.

Aha - now we have a bit more insight into why he'd ever out Anna's  private substance abuse issues -  because he's never learned to forgive himself or have compassion for himself for his prior alcoholism - and thus has no patience or tolerance for anyone actively using.

Also, alcoholism is NOT just about drinking - it comes with a whole set of other behaviors that need to be addressed including boundary issues, abandonment issues, and unlearned coping skills; thus, just because you quit drinking doesn't necessarily mean you don't have other stuff going on that needs work.

Then he supposedly goes on to diss Cybil Shepard, on the show Cybil in the 90s.

He say she wanted "total creative control." 

Cybil has famously said she DID want "more" creative control, but but not total control - and I mean, she has a point - the show WAS named after her and her experiences - shouldn't she have a say?

Regardless, why you dragging these actresses from years ago through the mud, Chuck?

As IF actresses already don't have a hard enough time in Hollywood?

In fact, wasn't that what the show "Cybil" was about, how aging  actresses are treated in Hollywood?

Plus, you DO seem to have a hard time writing female characters - perhaps you could use the feedback?

Oh, I see - he says he's been married 3 times and has issues with his mother - NOW we get it - he has no clue about women. 😂

Dude - perhaps you shouldn't write women until you understand them better and actually listen to them?

Then he tells this story about how the execs wanted him to cast a "hot, young, thin" actress in a fat suit for Mike and Molly (!) instead of Melissa McCarthy, but he stood his ground, saying she was a once-in-a-lifetime talent.

I guess we're all supposed to applaud him for that, but on the heels of the other stuff he's said about actresses, it falls a bit flat. 

So ... maybe no, on Chuck Lorre, after all.

Though never an alcoholic/addict (other than cigarettes), I was married to one previously, and I DO still have compassion for addicts and alcoholics.

And I do get refusing to enable them - that's not love or compassion, that's enabling. Sometimes with addicts/alcoholics, you have to love them with boundaries or from afar, to keep everyone safe.

However, when former addicts/alcoholics have no compassion or mercy at all for others still using, it reminds me of the parable of the merciless servant in the bible ... just ... ewwww.

(This behavior also goes against the 12 steps, proving Chuck has not had nearly enough treatment.)

So Chuck Lorre? 

Dude, you're in a more powerful position than everyone you just outed/dissed that unlike Sheen, had never said a bad word to or about you - potentially destroying their careers. 

What then separates your particular brand of power abuse from Trump, whom you just shot down a week ago?

Methinks you should go back to picking on MEN your own (ego?) size - women in Hollywood have enough critics already!!!