DEAR JERKASS: My sister, who is very religious, sent my gay daughter a Bible with her name engraved on it for Christmas, even though we told her -- after she asked for suggestions -- that a gift card would be more appropriate. We are not religious, by the way.
My wife and I feel strange about it, as if my sister is trying to tell us something like, "Your gay daughter needs religion." How should we respond to this? -- BAFFLED IN THE EAST
DEAR CONFUSED IN BABYLON: Gays can't believe in Jesus?
Was it a gift to you, or your fucking daughter? Be thankful your daughter wasn't four and got a toy drum set for her birthday.
I know, we're all afraid that our kids are going to fall under some psycho spell and become monsters. My kid looks like he's turning out to be a vegetarian, and it keeps me up at night. Let him become a gay porn star, but please God! Don't let him be a vegetarian, or I'll never hear the end of it. "I'm a vegetarian. I'm a vegetarian. Did I tell you I'm a vegetarian?"
So back to the topic: are you afraid that you didn't raise your daughter well enough to make choices for herself so you need to give her safe spaces when confronted with ideas or beliefs she doesn't like? Have you taught her that you can disagree with someone and still love them? Or are you the "Love Trumps hate and I'll show you how much I love you by hitting you in the face for disagreeing with me" camp?
You're not religious....so no one else can be religious in your house? If you're so worried then get your daughter the Queen James Bible (link in the Custom Pick).
I suggest instead of writing a columnist for advice you talk to your daughter about how SHE feels, and have her talk to her aunt about it. Otherwise, it's not really your problem.
Unless you did create a sheltered safe spacer, and then it is all your fault and you are a terrible parent.
DEAR JERKASS: I read your column all the time*. My husband and I have been married for 35 years. My husband has good friends who are women, and I have never objected when he stayed with them when he traveled from our home to Michigan.
One of the women he stays with called and they talked for hours. That's not right is it? My husband says she's just a good friend and it's only conversation.
Like I said, I didn't mind him staying with her because I trusted him. But now I'm leery and suspicious. I don't believe it's a sexual thing, but a long conversation hurts me more because I thought I was his best friend.
I told him, "Let's get counseling. If it doesn't work, we can divorce." He said, "You're not going to stop me from talking to my friends."
Jerkass, I need your opinion. -- LEERY IN FLORIDA
DEAR SAY MY NAME: "One of the women." ONE OF THE WOMEN?! There's more than one? So spending long isolated days and nights with other women never made you worry, and now a phone call does?
You need to seriously wake up any intuition skills you have. Because chances are that if he's been cheating on you, a long phone call isn't the flag that should alert you. The cheating (if it actually has been happening) has been going on for a LOT longer than recently.
Using the "D" word is just an invitation to end the relationship, and I'm starting to think that the issue here isn't just your husband. I'm thinking you want an exit strategy, and you're using this as an emotional excuse to disengage from the relationship. Spending multiple overnights with a woman should be MORE of a red flag than a phone call, and if you're just now feeling that you don't want to be married anymore, accusing your spouse of cheating is a great way to disentangle your feelings.
Sure, go to counseling. Counseling works if you believe that the marriage can be saved. But be honest about your reasons; unless you actually have proof he has cheated, this is just an excuse to either exert dominance over his relationships with other people or a bid at leaving him.
Focus on communication, if you're really wanting to see this through and stay married.
Sounds like you've already checked out, though.
*This twit reads Dear Abby all the time.
This little stink burger took me waaaaaaaayyyyyy tooo long to create. For that I am sorry.
As I get better, so will the content, so thank you for coming to my page, for reading and watching my stuff, and stick around. There will be punch and pie!
Also, I would Love it if you gave me the address of someone you "love", as I am going to be starting my Random Object Mailed to Random Person rewards program.
Enjoy the show (if only to mock it)
Welcome to Riverdale, huh?
So I’ve had the displeasure of watching the new Riverdale show based on the Archie comic book characters.
Netflix is releasing these episodes once a week, and if I do more videos on this show I’ll try to do them two episodes at a time.
I have a small laundry list of why I don’t like this show (and a few reasons why I do like the show).
For now, let me ruin a few things if you haven’t seen it yet.
MISS GRUNDY FUCKS ARCHIE!
If you watch this show, you might think it was murder that tossed these naively sweet characters into “reality”, but you would be wrong. Miss Grundy is hot in the Archie universe (and I say the Archie Universe because this isn’t some alternate universe, and I’ll explain that in a moment).
So the catalyst for the Deus Ex Machina in all of this is a teacher raping a student. I mean, let’s toss out all that consensual garbage, because if the situation were reversed and Mr. Weatherby was plowing Josie on the principal's desk, you’d all be having conniption fits about “abusing power” and rape. Because that’s what this is: rape. Archie is innocently walking home from work and Grundy sees this sweaty muscled teenager and altruistically gives him a “ride” home. Some people think that it was the murder of some secondary character that launched all this darkness into Riverdale but it wasn’t. It was a teacher stepping out of professional boundaries and raping a student. This is compounded by the fact that Archie and Grundy are fucking in the woods when they hear a gunshot...presumably the same shot that killed whatever the hell character I’m supposed to care about dying but just don’t.
Okay. I’m the first to say books, even comic books, and movies are different mediums and shouldn’t be compared to each other. I’m glad Wolverine doesn’t wear yellow spandex in the movies. That kind of crotch bulging disco outfit works on the small panels of a comic/graphic novel, and looks as ridiculous as a giant blue penis on the big screen.
What do I mean by the Deus Ex Machina? I’ll use the epic poem and the movie Beowulf as an example. In the epic poem NO WEAPON CAN KILL GRENDEL. None. Not a single weapon. How does Beowulf kill Grendel? By ripping his arm off and beating him with it, scaring Grendel away to go bleed out to death in the woods.
How does the movie deal with the magical enchantment of NO WEAPON KILLING GRENDEL!?
Well, there’s this magic sword, see…
They Cheated, capital “C” cheated. They couldn’t use the obvious and brilliant trick of NOT BREAKING THE RULES. The rule was NO WEAPON CAN KILL GRENDEL. The movie cheated using the “God in the Machine”, the Deus Ex Machina, to fix the problem of not being creative enough.
In a quick rundown of why I don’t like this series, that tops number one. The writers feel lazy to me when it comes to the Archie characters. While the original comic books may seem “quaint” or “unrealistic” to today's writers, it’s actually a disservice to good writing and teenagers everywhere. There is this assumption that there is no such thing as a genuinely good person, or at least not one that isn’t on adderall (Hey, I’m talking to whoever decided that Betty couldn’t be a nice person without being medicated). And while I am not a fan of most teenagers, and I think they are for the most part dumb (and have thought that even when I was a dumb teenager), it doesn’t help them to portray them as these back stabbing, sex addled, evil people who are only “good” because of some over “arch”ing guilt complex. The writers couldn’t seem to understand actually good people, so they cheated and created these Freudian garbage reasons for characters to fit what they mocked in the original comics.
A huge issue I have is that this isn’t a different universe, like when Archie and the gang fight Predator in the comic books.
It is directly referenced when Betty helps Lil Archie study (a fact that happened in the comics). It is a historical reference point to their characters. And that is why I have and had such an issue with all of these changes. It alludes that this is the universe of your youth; the shiny bright colors of the Archie Comic Digest brought to vivid HD.
In Pleasantville, (a movie actually referenced in the RIverdale show), the wholesome black and white characters are corrupted by “real” people in an atavistic fashion that leads from primitive feelings (starting with fire) into a sexual liberation of sorts where color is introduced into the world. With Riverdale, this similar premise is given...but dismissed as well. They haven’t said “This is a different universe where the lives of the Archie gang have begun and turned out slightly differently”. They’ve outright alluded that this is the same universe as the pages of the comic….but then they artificially altered circumstances to make the characters “fit” into our world.
There is this concept in the series that if you toss an Archie character into the real world, then their characters would make wrong, even horribly evil or immoral choices. It’s as though the writers said “No one would ever make the right decision by choice”. (These are the same people who hate Superman because he chooses to be good because it’s the right thing to do.) These writers don’t believe that virtue is it’s own reward. These writers are probably the same type of people who try to make sympathetic villains and don’t believe that a “Joker” could ever exist without some kind of tragic motivation. Good is evil and evil is good. To me, that actually makes for poor writing and characters.
There is one moment in the two episodes (episode 2, actually) where Archie's dad (Luke Mother Fucking Perry) and Archie have an actual “Archie” moment, and it feels like the most genuine part of the show. It’s like someone actually picked up a comic and read Archie wanting to do the right thing and for a brief moment understood his character. It isn’t in his nature to want to fuck his teacher.
And this also speaks volumes about how the modern teenager is viewed. Like Pretty Little Liars, or the Vampire Diaries, teenagers are Machiavellian sexpots out to destroy each other with almost no redeeming value. That’s just really sad.
It’s like they’re telling the youth “don’t bother being a good person. That’s just a lie. You might do all these bad things, but you’re expected to, so that makes it okay.”
Betty isn’t nice, she’s on medication and has no backbone.
Reggie and Archie in the comics have a “frenemy” relationship: while they don’t like each other there’s a kind of mutual respect. In the show Reggie's a jock that just tries to force Archie to act like him.
Veronica In the comic books is duplicitous, but often comes to the conclusion that her privilege doesn’t get her anything, and can also be very genuine and caring when not selfish. In the show, I think she’s the closest to a real person and could have been something the writers could have pushed into the other characters.
Moose was a lovable “dumb” jock who actually stuck up for characters like Dilton Doyle. In this...Moose is a closet homosexual, getting blowjobs from Kevin in the locker room during a dance. In the comics he would have stood up for Archie if Reggie had acted like he did in the tv show.
Archie has been changed from a happy go lucky, yet hapless character who is reminiscent of Charlie Brown in the lovable loser kind of way, to a moody confused caricature of the troubled teen.
And for me, the worst? Jughead. In the show (and I’ll have to re-watch it) I never see him eat anything. You want realism? Make him hypoglycemic. That’s just off the top of my head! Jughead loved food. He would have eaten a lead pipe if it was full of whipped cream. That’s an easy thing to transition into the “real” world. Instead he’s a borderline goth teen wanna be journalist in the Veronica Mars theme.
Those things are the minor portions that piss me off about this show, but they are important ones.
The plot is interesting. Sort of. I actually don’t care how whatever his name redhead-twin-Archie-clone dies. I don’t care if he’s murdered, or if it was his twin sister that did it. I am interested in how the dynamics play out between the Archie gang...but I would be interested if they weren’t from Riverdale.
To me this was an awful way to bring Archie and the gang to the small screen. They could have left the whole Grundy rape thing out of it. To me this is like someone watched Veggie Tales and decided to make a Baby Blue Movie out of it. Sure, Larry the Cucumber could be used as a marital aid, and I’m sure you could film something like that and it might be funny….but it isn’t necessary and it definitely does nothing for the characters. This whole premise would have actually worked for Scooby-doo. They SOLVE MYSTERIES…..what would fit better than the dinky teens who go from a Hardy Boy tomfoolery crime solving team to a real one that shows the characters start off from a kid centered concept of the world to a more real one?
But that’s just me.
How would I have done this differently? I would have left the murder and the teacher rape sex out and done it Degrassi Junior High style. Sure, there might have been some sex going on (I’m not totally oblivious), and drugs (Archie touched on that topic), but there still could have been the wholesomeness that the comics and the characters were really about. A show that would lead its audience to be persons of exemplary character even when it seems hard or too difficult.
I feel this series didn’t understand the characters and tried to make them change to serve the plot. That’s never good.
So now I’m up to four episodes in the Riverdale season, and I do have to say that as a story with character arc, it’s pretty solid for a WB show.
A few plot points revealed that some characters weren’t who they said they were, so I guess I have to say that I can’t complain as to how they were portrayed since they weren’t actually Archie characters.
Two points I do have to address though are Jugheads seemingly unaware narration and Cheryl Blossoms acting (I’m not sure if the actor Madelaine Petsch is just bad, or her character is. Time will tell).
It is a lie that all the Pleasantville changes that have come to Riverdale are from the murder of Jason Blossom. The true change came from Archie having sex with an adult. And whatever your feelings towards the “age of consent” (I don’t think you can be considered a biological adult until you have finished the majority of puberty, not just started it, but apparently that’s just me), that illegal act was the first crime that happened in Riverdale, and one that I feel was the actual catalyst, since it changed ALL the relationships from that point on (Betty’s unrequited love, Archies friendship with homeless Jughead...HOMELESS JUGHEAD! Forsyth Pendleton Jones the 3rd had a hard time feeding Jughead because he ate so much, and that’s why they were always broke. I get the whole “Jughead is hungry” switch making him poor, but this whole thing with his dad being a gang member seemed like lazy writing).
And I do mean “first” crime, since I’ve mentioned before that this series is claiming to take place in the Archie universe and references Lil Archie as a historical moment.
I feel that the writers of this series think that the Archie comics were a pictorial history seen through rose colored glasses, and they’ve removed those glasses/ In reality, they are viewing Archie through a glass darkly, they are imposing darkness on what was generally seen as a comic about the best in people.
And that’s what is missing or wrong with Jugheads narrative; the writers, using Jughead as a puppet, are viewing Riverdale in a dark way and saying it’s always been like this. That, and the seemingly endless uses of pop culture reference as though it intellectualizes what’s going on. Referencing other works of literature does not mean you are cultured or more aware than other people, and this self aware narrative comes across more grating to me than clever.
I admit I know nothing of the actress who plays Cheryl Blossom, so I can’t really compare her other works to RIverdale. But I am often confused if what I am watching with her: Is Cheryl Blossom, fictional character, really really bad at being duplicitous? Or is Madelaine Petsch just really bad in her line delivery? I can’t tell! Cheryl cries and throws herself on her dead brothers coffin and I don’t buy the sadness….am I supposed to buy it? Am I supposed to be like a voiceless citizen of Riverdale and react with disdain because I don’t believe her, and think she’s faking that she is sad? Or am I a viewer watching a bad actress fall over her lines and cover it up with tears?
I feel like at the end of this I’m going to discover I’m being punk’d….that’s still a thing, right?
So as a deeply plotted, character driven show this is working. The plot twists are still roughly in the realm of believability. The characters don’t actually go outside of their own arc in areas of character development. So far we aren’t going to see Betty pick up an AK 47 and begin to wipe people out in an adderal fueled Holmes/theater act of unreality, so when she does act a little kookoo nutty there’s a really good reason for it,
WHAT?!?!?!? TO BE CONTINUED?
Yes. Because I suck and I have kids that demand my time.
So, I've only watched the game Assassins Creed played, and I haven't seen the movie. But I'm wearing this pretty owning hoodie inspired by the look of the main character. Makes me look a little more broad shouldered and narrow waisted, which is good I think.
So, since I haven't seen the movie I've decided I'll read the review of the movie by an actual film critic, watch the movie, and then critique the critic. I've done this before, but not in video format.
Check out some of the cool merch associated with the movie in the links below and definitely get this hoodie! Seriously. It's super comfortable. I feel like I could sleep in it, and I already have slept in it. It's like getting a nice gentle hug that's so warm and comfy you don't notice the sharp blade sliding between your ribs and into your heart.
I'll put up a link to the Guardian article and it's author Wendy Ide, so you can read it yourself. I'll give a bit of a disclaimer: I don't know why critics even exist. They are false participants. They didn't make the movie, write the script, or act in the film and somehow they think they are qualified to tell you what you should or should not enjoy.
Okay, into the review of the review.
First off the article starts off with the directors previous film adaptation MacBeth (a film I was squealing to see). While I can get behind showing a directors previous works, I feel this is a mixed bag that's kind of a disservice. I mean, yeah, warn people off of Uwe Boll movies since that guy has a proven track record. But comparing Mac Beth to the potential of Assassins Creed seems like trying to compare Schindler's List to E.T. Both by an acclaimed director, but worlds apart in terms of almost everything cinematic.
Then the article goes into whining about the logical leaps the movie takes. I know the premise of the movie from the game and trailer, but for those who don't, this seems like a trash piece. This movie might indeed be terrible, but if you have a problem with the story of the film, start with the story as you understand it. Then include WHY you didn't buy it. A movie is all about the suspension of disbelief, but sometimes you have to give it the benefit of the doubt; maybe the writer knew something you didn't and you just thought it was b.s. Like the movie Novocaine with Steve Martin. That movie was written by a dentist, but a lot of critics thought the movie was full of shit because they thought ripping someones teeth out and swapping them with your own was an impossible way to fake your death. I know that the film concept revolves around the concept that memory is saved in our DNA...and that's a theory that actual geneticists and psychologists have put forward to explain why we sometimes have irrational fears that would actually protect us in the wild...like a fear of snakes. A fear of snakes when you live where there is no snake population is an irrational fear, but what if way back in your ancestry your monkey grandparents survived due to a fear of snakes that came from experience?
Then the article goes into mentioning the plot, but the bias is already established. Maybe the director and screenwriter didn't communicate this idea effectively, or maybe they did but this Wendy critic didn't know enough about the subject to believe it.
Then they just kind of end the article saying it was boring. You know what? I liked the movie Odd Thomas, but I HATED it, too. Know why? Because that movie was based on a book I loved, and as an book adaptation it sucks. But as it's own contained story in a movie it was actually kind of fun. I would recommend it to people that have never read the book, and I would tell people that have read the book to either pretend they never read it or see something else.
Because as a critic you should try to pay attention to what people would WANT to see, not what you think they should see.
But that's just me.
Hey fun fact! Did you know that the original assassins were called "assassins" because of pot? Yeah! That's right. Because the Hashshashin is a name used to refer to the medieval Nizari Ismailis, who were looked at by the neighboring peoples as a bunch of drug addled twits. In reality they are described as a secret order led by a mysterious "Old Man of the Mountain", they were an Islamic sect that formed in the late 11th century from a split within Ismailism – itself a branch of Shia Islam.
For the last year I’ve been made aware of the Mandela Effect... I know, many of you will stop right there, and some others will ask what that is. I’ll just give you a quick rundown of what it is.
Basically the idea works like Back to the Future part 2, where the timeline is altered but only Doc and Marty know about it because they’ve taken themselves out of the loop.
That’s a simplistic term, but it lays the groundwork for how to really explain it.
People around the country and the world are claiming that things they’ve KNOWN for their whole lives are somehow now changing, and they theorize that they are feeling the effects of either some kind of alteration of our history. The most noted and the one where the term comes from is the belief that Nelson Mandela died in 1991. People remember this, and remember watching the funeral on t.v. Because Nelson Mandela died December 5th, 2015 it is thought by many that our timeline has been altered and for some reason Mandela was saved from that earlier death. The theory involves a lot of speculation regarding CERN, the Swiss atom smasher, to the slightly more interesting ideas that parallel universes are impinging on our reality, to the more (I feel) dubious claims that these Mandela Effects are caused by chem trails or past life regressions.
I’ll deal with those in a moment.
The list of ME’s (Mandela Effects) are varied, but I have experienced quite a few of my own, including the fervent memory that there was a Jiffy Peanut Butter, and that it is the “Lion shall lay down with the lamb”, and not the wolf. If you want to find out more about ME’s, there are communities on Facebook and Online, etc. If you really want a better rundown, use the fake news site Buzzfeed link here.
Please, go watch a few videos on ME before you read the rest of my article. I don’t want to read comments like “Uh, that isn’t a thing, Judas...ummmm, like, that never happened, okay?” or “You’re just schizophrenic, and you’re making other people dumberer.”
(So what I want to concentrate on is some of the Mandela’s that I’ve dis-proven to myself, and some that are thorns in my side. I’ll touch on some theories as well as one I’ve come up with ALL BY MYSELF!
For me, everything in Jacob Isreals video has happened to me.
I am a skeptical person by nature. I love playing Devil's Advocate and my wife can attest that I have ruined many a Ghost Hunters episode by saying “It’s the wind”, even when it was clearly not the wind (but probably a rat or cockroach). Even though I think ghosts do exist, I’m the first to try to disprove that they do.
Has the Mandela Effect altered our bone structure?
There is a theory that the human skull never had bone behind the eyes. Many people claim that “someone” has altered our timeline or patched another dimension onto ours and we never used to have bones behind our eyes.
Think back to movies and tv shows you may have watched. Movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Sucker Punch, or Session 9. In those movies, they describe somewhat accurately how a lobotomy is performed: an ice pick is inserted behind the eye, a hammer breaks through bone, an upward motion and a sideways motion scar the frontal lobe, and voila! You have turned a person into a vegetable.
Now juxtapose that information to how you see the human skull.
From the earliest black and white films (where they used real human skulls in horror films), we have developed an idea of what a skull should look like.
(What is interesting is that I learned about what I am going to tell you from a combination of film study and forensic science, and it leads into what is known as a knowledge gap.)
The bones in those old films lent a persistence of culture.
What you are experiencing wrt the human anatomy isn't Mandela Effect (and this is coming from a believer).
So how could this mistake happen? Why does our memory want to argue with reality?
Our brains sort and organize information by similar input. Like how when you learn language and English for "rock" and Japanese for "rock" are both attached to the concept we hold of "rock". To a child learning a new language, when they learn their first language (e.g. English), they don’t create a dictionary in their head, they hear the words and map them to an idea that the words represent. This is why people frequently misquote films, they remember what the quote meant, not what the words were. So when the child learns a second language, they hear "Iwa" as being Japanese, but map it to the idea of “rock”. Then when they hear “pieddra” they hear it as Spanish but map that to the idea of a rock, too. This means the child only has to learn about the idea of a rock once, but can then link that idea up to many languages or synonyms for rock.
The same idea follows for how you learned about human anatomy. You are remembering correctly, this must be enforced. You watched cartoons, movies like Jason and the Argonauts, or maybe Evil Dead and Army Of Darkness, and you created a meme in your head about how skulls and skeletons should look. Later, say in biology class, this idea is mapped again just like the new language you may learn.
However, when you juxtapose that memory meme with biology meme later, you get a disassociation; you are misapplying that memory due to the associations made in your brain. That's why the issue of "when I was younger skulls didn’t have bones in the eye" and your understanding of bone structure are at odds. You are remembering perfectly, but from different memory sets that have been stored in the same location.
It would be something overlooked...something that you just take for granted until someone points it out. Like we just drink milk. We never really think “HEY! These are the glandular secretions of a large mammal. Who ever thought to do this?” I've drawn the same conclusions, and made the same mistake.
When our bodies rot, the bone behind the eye becomes brittle and often breaks away easily. So the kinds of sketches you see in old anatomy books aren't wrong, and the plaster casts that create the molds for the fiberglass skeletons we see in the classroom often break off that bone during the fabrication process. It doesn’t help that Hollywood used to use ACTUAL (damaged) skulls in early horror films, and that set an esthetic precedent for future films; an anatomically correct skull looked “odd” to the early movie going public based on what was seen before.
Living people have the bone behind the eye. After death it usually breaks away due to its thin nature and the putrefaction of the eye jelly.
There are a few videos on youtube that go into great detail of the changes they have felt, and I’ll post one here. Go ahead and watch it. I’ll wait.
Doctor Explains Mandela Effect Body Changes - Compares Body Then to Now 2017
Okay. I’m not going to address the whole video because...that’d take too long.
"The doctor laughed because I had a monkey tail"...because YOU did, but the fact that everyone has that means he was obviously teasing this guy and felt bad. Some tail bones are narrow, some are thick. They vary, and often anatomy books show what is common, not the exceptions UNLESS it's about aberrations..
Also, the skeleton referred to in the House on Haunted Hill...is a Ray Harryhausen skeleton (Remember Jason and the Argonauts, and Army of Darkness?). They are stylized to appear sinister by the curving of bones, and the arching of eye sockets.
Sometimes how we remember something isn't a Mandela. We didn't notice it because at the time we may not have fully understood what we were looking for.
In literature, history books, pop culture and in medical books the way to perform a lobotomy is, yes, to go through the right temporal lobe. But the purpose of the ice pick is two fold: to break through the small bone at the back of the eye and poke the brain.. This process causes the bruising around the eye. If there was no bone, the chances of bruising would be slim to nil.
Pop culture and the fragility of skulls have led to a permeating idea that skulls have blank eye sockets with no bone behind them.
I found this out from a forensic anthropology book published in the 90's called Dead Men Do Tell Tales (link here) and various history books about special effects in Hollywood.
So I don't believe that this is in fact a Mandela, but a "gap in knowledge" or what I call "chain of events". That is, there is a rational explanation why people remember there being no bone in the back because the mistake has been documented and follows a narrative.
Mandala (ish. Connections at least.)
Unlike Febreze, or Jiffy peanut butter, or the Bible and the Lion verses (below) that SO many people KNOW one way, that would have to have been taught that way in order for it to be so proliferated, they have no chain of events leading to why there is a difference in memory and the history of those products and verses. If there was a chain of events explaining the mistake, we could dismiss it. I will use another example for the Bible ME: “Forgive us our trespasses” against “Forgive us our debts”.*
This one was attempted to be explained away by some people saying that a lone edition of the Book of Common prayer written in the 1500’s is the reason why some people remember trespass instead of debts. To me that makes NO sense. Why? Because for that to be carried over 400 years, generation after generation of people who read and could quote the bible chapter and verse, does not explain it. That was one printing. And they’re telling me that’s why people remember “trespass” instead of “debt”....people raised on versions of the bible that had “debt” and did NOT have “trespass” somehow just overlooked it? Not only their whole lives but the lives of family going back generations? I know literacy is kind of a recent thing, but someone along the way should have noticed! That’s why this is an ME for me (and not just because I felt it), but because the explanation does not fit at all. I was raised on the King James, bitch.
How The Closing of the Knowledge Gap is Both Contributing To and Closing the Idea of the Mandela Effect
With the proliferation of information available on the WWW, more people are learning. And that learning is causing distress because they are learning that the world is not how they think (or remember) that it is. Many grew up their whole lives thinking that their kidneys were in their back: this comes from the fact that when the kidneys are in pain it is a quirk that the pain is felt in our lower back, even though the kidneys are below the ribs. When they learn the actual position of where the kidneys are this causes a distress, because the new information HAS to be wrong. They've always "known" that the kidneys were in their back.
Sometimes this is also because of poor biology courses in school, or the idea that is pushed that pigs are almost identical to human anatomy (a pigs kidneys ARE lower than their rib cage).
People have more access to information. Sometimes that information causes anxiety, so they start a blog or join a group of like minded people, and it becomes a kind of echo chamber.
All these different ideas about what has happened in the past is causing people serious distress. And it could be dismissed that people are just plain old insane. And for that I give you this postulation:
When three people are interviewed regarding witnessing a crime, you will get three different stories.
With Mandela effect you will interview three different people who all say the same thing and agree on key points, yet their memories do not corroborate with what is perceived to have actually happened. This has happened with people who have NOT discussed the changes, or known each other before being asked, or have been asked randomly if they are known to each other.
The statistical improbability of thousands of people of different ethnicity, geographic location, social standing, etc. all having the same story is staggering. To have a hundred people agree on something that never happened while simultaneously being present or alive during the event is astronomical.
So one of the answers for people having ME’s is that we all have confabulation. The problem with that lies in explaining what confabulation is:
The answer is that it means we all have dementia, are all blackout drunk at the same time, or have all come into contact with the same or similar toxic materials, and brain damage.
The problem with that? The numbers don't reflect any of those issues.
Mandela effect doesn't really sit well with how memories work, either:
Seven Sins Of Memory
Since the memories we have are shared by others, in very specific ways, and even though generally the brain works the same way from person to person, for this many people to come to these ME conclusions regardless of the gap of information OR chain of consequence does not beg dismissal.
But that might just be me.
What the F*ck is Going On?
Some believe that CERN is behind all of this. That somehow they’ve either altered the past or patched a new dimension onto our old dimension, and all these ME’s are the results of different histories. There is a seemingly damning piece of evidence regarding this in CERNs own promo video with Dr John Ellis holding up a sign that says "Bond 1" on one piece of cardboard, and "Mandela" on another. Considering Mandela hadn't died in our timeline at the year this was uploaded (2014) does seem...odd. If you want to see a 360 degree of his office check it here.)
ME could be something similar to the Butterfly Effect movie...where the old timeline is remembered and new neural pathways are opened up. Some believe that since people with RH O- blood types have an enlarged cerebellum perhaps it was possible that this was the reason why some people remembered a timeline that never happened.
Another theory I had was that the different branching universes (you know: for every choice we make a universe splits off where we made a different choice) crossed each other like train tracks. Each timeline is going in it's own direction with minor variants that cross over ours, and we are left with residual effects. CERN does have a "Dancing Shiva" statue at their facility, and Shiva danced the universe into existence. Interestingly, Shiva is used in Mandala's (ornate ritual symbols representing the universe and it's connectivity to itself), and CERN appears to be playing around with reality.
Another theory I had was a version of quantum entanglement: that since the particles, molecules etc, were all spinning in the same way when the universe split, a sort of weird communication was created between the two universes. So we aren't "remembering" anything, we are communicating with another universe. Sort of like surfing the web looking for information. We send a "memory" request for information, and our brain picks up the symbiotic universe (or database) and we get Wikipedia instead of encyclopedia Britannica.
Just some thoughts.
The final thought that I have is that the people suffering from ME are the cause of all the temporal issue. Imagine that the different universes do cross over, and it’s a natural process. But now we’re in a massive tug of war, with some people fighting over what is real. This tugging is pulling other realities into our own, as well as ripping other realities apart.
The solution to all these Mandelas might just be the ME community coming together and saying “We accept reality to be the way it is now.”
It might be the only way to stay sane.
A final theory involves religion, specifically the book of Revelation (and to those ME sufferers, Revelations): What if some ME sufferers have a different manifestation in that they can see potential futures?
We are on the cusp of a lot of technological advancements in things like artificial intelligence, quantum physics, nanotechnology. Now imagine you live 2,000 ago and you see a vision of a robot becoming self aware. How would you describe it? This object that looks like a human but is not alive suddenly starts walking around and talking, but you have no deeper understanding. to you, it is a statue that has been made to walk and talk...a magical and ominous miracle. The Man of Evil, Revelation says, will erect a statue to honor the beast with the mortal wound which healed. Sounds like someone who is terrible is given the ability to download their consciousness into an artificial body to me. So past ME sufferers saw changes happening, wrote it down, and have been trying to warn us of a seemingly inevitable future. And we are now seeing and feeling the results.
But that's just a theory. Or even an idea for a new novel.....I CALL DIBS!
I do want to make this clear, if you've made it this far and you think I'm dumping on ME sufferers, I am not and I don't think you are crazy.
For me, the greatest way to figure out what really is going on is comparing our notes, and trying to find actual patterns, no matter how crazy they may seem. I personally don't subscribe to the re-incarnation ideas because it does not seem applicable to be the Queen of Sheba in a former life and remember a squiggle on the Ford "F" logo. That doesn't mean I'm right about it, it just means I haven't seen enough evidence to point to this being the right direction to move in.
While Chem trails seem tantalizing, the logistics of it just don't work for me. It means that over 40,000 pilots, air traffic controllers, Security Professionals and on and on, are all involved in spraying psychotropic DDT on their families, wives, children, cousins, neighbors, their own homes and even on themselves. That's too many loose threads, and it's why I don't believe it does apply to the ME.
But if you do believe these things, I don't think you're crazy. I don't think you are right, but that does not mean I think you are crazy or a moron. We are all trying to figure things out in this, and some people feel (like I do) that we have proof one way or another. I'm probably crazy to people that have known me for years.
So that's my little diatribe! Let me know what you think, send me some messages.
My next article will be (hopefully) completely different, and when and if I revisit this topic, I hope to have more interesting things to say.
*The implication for the ME is actually quiet bothersom. Some may say "who cares, it's one word". But the word has incredible implications on how the verse is applied. With "tresspass", the idea is that we sometimes cross boundaries we shouldn't, be it emotional or spiritual or even literally other peoples property. "Debt" involves some level of slavery, or an "owed" mentality. Forgiving a debt is different from forgiving an offense. And if you can control how people interpret, then you can control how they enact that belief.
**Not really, since the Medulla Oblongata helps regulate breathing, heart and blood vessel function, digestion, sneezing, and swallowing. The hippocampus, the amygdala, the cingulate gyrus, the thalamus, the hypothalamus, the epithalamus, the mammillary body and other organs, many of which are of particular relevance to the processing of memory. Medulla just sounded better.
Okay folks, there are going to be a few changes to the website, some new added features, some video rants, and some other things that I've been kicking around.
Coming in October I'll have my reviews of horrible horror movies, as well as new buzz for a kids Christmas book (I know, right?).
You have all been very patient with me as I've dealt with family issues, and had them take priority in my life.
To the haters?
I'll deal with you. Trust me.
Dumbledore did, with great severity and understanding of consequences, what most of us in his position would have been unable or unwilling to do. He "raised him (Harry) in the way he should go", preventing Harrys murder while giving him every chance and training to win.
Good and powerful men who do nothing may as well just let Voldemort win.
Dumbledore did what had to be done, at great cost to himself, to those he loved, with the full weight of that knowledge over him always.
I don't care for the Potter books at all, and I've read all of them (Hermione should have been the protagonist. An interesting spin would be that she manipulated Potter the whole time).
Someone thinking Dumbledore is evil is someone who doesn't understand that good sometimes comes at a great cost, that with love can come great sacrifice, and we pay it gladly to prevent the wicked from grinding us under their heel.
I'm sure in the land of Gummi bears and sugar, evil is vanquished without losing one second of sleep.
In the Potterverse, it's not so easy.
In the real world it is even less easy.
The books still suck though.
Our Glorious Boy Who Would Be Emperor and Fidel
Bwahahaha. If this were true it would make so much sense!
Well, I did some digging:
Justin would have been conceived right around the time P.E. Trudeau married Margeret Sinclair (March 4, 1971), and Justin was born in December of 1971.
They (Pierre and Margaret) didn't visit Cuba until 1976.
Pierre met Margaret while she was vacationing in Tahiti, and she could have gone through Cuba to get there, provided she didn't leave Canada from the West Coast (I probably will never know, and the chances of Fidel being Justin's papa are slim to nil since Cuba and Tahiti are in different oceans).
Margaret did have an affair with a Kennedy while still married, as well as one of the Rolling Stones, but hat doesn't matter right now.
What matters is did Castro and Pierre have an affair....it would fit into Fidel's gay hating attitude and later transformative attitude towards gays in Cuba:
Mariela Castro, Fidel's niece and daughter of Raul Castro serves in Cuba's non-democratic National Assembly and heads the Cuban Center for Sex Education, and is a gay rights advocate....
Mariela has claimed that her uncle, the late gay-executor actually favors same sex marriage but never made it public. There is also some intelligence reports that Raoul (Fidel's brother) is gay.
As to Pierre Trudeau's orientation...who cares? There has been much theorizing that he was indeed bisexual, and this wouldn't really matter unless he and Castro were...bedfellows, so to speak.
So, Uncle Fidel is NOT THE FATHER!
Thank you to Father Basil of Toronto for suggesting the Maury pic.
Why "Failed Daily"?
Because I fail to update daily.