Share a bit of Halloween Spirit For The Love of Paris Paris In Love DOCTORBUZZARD JAN 20

My Nephew is walking out to the Garage. I guess he needs my Mirror Twin to do something. I assume Fred is drinking beer and smoking. I sure would like to have a job doing anything. The Wrath of The Buzzrd. WNAP, Indianapolis. This is something of an outline for a slapstick comedy… Starts with Christmas card that reveals Paris's twisted humor, hinting at the depth of their connection. Imagine the challenges they face due to their vastly different lifestyles, and how they handle these moments with a blend of heart and hilarity. the essence of unlikely friendships that transcend stereotypes, reminding us that beneath the surface, people are more alike than they are different, regardless of their status or background.This is the real life story of an unusual friendship between a tough, tattooed hillbilly and the sophisticated, media-savvy socialite Paris Hilton. This bond is forged through their mutual love of mischief and a shared distaste for certain individuals, like David Letterman. Both must navigate public misconceptions while privately confronting their own vulnerabilities and finding comfort in each other’s quirks and surprising similarities. A short story in which an unlikely friendship forms between a rough-and-tumble mountain man with a heart of gold and a high-flying socialite with a secretive, mischievous streak. They bond over their mutual distaste for pretense and an uncanny love for old-time fiddle music. Transport their colorful personalities and backgrounds into an unlikely setting—a swanky Parisian soiree, where they must navigate the glittering world of the elite while planning an elaborate prank to humble a snobby celebrity or media figure that has crossed them both in the past. Idk why or how, must be the way I go at things upside down and backward. The thing is Paris Hilton would or should be the last place you’d expect a toxic male hillbilly to end up. The thing is I've enjoyed Paris’s as just a net friend because mainly We share more than meets the eye in common. I really do love Paris and Paris really loves Paris too. I remember when her and that other little hillbilly country girl Britney was playing around and it looked like Paris was the one with the plan but also the one steering clear of trouble. Just like when I was with my tribe of mischief, we’d go to say like Lavinia GA for the fiddler’s Convention, and you'd have this crazy mix of redneck and Dead Heads altogether sharing their Witches Brew of moonshine and Panama Red with those pretty mushroom sprinklers and after 3 day of 💩kicking and banjo picking in the national forest… I always loaded up the van with the bodies of those comatose victims of their self-inflicted sins. Not that I was not seeing double myself but I was in charge of the situation. So when I came upon a gal who enjoyed mischief as much as myself I was not only surprised but impressed with her social skills. Much more to Paris out there up to mischief she enjoyed pulling tricks. She sent me a Chris as card early on that, well let me know she had a bit of twist to her humour. Beside we dislike the same people but that came as no surprise. David Letterman was really a jerk to her before the interview agreed not to get into some problems she had just had a brush with the law. I mean, it happens but Letterman brought it up after he said he would not, just like he gave Ms.Shirely Maclaine a hard time and no respect. That was one time, I may have mentioned that Cobra that is sometimes carried in my pocket. The problem that required the venom was just so unnecessary but bad manners and rude behavior was most strenuously noted… Letter was-released from NBC Shortly thereafter. I'd like to think I did that… Well guess it didn't matter what I thought because Ms.Shirley somehow how got wind, the next thing I know I'm in Las Vegas staying in the Chairman of the Board room that was supposed built specially for Frank… Idk but had the run of the strip and my money was no good. Thanks for reading DoctorBuzzard’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Pledge your support In any event, who would NOT want to work with Paris, I'm not actually on the payroll but we text and talk and she tells me what she likes and I try to take care of it.. More or less. I'm learning a lot more from her and she's an inspiration to do things that were difficult, that I knew how to do (theoretically;) but had let things slide, almost off my plate, till Paris came along and, well she is a real motivator. Also she is a bit of a workaholic. I had never been exposed to ANYONE with the kind of ambition. Well I did officiate at a world Women Chess Federation Tournament that featured a female Grandmaster which was a jolt. Share First time I had met a woman who could beat me or anyone on our mount very toxic chess team/club. No doubt one of the reasons someone provided the opportunity to officiate the world tournament held at the oldest women's college in South Converse Leave a comment Nice Paris Hilton Screen saver, World Women's Chess Champion, Paris In Love, DoctorBuzzard, par is working out, Phoenix at One year old Antoaneta Stefanova is a world chess grandmaster and a Women's World Chess Champion. In 2012, Stefanova became the first Women's World Rapid Chess Champion, DoctorBuzzard screen saver, Paris kissing Phoenix newborn, DoctorBuzzard, Paris Working out, Phoenix at One Year Old DoctorBuzzard’s Substack is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell DoctorBuzzard’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments. Pledge your support © 2024 DoctorBuzzard 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe

Plan: Forcing Texans Into High-Speed Trains A private Texas high-speed rail venture is resurrected from the dead by the feds. ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI JAN 20

Topline A long-delayed and over-budget proposed high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth just received a new lifeline: $500,000 for a feasibility study from you, the American taxpayer, via the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). It’s happening even though the original company’s board disbanded and its CEO quit back in 2022. According to Reason Magazine, the company was in such poor financial condition, it couldn’t even pay its property taxes on time. No matter. It just might be bailed out by the Biden Administration. Key Facts Launched in 2013 as a private venture by Texas Central Railway, the planned 240-mile high-speed rail line was anticipated to run at 200 MPH+ between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth with a travel time of less than 90 minutes. Initially estimated to cost $10 billion, by 2020 it became a $30 billion project. Texas Central Railway originally committed to constructing and operating the proposed system without public funding and received up to $350 million from Japan Overseas Infrastructure Investment Corporation for Transport & Urban Development. Now, after the project was seemingly dead, everything is changing. Texas Central Railway has since partnered with Amtrak to apply for taxpayer-government grants including the recent $500,000 it just received. However, Texas rail lines are some of the most unprofitable in Amtrak’s portfolio. It seems that Texans aren’t keen about riding trains. Texas Republican Reps. Jake Ellzey and Michael McCaul wrote a September 2023 letter to the FRA opposing the grant application: “By partnering with Texas Central, organized as a private limited liability corporation, Amtrak will funnel federal taxpayer money to a private corporation for what was initially proposed as an exclusively privately funded venture. The project has received fierce pushback from rural landowners as well as county and local governments along the proposed route.” Pledge your support Background In 2022, after the CEO left, the board disbanded, and the company is now being managed by FTI Consulting. This firm specializes in “liquidity forecast development, business plan development and analyses, collateral evaluations and recovery assessment and contingency planning,” according to the company biography. Earlier, Texas Central Railway tried persuasion to buy private property from landowners but has had multiple legal battles with landowners and Grimes County, who refuse to sell their land. Then, in June 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas, ruled that the company has eminent domain authority on land that is needed to build the rail line. Now, they can force private land owners to sell. While the company said the project would create 17,000 jobs and have an economic impact of $36 billion, landowners raised concerns about the abuse of eminent domain and questioned how many passengers would use the train. Re-Route the Route, an advocacy group supportive of moving the rail alignment to a safer location, has opposed it. New studies estimate that only 1.4 million people will ride each year rather than the estimated 5.9 million. If accurate, the high-speed rail project will never be profitable and will be just another billion-dollar local boondoggle subsidized by national tax dollars. Share Critical Quote “If approved, these applications will result in taxpayer money being used by a private company to take private land from landowners through eminent domain,” Reps. Jake Ellzey and Michael McCaul wrote in their letter to the FRA. “Landowners deserve to have their land rights protected against the unrealistic and financially infeasible rail project proposed to be funded through these applications.” Summary For the last decade, this private train project promised no taxpayer funding. But now, the feds are at the table. So here’s the question: Should taxpayer dollars be pumped into a project that appeared dead in the water, one whose price tag tripled, and whose leaders jumped ship? Pledge your support Additional Reading California’s High Speed Train To No-Where, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst, The Squeal Award, April 25, 2023 BART Seeks Another $2.3B in Federal Funds for CA Train, Waste Of The Day, Adam Andrzejewski, RealClearPolicy, November 23, 2022 GOP Lawmakers Lead Congress’ $13 Billion+ Earmarks in FY2024, Waste Of The Day, Adam Andrzejewski, RealClearInvestigations, October 18, 2023 Runaway Train: How Hawaii’s Rail Project Went Off The Tracks, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst About Us OpenTheBooks.com – We believe transparency is transformational. Using forensic auditing and open records, we hold government accountable. In year 2023, we filed 55,000 FOIA requests and successfully captured nearly all federal spending; 50 state checkbooks; vendor checkbooks from 17,000 municipal level governments; and 25 million public employee salary and pension records from 50,000 public bodies across America. Our works have been featured at the BBC, Good Morning America, ABC World News Tonight, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, C-SPAN, The New York Times, NBC News, FOX News, Forbes, National Public Radio (NPR), Sinclair Broadcast Group, Chicago Tribune & many others. Our organization accepts no government funding and was founded by CEO Adam Andrzejewski. Our federal oversight work was cited twice in the President's Budget To Congress FY2021. Andrzejewski's presentation, The Depth of the Swamp, at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar 2020 in Naples, Florida posted on YouTube received 4+ million views. NOTICE: We reserve the right to remove comments that deemed offensive to our organization, staff, and audience. OpenTheBooks. OpenTheBooks is a project of American Transparency, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. © 2024 OpenTheBooks.com 3 Grant Square, #355, Hinsdale, IL 60521 Unsubscribe Get the appStart writing

Out of Sight, Out of Mind ADMIRED LEADERSHIP JAN 20

For the record I detest Fully Remote. I want Person to Person. Those who work in a fully remote role enjoy the best of all worlds. They save precious time by not commuting. They can pick times to work when they are most productive. And they’re also able to focus on family and household issues when needed. The advantages of working remotely have created a recent tsunami of interest. For those whose jobs allow them this luxury, there has been increased demand to work from home, at least some of the time. Given the changes that occurred since the pandemic, it is not all that surprising to learn that currently more than 50 percent of all white-collar team members either work fully remotely or operate on a hybrid model, working from where they want to for some of the week. Unfortunately, this new wave of workplace flexibility comes with a significant career downside. The most recent data overwhelmingly shows fully remote and hybrid workers don’t get assigned the most important projects, fail to receive the same amount of performance feedback, and get overlooked for promotion more often than their in-office counterparts. In one study, nearly 90 percent of senior leaders and managers suggested that when it comes to favorable assignments, raises, and promotions, they are more likely to reward team members who work every day in the office as opposed to those who do not. Given that the data also suggests that remote team members are equally or more productive than those who work on-site, this bias is hard to understand. Why do so many leaders insist that working remotely is inferior and undermines the long-term viability of an organization? The most likely answer is the value experienced leaders place on relationships and the importance of human connection for learning that others may underestimate. And the research strongly supports this view. As it turns out, proximity between people is central to two critical aspects of organizational life: skill development, and the building and nurturing of relationships. The casual in-person conversations remote workers miss out on are actually the building blocks of relationships. Relationships that don’t have them develop differently. People do not sacrifice or go out of their way for colleagues they don’t know, trust, and feel deeply connected to. Equally important, leaders offer less feedback, check in less frequently, and avoid many of the most important conversations with those they don’t engage face-to-face. The bottom line is that less face-to-face contact inhibits relationship development and stunts the feedback necessary to learn or improve skills. Remote work clearly benefits people who are more established in their careers, have pre-existing deep relationships, and already possess the skills they need to perform at the highest level. Yet, these are the people who already prefer to show up on-site more often, while less experienced team members have the strongest preference to work remotely. That’s quite a riddle. None of us fully knows where the workplace options of remote, partially remote, or back-to-the-office will shake out over the next few years. Expert predictions slightly favor a return to on-site work with fewer colleagues working remotely, but the nature of the workplace and the work itself influences much of how things will materialize in any given organization. What we do know is this: Relationships sit at the foundation of organizational success. Any trend must account for relationship development before resetting the long-term order of where people get the work done. Twice a month, we take 30 minutes to connect leaders to our Admired Leadership content and coaches. These sessions are specifically tailored for leaders who are craving universal, simple and actionable leadership content. Participants will leave the session with an understanding of Admired Leadership’s behavioral approach as well as valuable insights to implement immediately. No slides, no frameworks, no psychometrics. This is a chance to sit in on a conversation with an expert in leadership and learn something that most people don’t know. For those brand new to Admired Leadership, as well as those who have connected with us previously… find an upcoming date to join us. © 2024 Admired Leadership Admired Leadership®, 7518 Elbow Bend Rd, Carefree, AZ 85377

The Saturday Group Text, #16 A Nancy Meyers inspired playlist, Dôen's dreamy new arrivals, + more. JAN 20

Hi friends, Happy Saturday! Weekend Reads are up on The Stripe. This week’s list is packed with good things to click on and enjoy. A great list of wardrobe basics. All about the “ladies who lunch” fashion icons. The most gorgeous little New York townhome. The TikTok “bookshelf wealth” trend. Books (and recipes!) for cozy days. Shopping finds. And lots more. Head on over and check it out - I hope you enjoy! New Arrivals from Dôen If you were on Instagram on Wednesday, you probably saw that Dôen dropped a beautiful new collection (all of my favorite follows were sharing). Their smocked dresses were a best buy of 2024 for me, so I did snap up the navy Ischia dress; an absolute great basic and no brainer. I also purchased this lightweight sweater to layer (I sized up in this style). I was trying to exercise some restraint but was also eyeing this striped sweater, this sweet blouse, and this cardigan. Also on a Dôen note: this dress (from the last drop) is perfect. I wore it on Thursday. Nancy Meyers Kitchen Playlist At our Monday Mahjong game, my friend Kristin had some really fantastic music playing. Someone in the group commented and we all agreed. “Oh! It’s the Nancy Meyers’ Kitchen Playlist!” she exclaimed. I immediately added it to my Spotify and have had playing all week long. It’s exactly what you’d expect it to be and I highly recommend it. OMG, this body butter! If you are a fellow lizard person you need this! Yesterday, I wrote how everything is dry (humidifiers ORDERED, thanks for all the recs!) but the skin on my body is actually quite happy thanks to this. It is the richest, creamiest body cream and it smells good enough to eat. I LOVE Bum Bum Cream (probs my all time fav body moisturizer) but I’ve needed something heavier lately this does the trick. A lot of products call themselves “body butter” but this actually has the same consistency as butter. Super thick and luxe. What I Watched This Week: Less TV, more reading this week! TV: I watched the entire season of Dear Child on Netflix (it’s only six episodes!) in a single sitting. I had actually read the book a few years ago. The show is worth watching! I am really enjoying Drops of God on Apple TV. It’s all about wine and enology but also family relationships. I’ve been taking my time and savoring this! I am excited to watch Slow Horses on Apple TV at some point. Have you watched?Both my sister and a close friend are really enjoying - it’s a spy series! Movies: I watched Lift on Netflix and it is terrible! Do not bother!!! Sorry to be blunt, but you should know. It was just wildly bad (a bummer as I am a big fan of Gugu Mbatha-Raw from Surface and The Morning Show!). Thanks for reading Grace’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This post contains (some) affiliate links. If you make a purchase using a link I use here, I may earn a small commission. These, along with my instagram partnerships, allow me to keep this newsletter free. Thank you for supporting my work! Grace’s Substack is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Grace’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments. © 2024 Grace Atwood 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

The World of Stunt Illusions Part 3 “I owe it all to little chocolate donuts” John Belushi CHARLOTTE PENDRAGON JAN 20

“I give so much pleasure to so many people. Why can I not get some pleasure for myself? It's all false pressure; you put the heat on yourself, you get it from the networks and record companies and movie studios. You put more pressure on yourself to make everything that much harder.” John Belushi Sometime in the springtime of 1979, I met John Belushi for the first time in the parking lot of the Hollywood Palladium, where the scenes from the now cult film Blues Brothers were being filmed. Belushi was like an overgrown teenager, wilfully embracing mayhem with a mischievous grin and meeting you with a big, giant, friendly hug. He couldn't be kinder, and I sensed he didn't and wouldn't unveil his genuine emotions, attempting to hide them behind a thin veneer. Within a moment of meeting him, I was covered by his warm, loving embrace, a big hug from a bear of a man enveloping all 105 pounds of me when we met. It was a warm welcome by someone who had never heard of me except my husband at the time, Jonathan Pendragon, John Belushi’s stunt double for several scenes in the movie. My first impression of John was one of a genuine, authentic person with a true heart. There was an energy about him unmatched and unaligned with his physical being. His constant kinetic energy was out of synchronization with his overweight body. But in this physical condition, John defied physics and actively participated in hobbies like martial arts and some gymnastics. When meeting me, John cartwheeled over to greet me, spinning around and going upside down. Afterward, he continued displaying other physically demanding feats, including karate moves. He and Jonathan instantly bonded because of their mutual interests and physical activities. What struck me most about John after meeting and observing him that day was a foreboding feeling he wasn't going to be with us much longer. It was an intuitive feeling combined with the understanding that someone appearing out of shape like John and exercising like an athlete was destined for a possible heart attack. I didn't think John had much time to live. My premonition was correct when, a few years later, in 1982, John was found dead in his Chateau Marmont hotel room from a speedball - a mixture of heroin and cocaine cocktail injected in him by his drug dealer friend Cathy Smith. It all made sense; John’s exaggerated kinetic energy was driven by the cocaine he was said to have consistently used but tried to hide from many of his friends and associates. His autopsy revealed there were enough drugs in his body to kill even a healthy man, according to the examining pathologist, and Belushi wasn’t healthy. The autopsy report listed 11 health abnormalities, including “pulmonary congestion with distended lungs,” a swollen brain, a swollen heart with “aorta atherosclerosis,” an enlarged liver, and obesity. John was only 33. It was heartbreaking news to Jonathan and myself to hear of his death. We were teetotalers, so it was difficult to wrap my head around the cocaine and heroin addiction surrounding us in the entertainment industry in the late 70’s and 80’s. Personally, this fatal event contributed to a significant change in our lives. John had been staying at the Château Marmont writing his next movie for Paramount Pictures, which stunts would be an essential part of the film. John considered Jonathan his stunt double and consulted him for stunt ideas for a movie after they united following Blues Brothers. Jonathan was a stunt coordinator on Continental Divide, where he choreographed and doubled John falling down a mountain. It was also where Jonathan met author Hunter S Thompson, and the three formed a triune friendship on the set. John disagreed with Paramount executives and felt disappointed when he didn't please them with his film proposals. But instead, they wanted him to develop their script ideas, which he accepted when they threw $12,000,000.00 his way. So he had mixed emotions about the deal - loving the money but disappointed his script was turned down. One of the biggest hurdles a performer faces is conquering disappointment. It's an assault on your ego and soul to be turned down, but 90% of the time, an entertainer hears the word “NO.” You get depressed and want to quit, and the rejection can make you sad and depressed. You must learn to control your heart, believe in yourself, and focus on the 10% “YESES.” John responded to Paramount’s rejection and offer by going on a cocaine and heroin binge by nightclub hopping in West Hollywood and Beverly Hills the night before his death. Belushi’s disappointment, rejection, and disbelief, combined with feelings of ecstasy, satisfaction, and appreciation, created a perfect emotional storm in his heart, only assuaged by a night of drug consumption. I guess he thought he'd feel better later the next day, but the sun fell on that dreadful time, leaving a void in the universe where this talented and gentle soul once resided. John’s untimely death sent shock waves in the world of entertainment. Many people's lives were profoundly affected, psychologically and emotionally, by financial responses extending to those who had never met John. Everything he was working on was canceled, and the dominos fell from the top echelon at Paramount to a cab driver named Billy Kopecky, whom he met at the Beverly Hills Cafe and went with John to his car to do a few lines of coke. He said Belushi mentioned that many friends he had once helped were now backstabbing him. “He seemed to me like someone who thought the only way he could be accepted by the rock & roll crowd was by doing drugs,” said Kopecky. When I think about how John got into drugs, I believe he just wanted to be received well and worked hard to impress people. He did with me, charming me every time I met him. John and Dan playing Elwood and Jake in The Blues Brothers. I’m this scene John is ready to do back handsprings down the church aisle The way his death deeply affected us was life-changing because, up to that point, we were at a crossroads in our professional life, where our magic career began to conflict with our stunt work. John‘s death was a way to force us to focus more on magic. Eerily serendipitous was Natalie Wood, who had died approximately three months earlier. I was asked to be her swimming double in her next movie following Brainstorm, which I'll discuss in my next Substack. Those two casualties heavily affected our decision to expand our magic career, which was exploding at the time with demands for our performances. The universe does that; when you can't find your compass to locate the correct direction, God will point the right way when our spiritual antennas are working. But you must trust in God and not drugs, or God can’t align your path. I'm unsure how Jonathan landed doubling John Belushi in several scenes of the Blues Brothers, including the ionic back handsprings down the church aisle. By that point in his career, he had made many connections and had worked on several big film projects. The fit of him as John Belushi was perfect, and they became friends. Through Gary McLarty, the stunt coordinator who made thousands of dollars off of the Blues Brothers movie, Jonathan learned much of that money went up noses when Gary commented on Jonathan’s attire, saying something like, “ I can tell you don’t do drugs, Jon, because you wear nice threads” The fact significant players were doing coke on the film including John perhaps was the reason for the poor numbers during filming prompting Lee Wasserman head of Universal Studios to investigate the situation. Although John’s not to be blamed, he did bear some responsibility for some of the failures pointed out by Wasserman. It was discovered on days when Belushi indulged in cocaine, production stalled, and time was wasted. Money was being burned, and Lee Wasserman tried to stop the fire. When it opened, though, Blues Brothers was successful. On June 20, 1980, it took in $4,858,152, ranking second for that week (after The Empire Strikes Back). The film, in total, grossed $57,229,890 domestically and $58,000,000 in foreign box office, totaling $115,229,890, ranking 10th at the box office for the year. So, in the end, everything pulled together, and the film was successful with a considerable cult following today. The most notable features in the Blues Brothers are the musicality, comedy, and amazing stunts. Gary was given a substantial budget for stunt work, which was used for dynamic scenes of gymnastics, demolishing a mall in Chicago, where Jonathan also performed stunts) and to create incredible automobile stunts unmatched in the industry during that time. Jonathan’s performance of his backhand springs down the church aisle, landing at the feet of James Brown, playing the pastor of the Triple Rock Baptist Church, caused Gary McLarty later to comment that Jonathan’s gymnastics upstaged his expensive, daring car stunts, making Jonathan’s feat one of the most memorable in the industry. Comparison to the spectacular chase scenes in the movie was quite a compliment from Mc Clarity. Reviewed by Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat, who wrote this about the car scenes, “The best is a three-vehicle demolition of an indoor shopping mall, a police car plunging into the side of a large truck, and the "Bluesmobile" leaping across a drawbridge open over water. Gary McLarty's stunt crew deserves a standing ovation”. To this day, everyone remembers the backhand springs. But they can’t always remember recalling the exact chase scenes. When I tell people Jonathan performed the backhand springs for John in Blues Brothers, they get excited because the scene is embedded in their memories. They immediately connect to that particular scene in the movie where Belushi, playing Jake, walks into the church with Elwood, played by Dan Aykroyd, during a church ceremony filled with holy roller-types dancing and singing. John‘s character, Jake, has an epiphany and sees the light, causing him to let loose and negotiate his way down the aisle, avoiding hitting the dancers and singers as he did back handsprings. It was a stellar performance and made perfect by Jonathan‘s depiction of the character Jake, where he dawned pillows under his clothes to give him the needed fat padding to match John‘s look. Jonathan always put his costume on away from John’s observing eyes so John wouldn’t see the wardrobe person stuffing Jonathan‘s costume with the pillows. John performed a round-off, a half cartwheel where you land on both your feet facing the front and then execute your backhand springs from that point. So, editors connected John‘s round-off with Jonathan’s handsprings seamlessly. Likewise when, after Jonathan’s handsprings, editors integrated the last handspring with John’s comedic dancing. It is an electrifying scene perfectly timed between singers, dancers, and actors. It was on the set at Universal Studios, where Jonathan and John became friends. Jonathan was hanging out one day in John’s dressing room when he was tired, so John generously offered him his dressing room bungalow for an afternoon nap. Although Jonathan had his dressing room, he didn’t have a nice bed, so Jonathan took him up on his kind offer and John left to return to the set. As Jonathan dozed into the dream realm, he heard a knock on the door and opened it to find Governor Jerry Brown (California Governor at the time) looking for Linda Ronstadt. He spoke to Jonathan for a moment, assuming he was John, and was shocked to see Jonathan wasn't John. I think the surreal moment freaked both Jonathan and the Governor out. It's hard to say for sure if Jonathan took his nap. Still, the encounter with Governor Brown and his bodyguards was priceless, especially the surprise on their faces when Jonathan wittily informed them he was John’s double. I believe they did a double take and then left the dressing room. It's unclear why Brown was searching for Linda Ronstadt in John’s dressing room, who he was dating at the time. John was very social, wanting many companions and friendships, so naturally, he'd know Ronstadt. Those are Jonathan’s memories told me, so I may not be exact about the details. That day at the Hollywood Palladium, a scene with John and Dan Akroyd performing music with the other Blues Brothers band members was riveting listening and watching them perform Everybody Needs Somebody to Love Scene where Jonathan doubled John performing a few gymnastics, including a cartwheel. Although John could perform one, Jonathan did it because it gave John a rest. Today, when I watch the video of the scene of John and Dan singing, dancing, and playing music, I'm mesmerized by their motion and connection to rhythm. They exert a significant amount of energy, and I begin to understand part of how and why John was attracted to heroin and cocaine. The effects of coke usually make the user feel vibrant and zestful with a beautiful euphoric feeling; it gives you confidence and energy, making you more mentally alert and hyper-aware of your senses. The highs from cocaine are fast-acting and intense, so John was drawn to this drug and used it frequently to maintain his feelings because the lows after cocaine use include anxiety, paranoia, and feelings of low self-esteem. Hence, users increase their usage of the drug to attempt to bypass those negative feelings. As an actor or performer, it's tempting to value its worth because it promotes more straightforward stage presentations. Who doesn't want the exhilarating feeling of commanding the audience? But the good feelings you receive from coke are fake and don't endure time. Without a fix, you feel let down and sick. That's how John chose to live his life by continuously using cocaine and heroin in a perpetual cycle to avoid the horrors of coming down off the drugs. It's hard to analyze all that. The end of filming was celebrated with a huge cast party on one of the large sound stages. It's the best party I've ever been, a party to remember. The concentration of so much talent, eating, playing music, singing, and dancing to the live music of The Blues Brothers, Cab Calloway, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Ray Charles, Chaka Khan, and Johnny Lee Hooker was out of this world and unique. I had idolized Twiggy since I was a pre-teen when she came to America during the British cultural invasions led by The Beatles in the early 60’s. There she was at the party, and I met her, we had a drink together and danced. Surreal isn't a surreal enough word to describe the magical experience. I often wonder about the future if John had lived. At what point would he have sought help for his addiction? How would his next film turn out? Would we not have developed our magic show? Where would we be now? The juxtaposition of all those events makes me wonder so much about what stories the other future would have told. Our minds do that. We wonder about alternative future narratives. When I married Jonathan, my mind would wander back in my memories, recollecting my teen connection with Randy and wondering where that relationship may have gone. Then, here I am with Randy. God works in mysterious ways to capture our attention. May John Belushi and Natalie Wood rest peacefully among the angels watching us. With so much information, I'm writing Part 4 of this series. I started out planning only two, but my stories grew, Lol. Until next week, stay magical!

Diversity – the foundational value of the New Authoritarians It runs in parallel with the normalisation of intolerance

Diversity – the foundational value of the New Authoritarians It runs in parallel with the normalisation of intolerance FRANK FUREDI JAN 20 Historically discussions about the relative merits of diversity or homogeneity did not refer to the realm of values. It is only during the past 4 or 5 decades that a diversity came to be seen as a value in and of itself. Public and private organisations now insist that diversity in integral to their practice. The DEI triad of diversity, equity and inclusion has become institutionalised throughout the Anglo-American world. International organisations and NGOs have literally endowed diversity with a sacred status. UNESCO insists that ‘diversity is the very essence of our identity’. In businesses, diversity trumps competence and achievement. In higher education diversity has become a first order value that is represented as more important than academic ability and academic freedom. To grasp the quasi-religious transformation of diversity into a taken-for-granted dogma it is useful to explore its historical evolution. A word of warning! It is always tempting to respond to the dogmatic affirmation of diversity as a sacred value by an equally one-sided assertion of homogeneity. We believe that its is far more fruitful consider the relationship between diversity and homogeneity as one that must be assessed in relation to the context within which it arises. Share The paradox of diversity Today the promotion of diversity and difference is usually associated with movements that are generally associated with leftish, liberal or woke interests. In contrast an emphasis on homogeneity and unity is generally is linked to conservative and right-wing ideals. This ideologically polarised state of affairs is of relatively recent vintage. Indeed, historically conservative thinkers tended to celebrate difference and cultural distinctions whereas those of radical disposition opted to uphold similarity and universalism. The Enlightenment’s affirmation of universalism often provoked a conservative reaction that championed the unique qualities of the local and the particular. The conservative Romantic movement in Germany emphasised the importance of cultural differences and claimed that identities founded upon it were more authentic than an abstract attachment to universalism. Such sentiments were, in part, a response to the growing influence of the rationalistic and universalistic ideals of French Enlightenment thought on European societies. The German Romantics favourably contrasted authentic Kultur to the abstract spirit of French Enlightenment universalism. German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) forcefully captured the particularist spirit of the new Romantic worship of cultural identity. He claimed that it was culture that defined each people – the Volk – endowing them with their own distinct identity and spirit. In contrast to the particularist emphasis on diversity, radicals and liberals tended to focus on the common qualities of people. English liberals from Hume onwards tended to emphasise the common qualities of human nature. From this standpoint, Thomas Paine developed his commitment to universal human rights. For the 18th century philosophes and radicals the pursuit of unity and the advocacy of a common human nature was an integral to their world view. Abbé Sieyès, a political theorist of the French Revolution was deeply concerned about what he saw as the chaos of local custom. Ridding France of cultural diversity was a key objective of the revolutionary regime. At the risk of generalisation, it can be said that radicals were often zealous supporters of centralisation whereas conservatives were decentralisers. The pursuit of unity and the assertion of a common human nature were characteristic of the radical mindset. Radicals wanted uniformity and conservatives defended difference. Radicals were committed to sameness whereas conservatives responded by supporting diversity and cultural difference. In the 19th century the discussion on the tension between uniformity and difference was far more nuanced than today. The French liberal philosopher Benjamin Constant personified a mature aspiration for both unity and difference. As a liberal he regarded uniformity as a mark of rationality. But Constant was something of a libertarian- conservative and he therefore appreciated the need to defend local customs and communities. He combined a criticism against unjust customs such as those that supported slavery with an appreciation of the need to maintain the distinctions between diverse communities. According to a study written by Bryan Garsten, Constant ‘argued that slow processes of local social development would be, in general, more effective and ultimately more progressive than uniform regulations imposed from above’ – more likely to discover a “sentiment of liberty” in communal settings and ‘more robust forms of patriotism were rooted in local allegiances’¹. Constant supported diversity on grounds that would today be perceived as conservative. He argued against the project of liberating ‘individuals from local ties and prejudices’ on the grounds that it would undermine freedom and the state. ‘How bizarre that those who called themselves ardent friends of freedom have worked relentlessly to destroy the natural basis of patriotism, to replace it with a false passion for an abstract being, for a general idea deprived of everything which strikes the imagination and speaks to memory’, he wrote. Constant believed that local patriotism was foundation of freedom and for that reason was worried about the imperative of statist uniformity that sought to detach individual with their organic link to community. It is worth noting that in the contemporary era local patriotism has become the bitter target of diversity entrepreneurs on the ground that it excludes people from a clearly bounded homogenous community. Yesterday’s celebration of diversity is fundamentally different to the use to which it is put today. 19 century English liberals also possessed a balanced and nuanced understanding of the relationship between diversity and sameness. Though they adopted a belief in universalism and a common human nature they were often drawn towards a pluralist orientation toward social issues. J.S. Mill’s On Liberty serves as an exemplar of the 19th century liberal view of diversity. In this text Mill criticised the adverse consequences of advancing similarity, which he feared would impose a culture of unthinking conformity on society. Yet at the same time and in different contexts, Mill adopted a stance that advocated the benefits of unity and solidarity. In his essay Utilitarianism (1861), Mill attached great significance to unity, noting that with ‘an improving state of the human mind, the influences are constantly on the increase, which tend to generate in each individual a feeling of unity with all the rest’.² As Michael Levin noted, Mill ‘wanted both difference and unity’³. During the 19th and the first half of the 20th the debate on diversity and unity did not preclude commentators from understanding that the tension between these two poles could not be resolved through rupturing the relation between them. On balance diversity played an important role in countering the centralising impulse unleashed during the course of the modern era. Its affirmation of local patriotism helped to protect the legacy of the past from the statist project of subjecting society to the impulse of uniformity. 18th and 19th century proponents of diversity sought to counter the homogenising tendency to impose uniformity on thought and behaviour. At this time opponents of the uniformalising tendency of modernity sought to open a space for discretion and judgment. It is evident that the meaning of diversity has fundamentally altered during the past 250 years. In the past the affirmation of difference ran in parallel with the celebration of the organic bonds that tied communities to their ancestors. Diverse local customs and practices were historically rooted and reflected the taken for granted values that prevailed in local communities. The current version of diversity is abstract and often administratively created. It is frequently imposed from above and affirmed through rules and procedure. The artificial character of diversity is demonstrated by its reliance on legal and quasi-legal instruments. There is a veritable army of bureaucrats and inspectors who are assigned the role of enforcing diversity related rules. The unnatural and artificial character of diversity is illustrated by the fact that it must be taught. Special courses and workshops – in many cases obligatory – are designed to ‘raise awareness’ about the necessity for upholding diversity. Today’s administratively imposed diversity is also different to its original version insofar as its acceptance is obligatory and non-discretionary. As noted earlier 19th century diversity was closely linked to the practice of making distinctions and valuing discretion and judgment. Since its emergence as a foundational value, diversity is frequently represented as an antidote to discrimination and discretion on the ground that these acts are exclusionary and wrong. It was in the 1950s that diversity was instrumentalised as a weapon with which to counter the tendency to judge, discriminate and draw distinctions. Psychologist often represented an inclination towards diversity as the moral opposite to prejudice. In well-known 1950s classic, The Authoritarian Personality, the authors drew a moral contrast between the ‘readiness to include, accept, and even love differences and diversitie (sic)’ with ‘the need to set of clear demarcation lines and to ascertain superiorities and inferiorities’. Those who insisted on drawing lines and borders and refused to love diversity were diagnosed as possessing an authoritarian personality. They were represented as morally inferior to their inclusive peers⁴. It was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that diversity acquired an ideological significance. The main driver of this development was the politicisation of identity. The erosion of a mood of national unity and of solidarity created the condition of social fragmentation. In this new fragmented social landscape different groups of minorities sought to legitimate themselves through politicising their identity. Identity politics developed a parasitic relationship with the prevailing trend towards social fragmentation. Through the idealisation of diversity they were able to demand inclusion. In this way they could strengthen their identity and gain access to resources. The politicisation of diversity turned it into a dogma that could not be questioned. Any critique of diversity courted the charge of discrimination and prejudice. The philosopher Christopher Lasch was one of the first to grasp the corrosive and authoritarian dimension of the ethos of diversity. Back in 1995 in his essay on the ‘Democratic Malaise; he wrote: ‘In practice, diversity turns out to legitimize a new dogmatism, in which rival minorities take shelter behind a set of beliefs impervious to rational discussion. The physical segregation of the population in self-enclosed, racially homogeneous enclaves has its counterpart in the balkanization of opinion. Each group tries to barricade itself behind its own dogmas’⁵. Lasch’s concern with the way that a politicised diversity breeds segregation and the balkanisation of opinion has proved to be prescient. Diversity has proved to an enemy of tolerance. Its rejection of discretion represents a hostility to a culture of debate. It demands conformity with its ideals and has no hesitation about constraining the exercise of freedom, particularly that of free speech. Upgrade to paid Free Speech-Diversity Trade Off It is within institutions of culture and education that the authoritarian dimension of diversity is most striking. One of the most important developments in campus culture is the growing tendency to represent free-speech and diversity as contradictory values. PEN America’s report ‘And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities’(2016) highlighted a disturbing development, which was that amongst younger members of faculty and students the value of free speech is trumped by that of diversity. It noted that ‘at times’ campus controversies ‘have led some groups of students to question the value of free speech itself’. That was in 2016. Today many campus activists do not merely question the value of free speech but also condemn it as a tool of white supremacy. Free Speech is frequently denounced as Hate Speech. Since the turn of the century, universities have come under great pressure to balance the apparently competing claims of diversity and free speech. Some university leaders have gone so far as to suggest that free speech and diversity may be contradictory values. Many university administrators regard free speech as a threat to diversity. They argue that free speech constitutes a risk to the welfare of new groups of non-traditional and minority students. Michael Roth, head of Wesleyan University, wrote that in the past campuses were ‘far less diverse places than they are today’ and consequently ‘there were many voices that none of us got to hear’. The implication of Roth’s statement is that the exercise of free speech in the past was in some sense responsible for silencing the voices of minority groups. It therefore negates inclusive practices promoting diversity. The idea that freedom of speech and diversity are mutually contradictory values exercises a significant influence on campus culture. Defenders of safe spaces contend that freedom needs to be ‘balanced’ or ‘traded off’ against diversity. ‘I definitely think it’s a balancing act,’ observed Gale Baker, university counsel for California State University. She perceives ‘open and frank discussion and free expression’ as ‘competing’ with the ‘value of wanting a diverse and inclusive community’. In the current climate, the exhortation to ‘balance free speech and diversity’ invariably leads to the conclusion that the former must give way to the latter. University leaders increasingly presume in favour of diversity and in many cases attach little value to free speech. That free speech has been made subordinate to diversity is strikingly illustrated in the way universities frame their mission statements and declarations. Take the statement made by Chancellor Ronnie Green of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln welcoming new students to campus for the 2016-17 academic year. Though it mentions free speech in passing, it is devoted to celebrating the value of diversity. For Green, belief in the value of diversity is not an option: it is absolutely compulsory. As he puts it, ‘our beliefs on diversity and inclusion’ are ‘not-negotiable’. His call to conform or else echoes the illiberal and authoritarian temper that traditionally characterised medieval seminaries. No one is free to disagree with ‘our beliefs’. green printer paper Photo by Brittani Burns on Unsplashed They welcome All everything but not All viewpoints! Once diversity becomes sacralised to the point that belief in it is non-negotiable it is only a matter of time before intolerance is transformed into a legitimate standpoint. Intolerance of dissident view is one of the principal features of the 21st century ideology of diversity. That is why there is no question of diversity applying to the realm of ideas and viewpoints. On the contrary, the demand for more diversity is coupled with the demand for curbing free speech and free thought. Diversity is often presented as a medium for being sensitive to the feelings and needs of different groups of people. However, there is nothing remotely sensitive about a non-negotiable attempt to enforce a dogma on society. Diversity is about exercising control, which is why it has become the foundational value of the New Authoritarianism. Upgrade to a paid subscriptionn In a future essay we will explore how diversity undermines excellence and encourages a culture of incompetence. 1 Garsten, B. (2017) ‘From popular sovereignty to civil war in post-revolutionary France’ in Bourke, R & Skinner, Q, (2017) (eds) Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective, Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, p.255. 2 Cited in Levin, M. (2004) Mill on Civilization and Barbarism. London : Taylor and Francis. 3 Levin (20040. 4 Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N., (1969) The authoritarian personality, W.W. Norton & Company : New York., pp485-486. 5 Lasch, C., 1996. The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. WW Norton & Company : New York, P.17. Hope you are enjoying Roots & Wings with Frank Furedi. © 2024 Frank Furedi 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

Hunter Biden Gives The People's Representatives The Finger TWICE

While The House Has The Constitutional Power To Arrest Him And Hold Him Till He Complies "Inherent Contempt Power." The original power of the Legislative Branch to help it conduct the people's business. And you wonder why Govt. doesn't function properly. Instead of appearing at a closed-door session of the House to discuss the ever-expanding volumes of the exploits of the Biden crime family, he instead held a press conference on the Senate side of the Capital arranged by Representative Eric Swalwell, who for some reason has not yet been expelled or charged with espionage and treason for his dealings with the known Chinese spy Fang Fang. Hunter Biden then crashed a House hearing and fled when Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was about to speak. What were some of Greene’s points Hunter Biden didn't want to hear? Apparently, he feels he is above the law. When the Trump children were subpoenaed by the Jan 6 Committee, they dutifully appeared for eight hours each! The January 6 Committee was a complete sham! That "a member of this body”, (Swalwell), actually helped him evade his subpoena and break the law by arranging the press conference on the Senate side of the building! That his father, Joe Biden, said in October 2021, “that individuals who defy subpoenas from the Jan. 6 House Select Subcommittee should be prosecuted!” She quotes members on the Committee, Jamie Raskin for example, on record saying, “if you are subpoenaed, you show up, but you can’t blow off the proceeding.” This committee has produced more evidence than any Democrat ever dreamed of or made up against President Trump and his family. This committee has produced evidence that Joe Biden has taken payments through his son Hunter Biden in all of their dozens of fake LLC’s. You can’t buy a Biden product, you can’t hire a Biden for a service, unless you are a foreign country, and you are asking and paying for political favors with political payouts. Representative -Marjorie Taylor Greene Where did the Founders get the idea of three equal branches of government? Charles-Louis de Secondat, aka, Baron de La Brède and de Montesquieu in his masterpiece, “Spirit of the Laws”, outlined the idea of “trias politica,” or separation of powers, the concept of a government divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches acting independently of each other. The Founders were intimately familiar with Montesquieu's work and used it as their model. They gave each branch specific enumerated powers not available to the other two that would accomplish this when creating the Constitution. The functions and powers of the Legislature, the Senate and the House of the Representatives of "We the People", are in Article 1, Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Constitution. Specific powers to the House are in Section 7. (Of course, as an American, you should be familiar with this from your copy of the Constitution.) The three types of contempt power available to Congress Inherent Contempt Power was employed by Congress to directly enforce contempt rulings under its own constitutional authority until criminal and civil contempt statutes were passed. It is still available. The power of Congress to punish for contempt is related to the power of Congress to investigate. Its authority to investigate and obtain information, including but not limited to confidential information, is extremely broad. There is no express provision of the Constitution or specific statute authorizing the conduct of congressional oversight or investigations, yet, the Supreme Court has established in numerous cases that such power is essential to the legislative function and implied in the legislative powers of Congress. Under inherent contempt proceedings, the House or Senate has its Sergeant-At-Arms, or deputy, take a person into custody until they supply information requested or to appear for proceedings to be held in Congress. The second type of contempt power is a citation of criminal contempt of Congress. This power comes from a statute passed by Congress in 1857 intended to supplement Congress’s Inherent Contempt Power when members who were being investigated would not cooperate. It has been codified under 2 U.S.C. § 192 and provides that any person who “willfully” fails to comply with a properly issued committee subpoena for testimony or documents is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a substantial fine and imprisonment for up to one year. The criminal contempt statute outlines the process to which the House or Senate may refer. Once a committee rules that an act of criminal contempt has occurred, the Speaker of the House or Senate President refers the matter to the appropriate U.S. attorney’s office, 2 U.S. Code § 194, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” The flaw with this, is if you have an Attorney General like Merrit Garland, who despite having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law, is not only running interference for the Biden crime family, but outrageous in all of American history, actively prosecuting THE opponent to Biden in the Presidential election. Or anyone else who supports Trump or questions the Biden narrative.

TROUBLE: Donald Attacks Judge What you need to know MARY L TRUMP JAN 20

OUTRAGEOUS: Donald personally attacks the judge presiding over the E. Jean Carroll trial. A lawyer told me Donald could end up in jail. Tonight, Donald’s attorneys have asked for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll case. It’s a gutsy—or desperate—move considering Judge Kaplan already declined their identical request last week. This lack of respect for the court is a pattern. Donald, who already has TWO active gag orders against him in his NYC fraud trial and the January 6th case, just tested the limits of his conduct and the behavior of his attorneys in his civil defamation trial, too. Appearing after his legal team’s disastrous performance, Donald tore into Judge Lewis Kaplan and personally attacked him for not delaying the trial for his mother-in-law’s funeral. First of all, Donald’s attendance at the trial was optional (he did not appear at the first defamation trial) and, second, instead of being with his family all week, he’s been on the campaign trail: “He's a nasty judge,” Donald said. He's a Trump-hating guy, and, uh, it's obvious to everybody in the court. It's a disgrace, frankly, what's happening. It’s a disgrace.” Donald un-gagged Donald’s courtroom behavior has been so bad, Judge Kaplan threatened to have him removed after he reportedly muttered complaints about the trial in earshot of the jury. In response, Donald tossed his hands up in the air exclaiming he’d “love” it if the Kaplan threw him out. When Kaplan asked Donald “you just can't help yourself under the circumstances, can you?” Donald reportedly responded, “you can't either.” Donald is playing with fire Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg appeared on MSNBC's "Way Too Early," and actually compared Donald’s failure to control himself in the courtroom to the sinking of the Titanic. "Yesterday was a disaster for Trump as a defendant," Aronberg said. "I would liken him to the Titanic but at least the Titanic had a band.” Civil trials are different For Donald’s criminal trials, he might be given a little more latitude to act out. As Danny Cevallos, an NBC News legal analyst, explained, “a criminal defendant has a right to be present at all proceedings,” Cevallos said. "So any time a judge removes a defendant in a criminal case, the judge has to consider some very important constitutional issues in the possibility that the case could get overturned." But E. Jean Carroll’s case is a civil suit — and Donald is marching toward penalties. Donald is heading into trouble I asked attorney Joe Gallina to predict what might happen next, and here’s what he told me: “I think Donald is using his appearance at court to speak to his base. He’s playing the victim, which works well with them, while attempting to malign the judge, intimidate E. Jean Carroll, and undermine the accusations by claiming it’s all a political ‘witch hunt.’ Sure he’ll score some political points, but he’s really damaging his case,” Gallina said. “That puts Donald in an impossible position. The more he attempts to appease his base, the more he’ll turn off the jury,” Gallina added. “In fact, I predict after witnessing the way Trump and his legal team have acted, the jury could award E. Jean Carroll a significantly higher amount than the original $5 million verdict— and it’s likely,” Gallina said. “There are also a host of punishments available to Judge Kaplan to apply to Donald if he continues to act out. It stands to reason we’ll hear a description of what those might be of. Donald could face fines and even be thrown in jail for contempt if he ignores repeated warnings,” Gallina concluded. I’ll be watching this case and I’ll update you every step of the way. If a jury does find Donald liable for additional and substantial damages — or if Judge Kaplan hands down a penalty commensurate with what Donald deserves, I’ll be on it. What happens now I am officially launching a nationwide campaign against Donald’s candidacy, and I will focus on motivating crucial swing state voters by helping them understand what’s at stake in 2024. It’s not hyperbole to say 2024 will be the most important election of our lifetimes. We already have the winning 2020 playbook, but we need to go even further. Everything is on the line. I’ll use this platform and a combination of strategies all across the country to energize our base in 2024. My only mission this year is to stop Donald from destroying our democracy. We must do that together. If you support me, please become a paying supporter now and help me reach even more swing state voters with the truth. 👇 Become a Paying Supporter Now THANK YOU for your supporter, and for being with me on this journey! Let's make sure Donald never sets foot in the White House again. – Mary © 2024 Mary L Trump 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 "THANK YOU for your supporter" ? Really ?

I don't have an answer here

I'm just curious what you think. A thought experiment BEN DREYFUSS JAN 20 It’s Christmas and your wife is dead. She didn’t just die. She’s been dead for some time. But it’s still raw. You met when you were young. You fell for each other quickly, completely, and irrevocably. You both knew that you were meant to share your lives together. And so you did. And you didn’t doubt it, either of you, ever, and it was good, and it was great, and it was grand, and decades went by and then she got sick, and it was awful, and tragic, and fast, and over. And she died. And you were alone. You are alone. Years later, you are still alone. And it’s Christmas. You work in a big tall building and you don’t want to go home because there is nothing for you there but your memories so you stay late, later than you need to. Everyone else has gone because they have places to be and people to be with. Finally, you accept that it’s time to head home. You take the elevator down and exit into the street. The city is never as silent as it is in this moment. Not a soul in sight. It is snowing. You could call an Uber or take the train, but there is something about the night that makes you think, ‘Ah, screw it, I’ll walk.’ And so you trudge through the empty streets. There are some drunken carolers in the distance, but for the most part, it is you, the closed shops, the falling snow, the bitter cold, and your self-pity. And then, all of a sudden—BAM: the sewer grate you hadn’t noticed you’d stepped on gives way and you plummet down into the darkest bits of the subway system. This is it. This is the end. Your vision goes dark. You are going to die. But then the funniest thing happens: you don’t. You open your eyes and see light piercing through the blackness. You hear a voice. “Buddy, you ok?” It’s the morning, and you’ve lived. Some construction worker in a hard hat directs you to a ladder, and the next thing you know, you’re above ground. You are not even hurt! A bit shaken, a bump on the head, yes, but basically fine. You are so embarrassed that you convince the city worker not to call an ambulance. It’s still very early, and the streets are still very empty, but what few people you do see seem happy. You walk the rest of the way to your home. You go up the elevator. You open the door to your apartment. There your dead wife sits. “Hello,” she says. She looks as beautiful as you remember—before cancer ate her away. You ask her what’s going on. She doesn’t know. You ask if she is a ghost. She doesn’t know. You ask if she is a hallucination. She doesn’t know. You talk it out and reach the mutual conclusion that you have probably had some sort of traumatic brain injury and are still lying down in the hole, hallucinating. You’ll probably die any minute now. But she smiles and says, “but not yet.” And the minutes pass into hours, and the hours pass into days, but you don’t go anywhere. You don’t die—like you should—in that hole. She doesn’t go anywhere, either. She’s just there with you again in your life. And you’re happy together. And you have all those moments that her cancer stole from you. No one else can see her. She is either magic or a hallucination. But she is real to you. It doesn’t make any sense, but do you care? You can investigate it. You can go look in the hole. You can consult a priest. You can get a brain scan. You can you can you can you can do everything, but can you accept it? Can you say, “I don’t care if I’m splayed out bleeding from my head in a hole and that this is the longest hallucination anyone has ever had before they died”? Can you say, “Nothing I know about the world tells me it’s possible, but isn’t it maybe possible that I fell down the one magic hole in the one magic city and now my wife is back, and I can live out my days with her”? The alternative is trying to get her to go away. Trying to ignore her because you are convinced she isn’t real and that you’re crazy and that you have a moral obligation to try to be sane. Could you accept this bliss on its own terms or not? Anyways, just a thought experiment! I’m curious what your answer is. Happy Friday! Meh. I've been alone most of my life. Ever since Sue & I broke up. That was what ? The 1980s I think. She lived in Wheel Estates in Westfield. There hasn't been a single person yet. Not one.