Bundy on Bundy Sociopath or Psychopath?

Make no mistake. I went for total effect here. Just happens to make sense as well catch one’s attention. If you don’t ‘get it’, it’s quite simple. Ted ‘Bundy’, clearly the PSYCHOPATH, on South ‘Bundy’, the infamous promenade, site of the Simpson/Goldman slaughter as a catchy intro to a very grim juxtaposition I intend to discuss. Why? Well, is Ted Bundy a Sociopath or Psychopath? And OJ? It’s clear Bundy’s the Psychopath. Why? You’ll see, if you are interested. It bothers me when these terms are used interchangeably. And it’s quite common. Although there are some that say they are identical terms, to which I personally and intensely disagree. Most likely you could care less. Understandably. But as hard as I may attempt at writing an expose on, let’s say…. The North Fork’s Hidden Gems….I cannot and my mind wanders to the darker side of life. Well, hopefully you’re not spending most of your summer glued to Court TV, any/every channel hinting of a crime narrative and podcasts that delve into the underbelly of crime. I delight seeing docs about Epstein, Ghislaine (LOVE that name), Manson, Dahmer, Trump,Gein, Durst…okay! You get it. We’ve discussed this. So, let’s get to it.

I do believe that psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made. Virtually, the difference indicates the nature versus nurture issue. There’s a particularly interesting link between serial killers and psychopaths or sociopaths—although, of course, not all psychopaths and sociopaths become serial killers. And not all serial killers are psychopaths or sociopaths. This are all basic beliefs agreed by most studies.

These terms are most often used to describe someone that is considered to be without a conscience or lacking the tools in developing one. Their annotation surrounds their approach to violence, anger, hatred, and emotionlessness. We hear these terms bandied about on television, books and in the media, but I think very few of us know the difference between the two, and, in fact use them incorrectly and interchangeably. However, it is importantant to note that BOTH disorders are classified under the diagnosis of ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER.

The truth is, there continues to be a lack of specific and unambiguous definitions for either condition and continue to be (though decreasingly) used reciprocally.

Firstly, psychopathy and sociopathy are distinct societal labels applied to the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5) classifies all ten personality disorders into three clusters (A, B, and C). Antisocial personality disorder falls into 1 of 4 cluster-B disorders, which also includes borderline, narcissistic, and histrionic. All of these disorders characteristically present with dramatic, emotional, and unpredictable interactions with others. Antisocial personality disorder is the only personality disorder that is not diagnosable in childhood. Before the age of 18, the patient must have been previously diagnosed with conduct disorder (CD) by the age of 15 years In short, ASP is a mental condition in which a person has a long-standing behavioral pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others without any guilt, compassion nor shame. These behaviors cause problems in relationships or at work and is often criminal. Up to 3 percent of the population may qualify for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. ASP is more common among males and common among substance abusers and the criminal population.

In the book The Sociopath’s Playbook: The Quintessential Guide to Navigating the Sociopathically Adjusted Playing Field, Paul Conlon quotes the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a sociopath: “someone who behaves in a dangerous or violent way towards other people and does not feel guilty about such behavior.” Meanwhile, Mr Conlon goes on to define a psychopath as: “a person who is mentally ill, who does not care about other people, and who is usually dangerous or violent…” While sociopathy can only be diagnosed at the age of 18 or above, we may see some of the following traits earlier: law violations, pervasive lying, aggression, impulsivity, lack of judgement, irresponsibility and lack of remorse.

Researchers tend to believe that sociopathy is the result of environmental factors, such as growing up in a physically and/or emotionally abusive home which then caused irreparable trauma. It is thought that sociopaths display more impulsive and erratic behaviors than their psychopath counterparts. They may have difficulties in forming attachments to others, yet some sociopaths may be able to form a bond with a like-minded group or person. Unlike psychopaths, sociopaths are unable to secure long-term jobs nor have the ability to present much of a normal family life to the outside world. When a sociopath engages in criminal behavior, they do so impulsively with poor judgment and may easily become agitated and angered, resulting in interactions with law enforcement. Because sociopaths are normally less emotionally stable their behaviors can be more erratic, so that when committing crimes – either violent or non-violent – sociopaths will act more on compulsion and lack patience. This, in turn most likely results in dangerous and overt erratic behaviors.

Researchers in this field generally believe that psychopaths tend to be born, a genetic predisposition, while sociopaths tend to be made by their environment. Yet this is not to say that psychopaths are free from any kind of childhood abuse. Psychopathy is thought to be affiliated with physiological brain differences, as research has demonstrated that psychopaths may have defective brain components, those commonly in charge of emotional and impulse control.

Psychopathy is often considered a more critical form of sociopathy – with more symptoms. Therefore, all psychopaths are sociopaths but sociopaths are not necessarily psychopaths. Psychopaths, on the other hand, blueprint their crimes with great calculation carefully avoiding risks to evade detection. Psychopaths don’t get carried away in the moment and make fewer mistakes as a result. Some traits include a lack of remorse (guilt), lack of empathy, narcissism and the lack of emotional attachments. They can be charming, dishonest and exhibit risky behaviors. They have a difficulty forming genuine attachments with others, thus forming shallow relationships that can be manipulated for self profit. Others are regarded as pawns for self advantage. Psychopaths very rarely feel guilt for any of their malevolence no matter how much they may have hurt or damaged others.

However, psychopaths can often be seen by others as being charming and can hold a steady, normal job. They are smart. Manipulative. Risk takers with a plan. Some even have families or in a relationships with a partner. They are seen as educated and well spoken while not necessarily having attended higher education, as they may also have learned a great deal on their own.

So… what does this tell us? It clearly makes a point of describing some main distinctions between the two. And now I’ve earned my fun. Let’s get personal: Theodore Bundy. A prolific serial killer credited for the deaths of AT LEAST 40 women. A classic example of a psychopath and for good reason. He easily displays the traits: smart, cunning, charismatic. He clearly knew right from wrong. Mr Bundy was educated and led a somewhat normal life with a woman he professed to love and was able to earn a decent wage. He was charming and articulate. And… highly manipulative. A shrewd risk taker who covered his tracks wisely. He just didn’t think the rules applied to him. He also didn’t display guilt or remorse for any of his actions. However it was just this cocky behavior that got him finally apprehended. And, ended up paying dearly for his crimes…

And the sociopaths? I actually considered several candidates to consider. Some may be familiar. We ALL know of many, but do not necessarily relegate them to sociopathy. Bernie Madoff, DeeDee Blanchard, Michael Milkin, Joey Buttafuoco, Joe Exotic, Elizabeth Holmes. And one in particular… not surprisingly someone I may have mentioned before…

For Mary Trump, niece of Donald Trump, and a distinguished mental health professional, writes about his childhood, which she was able to witness personally. Now as discussed earlier, it is hypothesized that the sociopath is primarily ‘made’. That is, the environment is considered as MORE responsible for the pathology. In her book “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man”, she gives us insight into Trump’s childhood and family culture, linking them to his behavior today. She describes a ‘nightmare’ of a childhood where Mr Trump’s ‘basic emotional needs were reportedly not provided for during sensitive periods’. She goes on to describe him as an aggressive child, willful and difficult to control. You need not be a mental health professional… NOR A DEMOCRAT…to see traits described previously as pertaining to the sociopath and Mr Trump. Characteristics such as feelings of superiority, grandiosity, exaggeration of talents/abilities, not recognizing the feelings of others, taking advantage of others, disdain for the ‘inferior’, cheating, tough/unemotional demeanor, deceitfulness, disregard for safety of others, aggressiveness, lack of remorse… and so on.

Lance Dodes, M.D., reminds us of the characteristics of the antisocial personality disorder as it pertains to sociopathy and as I briefly noted earlier. He speaks to its various descriptions, which include callous, bullying, dehumanizing, sadistic, unempathic, predatory, devaluing and immoral behavior. Sociopaths project their feelings onto others and are seen as aggressive and possibly dangerous. Sociopaths exhibit a dimming of reality and assailing others with turbulent outbursts. People are categorized strictly as good or bad. Friends or enemies. Absolute loyalty is expected and rewarded by landing in the “good” category. Does any of this ring true of our former President? I rest my case. Although there is currently no cure for sociopathy nor for psychopathy. The causes are constantly being studied and revised. As noted, researchers have found that genetics may explains only half the reason why sociopaths are created. Environment and upbringing seem to explain the other half.

The advice of experts on how to deal with sociopathic and psychopathic personalities is nearly unanimous and clear. That is, to remove yourself from their seduction. Although impossible to live in a cocoon, you now may be better informed in how to protect yourself, your psyche as well as your resources from the snares of such persons. If you think you will change this type of person, you are probably kidding yourself. Psychologists and Psychiatrists alike speak of the futility of treating these individuals. Medications are ineffective in most cases. Parents need to best learn setting boundaries that are appropriate and consistent, as well as diligently work with professionals in child rearing strategies.

In the end, does the distinction between a psychopath and sociopath matter? They can both be dangerous, even deadly, and both pathologies wreak havoc on other people’s lives. The main question people ask in regard to this discussion and the one question I find most troubling is…Do the sociopath and psychopath have a conscience? For me, in doing this research and having worked in the field for many years, I can say with confidence that despite some of the bad information out there about them, sociopaths can be capable of feeling badly for their actions, and they DO have a conscience. For they have reduced access to emotional control, and some emotional cues are muted, yet they often struggle with guilt and negative feelings about their actions. Are they aware enough of their circumstances to know that they need to enact greater behavioral control, and then find a way to do so. It can be a real fight, but there are certainly sociopaths that make this happen.

The psychopath lacks what we consider a conscience and, as such, are not governed with the usual moral, legal, or philosophical prohibitions to behaviors that meet their own needs, regardless of the impact on others. These people can be manipulative, chaotic, and, at times, dangerous. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out”. A psychopath does not have a guilty feeling and can’t distinguish what is right/wrong or ethical. Consequently , they don’t feel remorse for any damage they have committed.

In conclusion, is it not important to us, or more so to me, to recognize the hidden suffering, loneliness, and lack of self-esteem as risk factors for violent, criminal behavior in both these pathologies? Reading the statements of criminal psychopaths and sociopaths can shed light on their striking and specific vulnerability and emotional pain. As with other mental disabilities such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, these individuals have difficulty controlling or changing their behaviors. And to make it more debilitating, medications are ineffective. Perhaps increased experimental psychopharmacotherapy, neurofeedback, and combined psychotherapy research is needed to prevent and treat these psychopathic and sociopathic behavior so dangerous and prevalent in our society today. PLEASEREADTHIS 🗽

Truth or Dare…. the true story of Hydroxychloroquine

Hydrochloroquine will remain controversial as long as some continue to advertise its controversial merits. While the former President prematurely and recklessly promoted its efficacy, some studies were in fact happening in different parts of the world using it as a potential treatment. Most reviews were and continue to be dismal, most showing any lack of benefit alone or in conjunction with other pharmaceuticals. Recently the American Journal of Medicine ‘led’ some to believe it was endorsing its use for COVID19, HOWEVER, Dr Joseph S. Alpert, editor-in-chief of AJM, said the journal most certainly DOES NOT ENDORSE HCQ for COVID19, and that currently the cumulative data that has been collated over multitudinous studies have shown no efficacy. In my research , I have noted that while some ‘new’ studies (2021) have shown HCQ can reduce hospitalizations for people with COVID19, these studies are few and far between. The Hackensack Meridian Health study, although showed a reduction in outpatient settings leading to hospitalizations using HCQ, the study cannot be used to assert a causal relationship as the findings needed to be validated in a randomized controlled clinical trial. It must also said that a large reason for this choice of topic is to clear any credence to any media reports that the former President was ‘right all along’ in his propagandized praise for this medication. No reliable studies were completed in the Spring of 2020 to support his commendations for this drug for COVID19. I continue to believe this was a severe case of incompetence and contributed to the seriousness and mortality rates of this deadly pandemic.

TRUTH OR DARE: Hydroxychloroquine has not been associated with improved survival among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the majority of observational studies and similarly was not identified as an effective prophylaxis following exposure in a prospective randomized trial. We aimed to explore the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy in mildly symptomatic patients diagnosed in the outpatient setting. (Biomedical Central, January 2021)

TRUTH OR DARE: The recently published study looked at a group of people treated as outpatients last year and found that those who received an anti-inflammatory drug, hydroxychloroquine, which is often used for malaria, were significantly less likely to end up in the hospital. (Hackensack Meridian Health Study, January 2021)

TRUTH OR DARE: A Cochrane Review by Bhagteshwar Singh and colleagues definitively concludes that hydroxychloroquine has no clinical benefit in treating COVID‐19 in hospitalized patients.

TRUTH OR DARE: Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System. (July, 2020)

TRUTH OR DARE: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) eventually revoked their emergency use authorization for treating COVID-19. Now, based on the findings of a new analysis, an international panel of experts strongly advises against the use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19. (March, 2021)

TRUTH OR DARE: THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION clearly states (30 April 2021) that they do NOT RECOMMEND HCQ to prevent COVID19. Nor does it recommend HCQ as a treatment for COVID19. These findings are based on 30 trials with more than 10,000 COVID19 patients. HCQ did not reduce mortality nor the need for mechanical ventilation. They continue to state its risks for cardiac anomalies and continues to be effective for autoimmune, rheumatological diseases and malaria.

TRUTH OR DARE: For rheumatologists and patients, hydroxychloroquine maintains its important, longstanding role in the treatment of rheumatic diseases, with known benefits ranging from reducing lupus disease activity and damage to lowering the risks of hyperglycaemia, hyperlipidaemia, and pregnancy complications. However, available evidence does not support the use of this medication in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. (The Lancet, November 2020)

TRUTH OR DARE: Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin therapy at a higher dose improved survival by nearly 200% in ventilated COVID patients. (Medical Life Sciences News June 2021)

Ok. It is clear. NEWER research has indicated some benefit using HCQ with or without other pharmaceuticals in the treatment of Covid-19 in different settings and for different medical complications. (I REPEAT ‘indicating’ vs ‘Proven through a clinical trial’). To understand and clearly demonstrate what is now being reported is obviously overwhelming and daunting, even as a nurse who has (attempted) over the past year to stay informed and current with most leading medical journals. I shall ATTEMPT here to help us understand what may OR MAY NOT be different in regard to the efficacy to the lay person of this medication. However, Let me be clear! FOXNews and other like media are running away with this unclear and sketchy information. Too fast! Too far! While it is clear that there have been some information presented in respected journals reporting a certain amount of efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in various circumstances … this is CLEARLY AFTER more than one year of clinical-based studies, and I take offense at the reports I have recently heard such as ‘Trump was right all along’, as I stated earlier. In early Spring of 2020 there were, in fact, FEW studies linking this treatment protocol with significant positive medical outcome with patients. Mr Trump WAS NO MEDICAL CLAIRVOYANT! As usual, his unscientific rhetoric was clearly that – premature, hyperbolized and under-researched. His motives also equally as obvious…to gain attention to his need to be a god-like problem solver…to be The Savior to suit his own ego. I will stop this insert now with some facts, which I am certain, will be retracted, modified or enhanced at some point in the near future…as WE ALL MUST FOLLOW CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WHICH IS FLUID AND TRANSPARENT. The research on this topic is vast and can be arduous and elaborate. I shall keep this blog as concise and abbreviated as possible.

The Truth as I see it

Can Hydroxychloroquine be effective against COVID-19? That is THE question. The likelihood is that we’ll never know or not know for quite some time. For scientific research is not easy and it is not an uncommon situation in medical science. Should pre-menopausal women start mammograms at 35? 40? Does lowering dietary sugar intake reduce mortality? Can exposure to the weed-killer Roundup cause cancer in humans? After decades of research, these questions remain with researchers on opposing sides, recommending antithetical courses of action. Such is the case with hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy for Covid-19. As the pandemic overwhelms us all, forcing doctors to make urgent choices, decisions about this drug’s use will continue to be determined by a combination of science and politics. For as it stands now, in the United States, media, politics and science remain unsettled and contradictory. Other countries such as Italy and China remain more positive. And this for obvious reasons and other factors.

In the study, “Chloroquinine/Hydroxychloroquinine for prevention and treatment of COVID19” published: 12 February 2021, the authors clearly write that HCQ for people infected with COVID‐19 has ‘little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation’. The adverse events were seen as tripled compared to placebo, with few serious adverse events. It went on to state that the results make it less likely that the drug is effective in safeguarding people from infection. ‘It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results’.

In Medical News Today by Jennifer Huizen March 4, 2021 the following was published:

  • Laboratory-based studies and non-randomized preliminary studies in humans initially led researchers and public health officials to support the use of hydroxychloroquine as a potential preventive treatment for COVID-19.
  • However, as researchers gathered more evidence, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) eventually revoked their emergency use authorization for treating COVID-19. Now, based on the findings of a new analysis, an international panel of experts strongly advises against the use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19.
  • These recommendations could help reduce the risk of experiencing adverse side effects from taking hydroxychloroquine unnecessarily.
  • The guidelines could also help encourage the exploration of other therapies with more promising results.

Medical News Release March 2021, “The end of Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19” states that hydroxychloroquine had no effect in treating people with COVID-19. The results of the remote randomized, placebo-controlled trial were published Feb. 27 in E Clinical Medicine which elucidates on the trial utilizing 630 participants. However the trial enrollment was stopped in August at 231 participants due to very few people having progressive COVID-19. The primary clinical outcome of the study was progression of COVID-19 to pneumonia or hospitalization. Outcome was that there was no faster resolution of symptoms among people receiving hydroxychloroquine or hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin compared to placebo. This data are consistent with multiple other randomized trials that have shown that hydroxychloroquine has no benefit in the outpatient or inpatient setting for treatment of COVID-19.

Again, I ask that readers please understand that I am randomly choosing studies and entries that appear understandable and legitimate. The entries I am presenting have been chosen due to their clarity, veracity and timeliness. Because the research is vast and complicated … I choose to present viable studies that are as understandable as possible to you as readers.

To continue, the following is from Medical Life Sciences News June 2021 : This study, by Dr. Lijo Thomas, is described as the first clinical study to demonstrate the remarkable benefit of using cumulative doses of HCQ>3g/AZM>1g, (Hydroxychloroquine plus Azithromycin) to those not treated with this combination. One immediately would ask why a study such as this having such a marked effect miss observation? It is explained that that HCQ produces its benefit by cumulative effects on the target cells, which is weight-dependent. The failure to treat patients with weight-adjusted doses leads to ineffective treatment and outcomes biased towards lighter patients. The study concluded that HCQ is both safe and tolerable at higher doses, as shown in studies of rheumatoid arthritis or lupus. Such high doses for such long durations have not been used to treat COVID-19. The earlier studies claiming prolongation of the QTc duration with HCQ in COVID-19 treatment are shown to be flawed. Indeed, available data suggests that this finding is due to the underlying illness itself.

Again, findings from The American Journal of Emergency Medicine February 2021 show that hydroxychloroquine is safe for COVID-19 and not associated with a risk of ventricular arrhythmia due to drug-induced QTc interval prolongation. Additionally, hydroxychloroquine was well tolerated, and there were no drug-related non-serious adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the majority of patients who were stable and did not require hospitalization. In “BMC Infectious Diseases” January 2021, again, this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infected non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. However, it was noted that additional exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient population is warranted.

As well, a team at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan studied 2,541 patients hospitalized with a COVID-related admission between March 10 to May 2, 2020. Their analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped saves lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. ‘As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.’ The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy alone and in combination with azithromycin in patients with the virus.The study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with the drug.

Based on the initial early experimental data of CQ and HCQ for treatment of SARS-CoV-2, the regimen received an emergency usage authorization from the FDA for COVID-19 on March 28, 2020. However, the two largest RCTs (Randomized Control Trials) data to date showed no clinical advantage of HCQ treatment in COVID-19 patients. As a result, the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization of this regimen. In terms of prophylaxis, one RCT showed no evidence of post-exposure prevention from COVID-19. Despite the initial promising findings in the in vitro studies and the widespread use of CQ/HCQ in clinical settings during the 1st wave of COVID-19, current data from well-designed randomized controlled trials showed no evidence of benefit from CQ/HCQ supplementation for the treatment or prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Particularly, the two largest randomized controlled trials to date both confirmed that CQ/HCQ regimen does not provide any clinical benefit for COVID-19 patients.

Ok. There you have it. Confusing? Truly? I think NOT. Clearly, whatever positive results I reported as well as the many others I did not include were in fact predicated on factors not applicable nor acceptable to be considered true viable random control studies. And, in concluding I am fairly confident in reporting that the use of HCQ alone or in conjunction with other medications is not viable in preventing nor effectively lessening the morbidity of COVID-19. If must be noted, as well, that this blog does not include any information nor research on any COVID19 variants. The bottom line can be said that HCQ, in properly executed trials, has NOT shown benefit in reducing death. Also, concerns over the benefit vs risks regarding cardiac anomalies remain and that multiple public health organizations (FDA, NIH, and WHO) continue to recommend AGAINST THE USE OF HCQ based on reputable studies. I sincerely hope that future randomized and controlled studies will be ongoing. And I am secure in knowing that our current administration will accurately present and update our citizens on this issue in the most professional, honest and transparent manner. The TRUTH will prevail and I personally DARE the former guy to refute these words. PLEASEREADTHIS🗽

Lori and Chad Day “Bell, Book & Candle”

Wiki says: “The phrase “bell, book, and candle” refers to a Latin Christian method of excommunication by anathema (formal curse ) imposed on a person who had committed an exceptionally grievous Sin”. In 1958 it was made into an American fantasy comedy romance film based on the successful 1950 Broadway play by John Van Druten, about a witch living in New York City. The Rolling Stones song “Winter” from their 1973 album Goats Head Soup is the lyric But I been burnin’ my bell, book and candle. Ok. That’s the story of my storyline. And although anything but a comedy, the murderous saga of Lori Vallow Daybell and her accomplices is one deserving of an excommunication from life.

You know I love writing about crime, quite divergent from being a crime writer. Many of my blogs concern crime in different ways. This one tells a story. A story so utterly reprehensible that it sickens me to write this. Yet I do. Maybe you can help me, because my story involves the difficulty in deciphering true mental illness from deception and why, in some instances, it doesn’t matter. We saw it with Anthony Monteheeler from Oregon. Kenneth Bianchi in California, Mr Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and most recently, Robert Durst. It’s called malingering and it CAN be an effective ploy for criminal behaviors. Accused criminals frequently feign mental illness as a ploy to hinder prosecution and evade or lessen their sanctions. It has been said that 17.5 percent of the convicted criminals investigated by researchers were found to have feigned mental illness. You see this is the problem. My problem. And your problem. Making that judgement call and how to reconcile your feelings toward the malice of the crime. The sordid story of Lori Vallow shall be synopsized first. I shall do it succinctly. Then let’s explore this ‘malingering’ theory and it’s pretense to this criminal case. But first! You must KNOW the following timeline, crafted painfully, from a tome of sources with immense amounts of information:

1990: Chad and Tammy Daybell marry. They live in Utah and have five children

2006: Lori Ryan marries her fourth husband, Charles Vallow. Lori has a son, Colby and a daughter, Tylee Ryan.

July 2014: Lori and Charles adopt J.J. Vallow, the grandchild of Charles’ sister, Kay Woodcock.

Fall 2014: Lori reads the work of author Chad Daybell, who authored several books chronicling ‘the end of times’, marketed toward The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints followers. These readings entice Lori. She commences an online relationship with Chad. Mr Daybell’s work champions the second coming of Jesus Christ, after the world would be destroyed by catastrophic disasters.

Fall 2018: Lori meets Chad Daybell in person at a conference, where he tells her that her husband, Charles Vallow, is a ‘zombie’.

January 3019: Charles Vallow reports his wife to police concerned for her mental health, thinking she may hurt the children

February 2019: Charles Vallow files for divorce and full custody of child JJ.

July 2019: Lori Vallow’s brother, Alex Cox, shoots Charles Vallow, telling police it was in self defense.

August 2019: Lori and her brother move to Rexburg with Tylee and JJ

September 2019: Lori believes the children are possessed by ‘zombies’. Although Chad Daybell is married, he is seen in public with Lori showing affection towards her. This appears to be the last public sighting of JJ.

October 2019: Tammy dies in her sleep. Chad declines to have an autopsy performed.

November 2019: Lori marries Chad Daybell. Police alerted and inquire about JJ’s whereabouts. Police search Lori’s storage unit and find belongings of children. Police open a missing person’s case and FBI becomes involved.

December 2019; Tammy DAYBELL’s remains exhumed and deemed ‘suspicious’. Lori and Chad fly to Hawaii without Tylee and JJ. Alex Cox found dead in his home. ( ‘Natural Causes’). Court documents state “We have found no witnesses who can verify they have seen [Tylee Ryan] since September 8, 2019.”

January 2020: Court orders Lori to produce her children to the Rexburg Police Department or the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare by Jan. 30, 2020. Lori fails to produce Tylee and J.J.

February 2020: Lori is arrested at the couple’s townhouse in Kauai, Hawaii and charged with two felony counts of desertion of a child, as well as misdemeanor charges of resisting and obstructing an officer, solicitation of a crime, and contempt according to a news release.

March 2020: Lori is extradited to Rexburg, and her bail is set at $1 million. Chad remains free spending most of his time talking to Lori while she is behind bars.

June 2020: FBI pulls cell phone data and find that one day after visiting Yellowstone, Cox’s cell phone showed that he was at Lori’s home from 2:42 to 3:37 a.m. At 9:21 a.m., his cell phone pinged at Chad’s backyard, showing Cox stayed there for more than an hour. On Sept. 23, 2019, Cox’s phone showed he was at Chad’s house again from 9:55 to 10:12 a.m. (East Idaho News). Investigators search Chad’s property and find two sets of remains, which are later identified as Tylee and J.J. Police arrest Chad and he’s charged with concealing, destroying, or altering evidence, and he is held on a $1 million bond. He pleads not guilty to all charges.

June 2020: Lori appears in court to face two charges of conspiracy to commit destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence. Three additional misdemeanor charges — resisting or obstructing officers, criminal solicitation to commit a crime, and contempt of court — were also filed. She pleads not guilty. Chad also charged with two additional felony counts of conspiracy to commit destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence.

July 2020: Lori’s trial for the three misdemeanors is set for January 2021.

August 2020: Chad pleads not guilty to the four felony charges against him. His trial is set for January 2021.

September 2020: Lori pleads ‘not guilty’. Her trial set for April 2021. Investigators continue to probe Charles Vallow’s death and possibility of Lori’s involvement.

June 2021: Lori Vallow Daybell is committed to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. She is deemed ‘not fit for trial’. She may be committed for up to 90 days before Judge reassesses competency.

Following the antics of this cast of characters and their heinous behaviors, I choose to discuss the case of Lori Daybell. Not to imply that Chad isn’t worthy of character dissection. But truly, where do you start with this family (an undeserving nomenclature) ? Details of which might shock Dennis Rader or Gary Ridgeway. Six deaths. Two children most assuredly murdered. And four suspicious deaths. Clearly a story written by the devil. This tangled web of missing children and mysterious deaths surrounding these two characters appears to be written by an overzealous apprentice. Putting aside the prophesied death of Tammy Daybell and the passing of Lori’s brother, who killed her first husband in what he claimed was “self-defense.” Whew! And, I am certain, the hideous chapters of this wild drama is not nearly complete. And so, here it goes…

To begin to even attempt to discuss Lori I deem it necessary to outline the tenets of what philosophy/religion/cult she aspired to in fueling her behaviors. What was contained in Mr DAYBELL’s writings that could possibly provoke a ‘normal’ and mentally healthy person to be persuaded to believe her children ‘zombies’? What macabre human could pronounce such convictions. And what fit human would ascribe to such pure nonsense?

According to Chad’s beliefs, their mission is to “prepare the people of this earth for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.” Called ‘Preparing a People’, these teachings supposedly focus on self-reliance and personal preparation. This 51-year-old author, had penned and self-published more than 15 books for Mormon audiences including fantasies of a “dystopian world wrought by bioterrorism attacks and catastrophic natural disasters.”

Over the years, Lori became increasingly dominated by these beliefs since first becoming acquainted with Chad’s books. In June, Lori Daybell’s defense attorney requested a psychological evaluation for his client in March. A licensed clinical psychologist met with her in the Madison County Jail on several occasions and determined the defendant was not competent to proceed for trial and recommended restorative treatment. Yet, ultimately, competency determination is a judicial ruling and does not determine mental illness or not. It simply means the comprehension or understanding of the proceedings against any defendant.

In order for Lori to be ‘competent for trial’, Idaho Law states she must understand the proceedings against her and be able to assist in her own defense. And if the judge determines she cannot, the hearings are put on hold for 90 days. Evidently, there is no insanity defense in Idaho, and it is “very, very rare” for a case to be paused and never resume because of a competency issue. There have been cases where mental health issues can be used to delay justice, but Idaho law requires that the defendants understand the proceedings against them.

I want to discuss the concept of ‘Malingering’ and as it relates to Lori Daybell. It can be described as a purposeful production of falsely or exaggerated physical and/or psychological symptoms with the goal of receiving a reward or positive response to this behavior. A malingerer might try to raise the temperature of a thermometer by placing it next to a light bulb or gag oneself for the appearance of true regurgitation. Malingerings are not always easy to detect, because of the wide range of possible falsified or exaggerated symptoms, as well as the struggle in obtaining overt evidence. And, even proficient clinicians may not be able to proffer an accurate diagnosis. It must be made clear that malingering is not a psychiatric disorder. Nor is it somatic, where real psychological distress. It is much more sinister in that it can lead to abuse of the medical system in terms of time and money. Keep this in mind in pursuing the case of Ms Daybell. For we must not forget her words, as spoken by her longstanding close friend, that she believed her children had been transformed into ‘zombies’. And that a ‘zombie’ was, an individual whose mortal spirit has left their body and that their body is now the host of another spirit. Apparently, this spirit was necessarily a dark one, taking over the person and leaving them in limbo. According to Lori, the only way to free them was by killing their physical body.

This is where it gets complicated, as the law is complex in terms of one’s ‘mental state’ vs ‘insanity’. Under legal terms a person is insane if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he or she lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law. Note! This definition concerns that person’s state of mind at the time of the crime. This definition has endured over the years with small changes within a few particular states. Regarding whether a person was insane at the time of the crime is different from the question of whether a person is able to continue to trial and can effectively aid and collaborate with their counsel. The first question has to do with the circumstances at the time of the crime and the second has to to with the overall capacity of the person and the person’s ability at the time of the trial.

To further complicate this discussion, enters the dueling concepts of “Burden of Proof” vs “Standard of Proof”. This must be considered and I shall do so briefly. Simply, the burden lies on the prosecution. The standard of proof in a criminal case could be quantified as being 99% sure. The legal standard for a civil case, by the prevalence of evidence, could be quantified as being 51% sure. However, an insanity defense is one of the few times it is acceptable to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. The defense must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime. However, although Idaho abolished insanity defense, law allows mental disease or defect to be claimed. The law’s definition of insanity vs societal definition of insanity are very different. A jury or a judge, acting as the finder of fact, will have to determine beyond a reasonable doubt, that a mental disease or defect interfered with their ability to form the necessary mental state for a crime to declare them insane. The judge or jury will look at the evidence, including the testimony of mental health experts, to decide that. This is important as clearly we have seen that Lori Daybell had a psychological examinations in the past. And, from all accounts, she was not found to have mental disease or defect. Although mental illness could have developed in the interim, prosecutors will surely use that prior evaluation to suggest that Lori is malingering, the concept previously discussed. Is having bizarre religious beliefs that you use to justify committing a crime proof of mental disease or defect? That is the question and it might be just the opposite.

Currently Lori is being evaluated to see if she can be treated or not and be brought back into competency. It is NOT a question of whether she understands everything. She must have the ability to understand the charges against her and. As explained earlier, have the ability to help her attorney in her defense. Perchance there is the possibility that she had a mental breakdown and/or need psychiatric medication. Or, is she so embroiled in her macabre ‘religious’ beliefs that she is clearly brainwashed? … is there the possibility that she could be restored to typical thinking? These filings, however, do NOT denote insanity because you could be insane at the time that a crime is committed but still be competent to stand trial. And, as you know, means you have to understand what the charges are, communicate with your attorney and be able to assist in your defense.

Because Idaho has no insanity defense, defendants with mental illness typically plead guilty to lesser charges and rely on judges to take mental health into account at sentencing. Some lawyers and psychiatrists say this doesn’t provide enough protection against the death penalty or long incarceration. As professor Aliza Cover of the University of Idaho Law School explains, “In Idaho, you have the unusual circumstance that someone who couldn’t even be convicted in another state could be executed.” With this said, the Hinckley trial highlights the difficulty of a system that forces jurors to label a defendant either “sane” or “insane” when the defendant may in fact be close to the middle on a spectrum. This trial, perhaps better than any other famous trial, reveals the difficulty of ascertaining what exactly is going on in the head of another human being–and then in using that imperfect knowledge to answer a legal question that reduces complex and changing mental states to an inadequate and simplistic decision.

But what of CRIMINAL INTENT? We’ve all heard of it, especially if you are an aficionado of the LAW AND ORDER series…. most notably LAW AND ORDER: CRIMINAL INTENT. For this franchise focuses heavily on the motives and actions of the criminals, paralleling the investigation with scenes of the suspects’ lives that show the audience circumstances that the investigators can, at most, only attempt to deduce. Now, in this case, what does CRIMINAL INTENT mean, and why does it matter? In many cases, you must have intent to commit a crime to be found guilty of it. Even people who attempt to commit a crime can be charged with it even if they were not successful – as long as they had intent. Likewise, someone who accidentally harmed someone is not guilty unless he or she intended to do that harm. Criminal intent is very important and often a pivotal point in criminal cases. The Supreme Court established intent as what distinguishes criminal conduct and innocent conduct, so the prosecution must prove the defendant had intent and knowingly committed or attempted to commit the crime. One must have knowledge of his or her misconduct to be guilty of a crime but does not necessarily need to know the misconduct was illegal. What does this mean regarding Ms Vallow?


If, in fact, Lori’s attorney tries the insanity defense, most sources I have researched agree that it is doubtful that this tactic would be successful. Would Lori agree with this decision? For clients with this level of offensiveness and grandiosity, as demonstrated historically by Lori, are unlikely to give consent to this ploy. Also, the judge or jury would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that this mental disease or defect kept her from understanding that what she was doing was wrong or being capable of following the law. So, I guess if you truly give it some thought.. IF you KNOW something is in fact WRONG….and if you ARE ABLE to follow the law… then if you choose NOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW… is this not the definition of CRIMINAL INTENT?

Right now Lori Vallow is in the process of ‘being restored’. Sounds like a show on HGTV. Will she get a clinically sound diagnosis? Will the appropriate medications be prescribed? Will she agree to be medicated? Would, in fact, medications work? Too many question for a case with too many variables. Legally, medically, morally, ethically …. There are no speculations being made. There are only two certainties at this point. Regardless of Lori’s mental state and criminal intent… two children are dead and she is clearly responsible. A fact as sad as the sordid story behind it. And only she knows intent. Perhaps we never will know.

“Do to the book, quench the candle, ring the bell’…meaning that the service book is closed, the candle put out, and the passing bell rung, as a sign of spiritual death. The closing words of the rite of Excommunication.

Justice WILL prevail here be it in a courtroom or a place of higher ground. This I know. And this I do understand. PLEASEREADTHIS 🗽

When Good Things Happen to Bad People?

In 1981 Harold Kushner wrote the book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People”. He stresses that God does not cause our suffering, but rather that the ‘unchanging laws of nature” cause human afflictions such as illness, accidents, etc. He argues that God exists and does not specifically cause our sufferings. Tragedy and loss are certainties, and as we try to make sense of what’s happened, we usually have a deluge of questions and emotions. Clearly this belief can be scary to those who believe in ‘Divine Intervention’. Those who rely or even expect ‘help’ by their God. Kushner explains that it is this that enables sufferers to feel angry at their loss, and yet still love God. Kushner goes on to propose: “Let me suggest that the bad things that happen to us in our lives do not have a meaning when they happen to us. . . . But we can redeem these tragedies from senselessness by imposing meaning on them”. Kushner, a Rabbi, who tragically lost his son to a terminal disease, suggests that we need to change our perception of God. Rather than seeing God as all-powerful and all-knowing, we should acknowledge that He may not be able to control what happens to us. Events are often random, and He cannot keep good people safe. Wow! This is a difficult concept to grasp, because is it not human nature to look for cause and effect, even when it’s non-existent. For everyone will have to deal with hardships sometime during their lives. and, when tragedies occur, we ALL need to find a way to make sense of them so we don’t feel bitter and cheated.

Now because this blog is not intended to be a book review, I will attempt to defer from Kushner’s theological theories. as wise and insightful as they are. In sneering the question posed here, conversely, I want to ask the opposite? Why do good things happen to bad people? Perchance this will benefit our query. Conceivably, all is plain random. Aren’t most life events just so damn indiscriminate? Accidental? Promiscuous? For there will always be a certain number of baddies that are simply going to get their share of good luck. Maybe “the devil” is ruling the universe and he or she likes pleasing his or her followers. Maybe God is pranking bad people by rewarding them on earth and then punishing them in eternity! For evil to triumph less, does it not follow that good people need to expose wickedness when they come up against it? Let’s do some probing…

Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction – cause and effect. There’s another interesting word to describe this universal law: karma. I want to believe in karma. Wiki says: Karma (ˈkɑːrmə/; Sanskrit: means action, work, or deed…the spiritual principle of cause and effect, often descriptively called the principle of karma. And so do you, since Karma can makes sense of the universe and of our lives. It feels like it condones our personal morality and our behavior. Karma can honor those who take the ‘higher road’ and punish the selfish…the cheaters. Now I fully accept that bad things can happen to good people. But when good things happen to bad people, I become enraged. I ruminate on ‘that’s not fairness’. I deeply resent! Begrudge! Take offense! There are people walking around on this earth who aren’t well meaning, kind, ethical, moral…and many of them live terrific lives. I know some. We ALL know some. And don’t we all know this to be true? It’s prevalent.Acceptable. And most heinously revered! Some of these people will eventually get their ‘comeuppance’ and suffer a bit. A wrecked car with no ‘real’ injuries. Money lost on a stock investment. A bout of shingles. The kid didn’t get into Georgetown. A shot of rotten luck, but –to my great discontent- many of them won’t!Off they go to Hawaii for the holidays and will continue to live lives blessed with health, money, great jobs, good hair, thin ankles and even long-suffering, loving partners. U G H!

We teach our children that if they work hard and follow the rules they will succeed. Liars, swindlers, grifters and cheaters will not! They’ll end up in the gutter. Or jail. Most certainly will burn in hell. And if you stay the course of fairness and goodness, you will be rewarded in the end. You will be happy and and prosperous. Your good deeds will pay off. But the BAD? The bad will fail and pay for their selfish and sinful deeds. Hmmm…. We KNOW this is at least a half truth. A wishful piece of advice which is clearly almost silly, simple- minded and clearly not the way it really goes. Life is not nearly so predictably black and white.

Maybe the question really is, ‘Why do bad people deserve good things? Growing up we all learn to root for the good guy and we hope the bad guy loses. When we watch movies and the main bad character wins, we become furious. However, in the end we celebrate the grand slam of the hero and deride the loser bad guy. “Haha…Serves you right!” we say. And so in our personal lives we expect this same narrative. We are always the protagonist. The good guy, pushing aside all the bad people in our way. We should win and the bad guys should lose. They ‘deserve’ all the bad that is coming them.

Returning to the concept of Karma, we all need to believe it’s there and that it will enter and take over. For if the world is not fundamentally morally good, what is the meaning of the universe? And, likewise, if someone can be happy being a horrible person… then WHY do we consistently strive to be good? Maybe I’ve got it all wrong and need to rephrase…

But in real life, have you noticed this is not always the way? Donald Trump is still engaging crowds and golfing in Florida and New Jersey. Tucker CARLSON IS STILL ON TV!!! OJ Simpson is still breathing. Casey Anthony is still blogging. These people may and are [in their own way] living their lives and progressing. The Kushner’ s resorts are thriving. Bob Durst is still alive! Giuliani is not in jail (yet). Slumlords are prancing in The Hamptons and the Jose Baez family are flourishing in Florida. We are just waiting for the shoe to fall… but does it? Our antagonists are not standing still. Not stagnating…. They still got the money, the job, the status… IS. THIS. FAIR?

However …Do we really Know these people? They certainly have their villains, their skeletons, their secret weaknesses and demons. But we are blinded. We don’t see this. because we don’t want to. We almost enjoy the resentment we feel. This make us want and need more than most. For no criminal kills to brag about the murder. And no arsonist starts fires to show off their destruction. We do not always see what motivates these behaviors, their life events, the triggers, the provocations subsequent to these destructive behaviors. And…{and you may not like this part}…maybe these ‘bad’ people just DO have the competence, intelligence and aptitude to get ahead. To succeed. They were able to get the law degree. To get into Harvard Law. To earn enough money to buy the house in Bridgehampton. And, to have the five healthy beautiful children. But? Hmmm…. Are they liked in the office? Do the kids respect their parents? Are the neighbors happy? Did they get voted ‘Most Likable’ in their High School yearbook?

Uh oh. Now for the hard part. What makes us think we are any better than them? ‘Bad’ people deserve ‘good’ things as much as we do. Do we not do ‘bad’ things? Things that have a negative effect? Do we then not deserve good things? When we do hurtful things do we not still not have the right to enjoy a fruitful life? Maybe we think that anyone who is bad cannot and should not enjoy prosperity? But why? As punishment? As a consequence of unethical living? Should we just deprive them of food and oxygen to die a slow death?

Well..well….Wouldn’t that then make us the bad people? C’mon… we know all this is hogwash. Life is not so black and white and we know this! It’s a childish and ignorant assumption. A left-over from our childhood. The fact is that everyone has good and bad traits. And thus, is it sensible that we spurn others whose sense of ‘evil’ is a different species? Takes a different modus operandi?Maybe more intense, but our wrongdoings are and must be seen as equally ‘bad’. For who are we to judge ‘badness’. Evil is evil. And we are naive to think differently. Think about it! The more we realize and accept our ‘bad side’ the less resentment we will feel toward our antagonists! For we must see that the people who have wronged us as having a part of us as well! Might we be able to forgive them… through the realization the we may have wronged someone else? I believe that once we can SEE this reality, empathy ensues and changes the whole equation.

You are slowly morphing into a part of what you ‘say’ you hate and soon will begin to understand the ‘why’ the ‘bad’ may have done what they did. This does not make you bad. Why? Because YOU know where to veer off the road…to detour towards the right direction. The better road. The HIGHER ROAD.

I am certainly not expecting most to understand this thinking. But this is what I have learned and I have probably lived a lot longer than most of you. Believe me, I know this to be true and it makes life a lot easier to understand and accept. I guess this is another one of those things where until you experience it you might not get it. And that’s okay because getting there is through growth and learning. Living. A hard lesson but O! What a ride!

Simply put, you are NOT that great. No one is. We all often say ‘Well, I’m not perfect’! Right? Yet ask that person ‘Why’? And to tell you the traits that make them imperfect! Ask them to specifically list what attributes they consider as ‘good’ and then as ‘bad’. It’s NOT EASY. Can they do it? Will they feel shame admitting to the parts of themselves they are so critical of in others? Are these the traits in others that are preventing us from loving others? The traits that we say cause us to alienate us from others? The traits that cause conflict and resentment. Estrangement and contention. It’s scary… isn’t it?

The sooner we’re able to open our eyes to this dichotomy, the sooner the labels of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ start to dissipate. Once we can understand that, essentially, there is something of worth in everyone the sooner we are able to drop the labeling. And, most importantly, stop the assumption that if someone does something we considered ‘bad’ that they ARE BAD. It is only then that we have realized exactly how complex and paradoxical people are. For it is only then that we can accept the intricacies in life where labeling is frivolous and only serves the purpose of division, misunderstanding and indignation. PLEASEREADTHIS 🗽

“88” and The Freud Body/House Equivalence

The subjects of our dreams are effectively motivated by our subconscious and aspects that determine it from thoughts, ideas, and memories. It may just be an indication that there is still certain anxiety or angst that you may be harboring from childhood. … It is very often considered a state of mind, the place where you refined most of your fears. And it is often said that this represents the need to grow up and release things that may be burdening you. I don’t know. There are many theories. Freud and Jung speak of this. Wrote books on how to interpret dreams…subconsciously, analytically and scientifically. We all know this yet that’s not what I want to say here. Save that for another time….or not.

Why do we often dream of the house we grew up in? Do you? I most certainly do and I remain fixated on this theme since I moved from my childhood home in 1969. Dreaming about the home of our childhood seems always to express one’s need for people. People that you haven’t seen for a long time, people you miss. People you love and people you loved. People you wish you were close to. People who you clearly did NOT love. People you have not forgotten … These dreams generally convey your lust for something you continually are denied in life. It is generally accepted that dreams are ALMOST always associated with the present and that our dreams convey mandates to us concerning subsequent life experiences and events.

However, most professionals agree. Childhood is the period of our lives when most personality traits are profoundly developed and our characters shaped. It can be a happy-go-lucky and naive time for us. We feel protected, safe and hopefully loved. We often dream about our childhood when we are experiencing some difficulties in some areas of our lives, whether at work or in our private life, and we subconsciously desire to return back to the carefree times of our childhood past. We often dream about our childhood home when we are confronting some issues which are somehow related to our childhood beliefs. We tend to dream dreams about our childhood home when we feel unhappy in our current life circumstances and we desire support to overcome the negativity we have found ourselves in. We also tend to have dreams about our childhood home during times when we are going through some major changes in our lives, whether good and bad, and our subconscious tends to compare the present circumstances with the ones we experienced way back in our childhood. Often, as in my life, even when your early years were mixed with good/bad times, the fundamental feelings and memories remain a permanent gauge, a barometer of what to consider as peace and tranquility. Even if these years were interspersed with disruption and confusion. Possibly you are experiencing some challenging moments in your life, and the dream represents the attempt of your subconscious mind to find some relief in remembering the carefree life in your childhood days.

Dreaming about, in my case, 88 Hillside Road, is an awfully common dream subject for me. It is undoubtedly a weekly occurrence. No kidding. The house is basically the same but the themes, players and situations quite divergent, offbeat, bizarre. I must say they are vivid, colorful, entailed and nearly always positive. Actually comical in retrospection. And as I have recently discovered in conversing with my children, they speak of this phenomenon frequently with their ‘51’. Clearly, they admit to the ‘why’ very openly and appear to accept it without much speculation. They MISS THEIR CHILDHOOD HOME. A common dinner table discussion. They unabashedly feel that this ‘51’ was ‘torn away from them unfairly’. Unable to grasp the concept of 30 thousand yearly taxes, these girls haven’t a clue, but are becoming enlightened as time passes…Both girls love to tell me of these dreams. Daresay it’s because ‘their experiences were primarily perfect’ is duly unfair. Yet I did try to make their lives as perfect as possible. Both girls often compare these dreams with each other’s, making it a normal experience. They can laugh or even easily cry in these discussions. It is easy for them. It is fascinating and quite different from my experiences. I deem it unusual and odd, especially these dreams being so frequent. But I am now more accepting of these ‘dreaming’ behaviors…and am now more able to appreciate this anomaly.

However, it is clear to me that in my ‘88’ dreams and these dreams in others happen because we are subconsciously comparing our reality to our childhood days. This is in our nature and will most clearly and easily expressed in our dreams, where no one is judging these thoughts. Maybe your living conditions and life have changed demonstratively and you need to come to terms with the how and why. And, possibly you are quite different from the person you were in childhood and the dream reflects that. This would need some reconciliation somewhere. Somehow. Dreams can serve this purpose not so much to assuage any turmoil but to fundamentally bring it into the scheme of your life

Who knows, but it appears to me that these dreams often appear during times when encountering issues from the past, especially when my mother has a role. Remembrances can be brought to the forefront – having been hidden for a long time. The house rooms, although may look different, can connote a certain memory. Feeling. Smell. Or during periods of vulnerability…loss, disappointment, change. Or. They just happen because of the need for nostalgia. To reminisce. To relive. To feel that way again. It is nearly as strong a need as living the next day. Could it be possible that our subconscious is sending us a message through these dreams that it’s time to confront any resentment or negativity from our earlier years in order to release it? To let it go? Perhaps the implication is that we want to face these historical issues which may be hindering our current growth. Although we’re not always consciously responsive to anything negative from our childhood, in some cases, we are entirely vigilant to their presence. This may stall us and thus prevent our current achievements. Dreaming about our childhood home could also perhaps indicate that some beliefs we keep, dating from our childhood years and that could still be active, represent a limiting factor to one’s progress and achievement of desires? I daresay I do not want to explore this avenue any further. Inferring this rationale is my destination.

Although we might not always be consciously aware of the issues and resentments we have from the period of our childhood, in some cases, we are totally aware of their presence and the fact that they are bothering us and preventing our current achievements. This attitude could be detrimental for one’s personal progress, be it in relationships or personal goals.

And finally, like alluded to earlier, a dream about our childhood home is a way for our subconscious mind to take us to a more pleasant place in time to help us find retreat from the unpleasant circumstances we are currently experiencing. If your childhood home was a comfy and secure place and you are currently not doing well in life, you can be sure that the dream is a way that your subconscious uses to protect you at least during night from feeling bad and desperate. It could also be the discovery of a truth about something from your childhood that you hoped would never be revealed and now you feel desperate because is revealed. And, perhaps this dream can assist to finally get rid of some painful issues from your childhood or releasing yourself from some negative influences from that period of your life. I know this to be true. It doesn’t resolve issues but may certainly benefit your overall gestalt of what made you who you are today. And discovering some reasons behind it all.

In concluding, I must emphasize that these dreams are VERY SPECIAL. They are personal, exclusive and insightful. They should not be ignored and you must consider yourself fortunate to experience them, especially if they keep recurring. When experiencing them, pay attention to the state of your feelings, be they positive or negative. Life is a stew of the good and the bad. The pretty and the ugly. The happy and the sad. Try to remember the details and relish them. Remember colors, the feelings, the sights, sounds smells. For doing this can expand your understanding of who you were, who you are now, and most importantly, who you would like to be. Don’t be scared. Remember …. The past does not dictate the future, but rather enrich it. We might as well use all the supplies we have to ensure our personal well- being and growth. PLEASEREADTHIS 🗽

The evolution of humor: is it still funny?

Humor is complex. It often leads to laughter and can principally be seen as verbal or non-verbal behaviors. We know that. Those witty New Yorker cartoons…the belly aches you feel when you KNOW you shouldn’t laugh. The site of someone tripping then pretending it didn’t happen…the remembrances of something hysterical that makes you guffaw in the middle of a meeting…Humor is integral to human nature and and is almost always pleasing to engage in. The reasons for why we have evolved a sense of humor remains confusing and nearly unsolved, at least for me. My sister and I have spent countless hours discussing this phenomenon. Truth is, we are compelled to watch the Airplane movie series yearly, while family members overtly show their disgust at our boisterous cackling. I mean… Barbara Billingsley’s (the Beaver’s mom) ‘jive talk’ transforms us into non-human hyenas. The ‘Take some pictures’ line in the airport throws me on the floor spewing saliva, disgusted by all in the room. Although a ‘slapstick’ genre…these 70’s and 80’s reality/parody flicks were my cat’s meow. I was never engaged by the Laurel & Hardy duet, nor by the absurd antics of those 3 Stooges. I endearingly recall thinking the Smother’s Brothers entertainingly funny, yet I would no sooner spend ANY time watching a rerun of those siblings…. Give me ‘Bridesmaids’ daily, yet I have no interest in an Abbott and Costello skit. I KNOW that, artistically, Laurel & Hardy, The Marx Brothers et al are probably revered for their satire and sarcasm, but it is lost on me. I see the Stooges as buffoons, artless clowns. Well, SHAME ON ME!!! I mean, I understand these acts have a cult like following now… but maybe I’m just too old to appreciate that dumb-and-dumber spirit. But! Never did. I guess the world is divided into two groups: those who laugh at these entertainers and those who continually say ‘WHY’?

Just as our ancient ancestors have evolved to enjoy simple play behaviors, early grunting/laughing sounds, that occurred during the process of comedic evolution, so too can we highly evolved humans enjoy a good poop joke. Even though the humor that we appreciate today involves much more content with abstract and symbolic meaning than with physical play, the impact is no less real. Humor can be seen as a form of play, and even at more sophisticated levels with complicated thoughts and ideas, is associated with positive emotions, and with positive feelings about others. Humor, positive emotions, and stronger interpersonal bonds operate in mutually reinforcing circles which incites humor. And, thus enforces our behaviors to seek individuals with whom we can laugh and feel closer.

Humor and laughter are closely related but are not synonymous. Humor is also a person’s ability to find amusement or comedy in something. Comedy is entertainment for the intention of laughter, however does not necessarily lead to laughter. Comedy is fluid. And personal. And utterly confounding. It is probably a major in higher education so I dare not try to explain it in lay terms. It is complex, difficult to produce, and highly appreciated. These are qualities that might typically be associated with many things that are integral to our survival and therefore sustains its own expensive survival. Clearly, it has seen a remodeling over the past decades. The 1950’s style of comedy showed us that women can be funny and, man, I just EXPLODED with the appreciation of an “I Love Lucy” episode. Her ‘molded’ putty- disguised nose, aflame, while conversing with William Holden, made my young life complete. ‘Made’??? I dare watch it now for fear of falling off my desk chair. Her antics never disappointed and I have probably watched that trailer movie a dozen times. By the 60’s the political and satirical comedy of George Carlin , Lenny Bruce and the like were certainly appreciated, though lacked, for me, that certain perfect amount of ‘silliness’ I so craved. The British humour of the 80’s were, for me, enticing, as Monty Python was a powerful seduction. The 90’s brought stand-up and my ADORATION for Seinfeld has never abated. The clever, dynamic and plain just funny antics of that troupe of offbeat zany characters never failed to cause a genuine guttural guffaw over each and every episode. The pirate shirt, large hands, soft talker and grassy knoll showed me a level of humor I never thought possible.

I guess the evolution of comedy has brought to us all not only different methods of delivery … but also has brought to light the unspoken taboos and secrets of humanity. And, HUMOR is most certainly a captivating cognitive function. The relative comfort we have in feeling it and using it belies it’s complexity. Humor can build and damage, strengthen and weaken, celebrate and slander. And even can do all at the same time. This complexity is what makes it so appealing and entrancing. So enjoyable and engaging. Well… I must go now. I just rented Airplane, you know, the one with the singing nun who nearly suffocated that little girl…. PLEASEREADTHIS 🗽