Follow-Up Videos On Ri and Cam

See how strong they are? The latter three videos were recorded on the day after their teeth-cleaning surgery. Incidentally, another part of why Reilly needs a "Poppa" is that a "Poppa" for Reilly could probably help "Momma" keep things nice and clean for Reilly, since "Momma" has a little bit of a hard time doing that partly due to Cerebral Palsy. 

Frustration With the Lack Of Webcam-Upload Restoration Technology On YouTube

Also see my previous blog entries on this subject.

Update On Reilly And Camille After Coming Home From Teeth-Cleaning Surgery

Reilly and Camille were definitely back to their normal selves in many ways—for example, they ran out of the back door like I knew that they would when I opened the back door and told them to stay (which is part of why Reilly needs a "Poppa"—he'd have to be strong enough to catch her quickly). To be fair, at least Mom sees that when Reilly and Camille burst out the back door to go eat mulch and dropped bird food is not my fault—even with recovering from anesthesia and being right in front of Mom (as Ri was, and with Cam in her bed), Camille Compadre actually led Reilly Ringleader to run to the mulch and birdfeeder area!

Both Reilly and Camille were sleepy, though, and did feel unstable, whimper, and not eat as much as they normally would eat. Still, Ri did eat some "num nums" and lick her bowl to indicate that she wanted "num nums" in the first place, want belly rubs and to come spend time with her "Momma", give kisses (including a wet-nosed kiss at first), jump up on a chair to snuggle with "Mom-Mom" (and she's not supposed to jump, run, play rough, or climb stairs yet), and growl when she heard noises. As for Cam, she jumped from the car when she first came home, was more relaxed when she heard Mimi's voice on the phone, waited by the gate for "Auntie Nicole" to come downstairs, and followed "Mom-Mom" inside the house when "Mom-Mom" was going to get dinner.

Incidentally, Reilly did listen better and did not bark, given that she's still a little sedated. Meanwhile, Camille can't wait for "Mimi" to come home from a trip up north. 

Put Two Mischevious Puppies Around Laundry Piles, And...

The videos, the uploads of which will follow [as of July 21, 2016; and were uploaded on July 25, 2016], are even funnier.

Imagine If You Will...

The board of directors and shareholders in a given company go to elect a new CEO. The head of the board has his candidate in mind and helps his candidate to override the will of the majority of the board and of the shareholders, and he is complicit with the candidate in unethically and illegally getting the candidate elected to be the CEO. 

Among the unethical and illegal means that he employs and/or encourages are intimidation of board members and shareholders—as well as of any employees whom are not on the board and still have a say, changes in the board-election rules, and forcibly giving all of the votes to his candidate in spite of the protests from those whose votes were forcibly given to a candidate for whom they not vote. The intimidation, by the way, includes violations of the Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity Employment Act—and those violations include death threats.

If only you only imagined that—that is, after all, akin to what happened with the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. In this case, the CEO and the Head Of the Board Of Directors are, respectively, Donald Trump and Reince Priebus. As for the company in this case, it is the Republican Party—its board members, shareholders, and employees are the delegates at the GOP Convention, donors, and the voters. 

Just as the FBI, DOJ, and others would investigate a company such as the one which was described above, the FBI, DOJ, and others will have to investigate Donald Trump and Reince Priebus, among others. By the way, I have received quite a few of the threats, and one fellow Twitter user even admitted to voting for Donald Trump in three states.

My Basic Twitter Philosophy

Update (November 14, 2024 or 12 Cheshvan 5784):

1. If you unfollow me and I am following you, I will unfollow you in turn if I become aware that you have unfollowed me². Since I hold the philosophy that people online are a reflection of whom they are offline (including, as Curt Schilling pointed out, whom they would be offline if they could be that way offline), I have no time for you if you have no time for me, I have, as far as I recall, broken my unfollow-for-unfollow rule only twice, and that includes that I refollowed one person whom'd unfollowed me only because his work in his field is influential enough to merit for him a follow. I will also unfollow you if I recall that you followed me and then unfollowed me after I followed you, whether or not my recollection is correct.
2. If you abuse me in any way on Twitter—for example, if you twist my words (or similarly libel me) and/or engage in Anti-Semitic attacks—I will report and/or block you. ³
3. If you abuse others on Twitter, I will report and/or block you. ³
4. RTs are not endorsements unless the original tweet is favorited and/or the RTs are noted as endorsements of the original tweets. What RTs often are is FOIP (for only informational purposes).
5. While I do "unfollow for unfollow", I do not do "follow for follow"—I follow whom I want to follow, and I will follow those whom follow me if I find them worth following.
6. While and since I won't, and I really even can't, report every abusive instance and/or block every person whom's engaging in abuse, I will call out someone whom's being abusive if I feel (or at least hope) that I can reason with them. ³
7. I get Twitter notifications via text messages—and I don't have a smartphone¹, unlike some of these rich kids and others whom can afford smartphones. As soon as I get a chance to respond to and/or RT tweets, I'll respond to them; and be aware that I can see on my phone what abusive tweets you deleted and/or thought that you blocked from my view—and I will report and/or block you, and/or call you out. ³

Addendum [April 9, 2019/Aviv 3, 5779 (Before sunset)]: 

1. The Democrats & others who want to think that the Modern Right & the Alt Right are the same as well as try to demonize the Modern Right, ignore the #NeverTrump movement are only going to make the #NeverTrump movement fight harder against Trump's trying to destroy the GOP. In other words, their attempts to throw out revisionist tropes and thus give Trump what he wants haven't worked in the way that they wanted it to do so. If you're one of those revisionists and you're thinking about parroting out your revisionism as a response to my tweets, then, please keep away from me. On the flip side, if you're a Trumpite or one who dreads Clinton more than fears Yehovah, also please keep away from me if you're thinking about troping out your own revisionism in response to my tweets. 
2. On that note and a general note, common sense holds that one doesn't have to unnecessarily respond to something that he or she doesn't like. So, please, just don't respond to my tweets if you don't like them and have no reason to respond to them.

Addendum [November 4, 2019/Cheshvan 6, 5779 (Before sunset)]:

If you need a template to write to your Representative about indicting Trump instead of impeaching him:

"Rep. [Whomever]:

"By impeaching Trump, Congress would be handing him 25th Amendment rights and presidential legitimacy. The law (based on the law-from-the-bench principle regarding sitting presidents and indictment) says that one cannot indict a sitting president, but it doesn't say that one can't indict an illegitimate president. The assumption was always that and is that the sitting president had and has to be a legitimate one, since there is the principle behind the law as well as the law itself. Thus, please push for Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the House to acknowledge that Trump is not a legitimate president and thus should not be given impeachment rights, let alone 25th Amendment rights or presidential legitimacy.

"Thank you for your time and consideration of my request."

¹ Addendum: July 2, 2020/10 Tammuz 5780: I do have a smartphone now. It was a gift for Hanukkah, Christmas, and my 30th birthday; and I honestly resisted letting one anyone get me one and using one for a long time. What's not changed: I still block and/or report abusive tweeters.

²Addendum, same date: I realize that part of my problem is that I don't enforce my own unfollow-for-unfollow rule enough (sometimes because I'm unsure right away if someone followed me in the first place). To me, how one interacts with me online tells me how he or she would interact with me offline. In other words, I need to start meaning that I don't have time for anyone whom doesn't have time for me or wants me to have time for him or her. I will thus be enforcing my own rule more.

³ All of that fits my motto, "If you don't stand up to evil, evil will stand you down—and that is evil."

Originally On LinkedIn: Re Sexual Harassment In the Workplace As Manifested By Roger Ailes

Let's face that Roger Ailes sexually harassed Gretchen Carlson, and even an intellectually-honest layperson—including an intellectually-honest aspiring professional—can see that—and at least aspiring professionals can learn from this tragedy while they look to enter the workforce, which may sadly hold incidents of harassment in their futures.

Everyone needs to note, for example, that:

1. Gretchen Carlson filed the lawsuit after she was terminated, and she finally felt free to speak up.
2. Roger Ailes has not pressed criminal-libel and fraud charges. He, however, did try to get the case moved from a New Jersey state court—neutral territory—to federal court—and he, having worked for Richard Nixon, has connections in the federal government.
3. Given that Gretchen Carlson wrote those notes asking for more airtime, one can bet that her contract was breached against her multiple times—e.g., that she was not getting the airtime that her contract stipulated.
4. One can also bet that praise for Ailes that she wrote in her 2015 book was blackmailed out of her.
5. Not only has Gretchen Carlson reached a point—so have six colleagues whom spoke to "The Blaze", with two publicly identifying themselves.
6. Only three ex colleagues have vocally spoken in favor of Roger Ailes and against Gretchen Carlson.
7. One has to now wonder why Alisyn Camerota really left Fox News—what did "more opportunity" really mean?

The victim shaming that Gretchen Carlson has endured, by the way, goes to prove that sexual harassment and other abuse against women is indeed still rampant in the workplace, and inexcusably rampant. In other words, is abuse against women in the workplace excusable since "it happens all the time"?

Good luck to the likes of Roger Ailes, though—Roger Ailes and his ilk will need luck when their careers are ended because of their mistreatments of women and their subsequent inabilities to recruit women as employees.

Even If I Wrote This Before, I'll Write It Again...

1. Whenever I hear "Pigs in a blanket; fry them like bacon!", I am reminded that we still called "pigs" and other slurs; and we face threats of Auschwitz again.
2. When "Black Lives [Really Don't] Matter" targets Jewish bastions and the bastions' vicinities—e.g., Ferguson in St. Louis' vicinity, Northwest Baltimore, where Park Heights is; Baton Rouge, and Dallas—I think of the pogroms, especially since kapo Glenn Greenwald blamed the Mossad for Ferguson (which makes Glenn Greenwald a kapo) and fellow Anti Semites of the "Black Lives [Really Don't] Matter" Movement—such as the Nation Of Islam and the Black Panthers—have joined "Black Lives [Really Don't] Matter".
3. If Black lives really mattered to them, where are they advocating for groups like the Lemba and Falasha? If they're going to parallel Israel:"Palestine" to the police:Black men, why don't go after the real trouble in Israel and its perpetuators: not the "occupation" of "Palestine" and "racist" Jews, but the chokehold of Agudat Yisra'el and Netanyahu on Israel? After all, many Lemba, Falasha who were supposed to make aliyah, and other Black Jews would like to go home; thanks—so would a lot of us Non-Black Jews!

I'd write more if I could (and trust that I wish that I could write more!). Nonetheless, I think that many will get—even if they don't like—my point.

Reilly Agrees With Her "Momma": Reilly Needs A "Poppa"

Reilly's "momma" asked Reilly if she would like a "poppa". If "Momma" should ever be able to find a "Poppa" for Reilly—and obviously, a man for herself—Reilly would prefer to call him...

1. "Tateh"—at least she indicated yesterday.
2. "Daddy", or...
3. "Poppa"

"Poppa" ended up winning out.

To All Philadelphia-Area And Other Christians, Catholic And Otherwise....

Someone needs to break down the controversy regarding Pope Francis And Bishop Chaput in a Biblical manner. Allow me, although I am imperfect, to do that. Thus, let's start with the first point—after all, first things come first:

"Francis didn’t create a church wide admission to Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics as some progressives had wanted. But in the April document, he suggested bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis in what could become a significant development in church practice."

Pope Francis is right, and Bishop Chaput is wrong. According to the Bible (and I'm using the NRSV for the benefit of Catholics here, since many would consider reading a Protestant translation to be heretical and I consider the NIV a heretical translation for good reason):

1. "He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”"
2. Look at how I linked "adultery" in Mark 10:11-12. The root of the word for adultery can also refer to idol worship—arguably, then (as I'd pondered before), adultery can be more than sexual—"lust" (per Matthew 5:27-28) can (as I stated, arguably) be, for example, a lust for power and control, or a lust for alcohol and/or drugs (not legally-prescribed and -used drugs, by the way). In other words, a spouse is technically cheating on the other spouse if he or she is abusive or refusing to be treated for alcoholism and/or drug addiction—he or she is putting his desire for power and control, or his or her craving for alcohol and drugs in the place of his or her spouse.
3. You don't need any understanding of Greek or a concordance to agree with Pope Francis that forbidding widowed spouses and Biblically-divorced divorcees to civilly remarry is wrong.

On the second point with the exception of the subpoint regarding civilly-remarried couples, Bishop Chaput is right:

"The Philadelphia guidelines say Catholics in same-sex partnerships, civilly remarried parishioners and unmarried couples living together should not be permitted to serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful, serve as lectors or dispense Communion."

On this one, I don't even need to quote Tanakh (the Old Testament) or the New Testament. In terms of same-sex romantic relationships of any kind, both Tanakh and the New Testament unequivocally state that same-sex romantic partnerships of any kind—whether same-sex dating, same-sex civil unions, or same-sex marriages—are wrong. Both also state that fornication is wrong, and the case of the Samaritan woman demonstrates that fornication includes non-marital cohabitation that is sexual in nature—remember that she was living with a man to whom she was not married—and as I said, I really didn't need to use quotes: any Christian (Jewish or gentile, Catholic or Non Catholic) and many Non Christians (including many Anusim) are familiar with the prohibitions against homosexual activity and non-marital cohabitations of sexual natures.

(By the way, as I found out a long time ago and for example, my late paternal grandfather used to fall asleep in the back of the church while my paternal grandmother, my father, and my father's two siblings would sit for Mass—trust me when I say that Pop-Pop was a Anusi whom had no interest in Jesus, and I could both give other examples that I haven't given before and regive examples that I have given before. Incidentally, maybe it was actually Pop-Pop whom was more shomer kashrut when he was still alive.

(My point is, of course, that other Non Christians would know since even my Anusi grandfather—a Rushisher-Ungarisher Yid with a father from Lipsk in Suwalki Gubernia and a mother whose parents were from Budapeszt and Locse—knew, and at least his ancestors were well aware of what even the Talmud says about same-sex marriage, and they knew that Tanakh prohibited man-man and woman-woman same-sex romances.).

In conclusion, Score One for Pope Francis—case-by-case analysis per remarriages counts—and Score One for Bishop Chaput—same-sex romantic relationships and non-marital cohabitions of sexual natures are wrong. 

July 5, 1945: On This Day

1. 71 years ago, the USSR murdered resistance fighters in Augustów. Among them were Andrulewicz cousins of mine, as well as a Margiewicz cousin. Because we were and are Anusim and bnei-Anusim, their sides were never recognized as Jews until now. Also, the Holocaust was never recognized as having been in Russia beyond 1945—until the gulags were closed in 1960, Stalin's attempt at a "Final Solution" continued. May all of the more than 6 Million Jews whom were murdered in the Holocaust be counted as Holocaust victims.
2. Also on this day, Julia Fosko Rusnak blessedly died and did not have to see the horrid days coming. Granted that she died a horrible death, which involved surgical complications due to appendix-removal surgery. Still, she was taken from her own bed in the hospital:

"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart, and godly men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He entereth into peace, they rest in their beds, each one that walketh in his uprightness."

By the way, I know that my family gets mad at me for having found out and acknowledged what Andrew Rusnak and Mary Rusnak Gaydos did. Nonetheless, I can and will not change the past, and I have already made clear that I will not blame the Foczkos.

Originally On LinkedIn: Why I Have Nine Pending LinkedIn Invitations: Hint: I'm Not Here To Facebook

The theme of how LinkedIn has gone from a professional-networking forum to a social-media forum with even some cesspool parts has obviously become a recurring theme. I myself have been will be the first to admit that I've probably or even definitely contributed to that in part: i.e., I've likely posted more Facebookesque content and/or content in more of a Facebookesque way than I should have. 

I nonetheless have tried to keep LinkedIn a professional-networking forum on my end, and I've written that I hope that Microsoft's buyout of LinkedIn would affect LinkedIn to rebecome LinkedIn instead of another Facebook, Twitter, or WhatsApp or whatever other "What's that app?" social-media application. By the way, "application" is of course the term that most professionals are supposed to call an "app"—after all, a separation of standard language and colloquialisms/dialects/"slang" exists along with the separation of the professional and personal realms—unless one has to utilize slang terms in his or her field (e.g., if he or she is a general-demographics researcher with Pew or a TMZ reporter, or an analyst and a commentator), he or she might as well leave his or her colloquial way of speaking in his or her personal realm (e.g., at home)!

On that note, one ought to leave—or at least try to leave—his or her way of connecting with people in his or her personal realm—including in regard to how he or she uses social media—within his or her personal realm. For my part, I've either rejected LinkedIn invitations, held off on accepting LinkedIn invitations, and even removed LinkedIn connections; and I've even reported people whose LinkedIn profiles have looked suspicious. 

In conclusion, I suggest that my currently-backlogged connection inviters and others understand—especially if I did not make clear in many of my previous LinkedIn posts—that I'm here to professionally network, not open another social media account, and that I won't be reaching out to or accepting the reachings out of many people—and even on Facebook and other social-media forums that I do use, I don't reach out to or accept the reachings out of many people, even though I'm aspiring to be an analyst and a commentator whom needs to network as much as any other aspiring and professional analyst-commentator needs to network.

Incidentally, while I believe that "to network" is a professionally-acceptable infinitive, and the conjugations thereof are professionally acceptable, I want someone to correct me if my belief is erroneous. 

Originally On LinkedIn: Why I Don't Want To Start Off With An Entry-Level Job: Hint: It's Not Because I Feel Entitled

It's because an entry-level job may be my only job if I were to take one. Having Cerebral Palsy as well as OCD/Anxiety, Depression, and ADD, I am not viewed as an employable person whom happens to have a physical disability and mental illnesses—I am viewed as an unemployable disability and cocktail of mental illness whom is good enough only for an entry-level job if I'm good enough even for that, and never up able to move in the career ladder because I am a disability and cocktail [of] mental illnesses—I am viewed as a would-be embarrassment, liability, expense, and burden to employers.
I know how I'm viewed because I've lived it in all realms of my life—e.g., familial, romantic, academic, and obviously professional. 


That's part of why I'm working on becoming an analyst-commentator and author—I do not want to be viewed as an unemployable disability whom's good only for entry-level jobs if I'm ever be employable at all. I also do not want to be defined by my disabilities—in fact, I just yelled at my sister as I was about to type "stop telling me to be an advocate for people with disabilities":

There you ******* go.

Too many a family member, friend, and other kind of person have suggested that I be an advocate for people with disabilities—just as my sister suggested that I start an organization for people with disabilities—I compare it to when African Americans were viewed as disabilities because of their skin color and definable only by their skin color, which was viewed as a disability.

Just like Martin Luther King, Jr. and other African Americans whom did not want to be defined "by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character", I did and do not want to be viewed as and defined by my Cerebral Palsy, OCD/Anxiety, Depression, and ADD—I want to be defined as an employable person and contributing member of society whom happens to have Cerebral Palsy, OCD/Anxiety, Depression, and ADD.

More About Deeply-Thought-Of Considerations: Why I've Become A Skeptic About Finding Someone (e.g., More Of Part Of the Ugly Part)

Since I have, e.g., Cerebral Palsy and Depression, I might be a burden and medical expense in of myself to many a guy, which is part of what I've considered: I know that many a guy would not end up staying with someone like me in the long term—besides, I need someone whom's physically and mentally stronger than me, and would be willing to be strong enough for me.

I've seriously become a skeptic about finding someone because of that—that is, because I have C.P., Depression, etc.. On one dating website, I had to block one person because of his ableism, etc.. Another, I'm pretty sure, rejected me because of my disability:

"Thank you for the kind message, but unfortunately I'm looking for a different type of girl." 

Yeah; "[d]ifferent type of girl" my tuchus—he could've just been honest instead of backhandedly polite. I also think that prospects have gone down since I posted a picture with me with my cart (What did they want me to do: lie?!). 

As I stated, I've seriously become a skeptic about finding someone because of that—not to mention the rampant ableism in our society, anyway; such as regarding the awful case of the ableist (and perhaps Anti-Semitic) TSA agent whom battered a girl named Hannah Cohen.

If I Didn't Keep Asking People To Pray For Me (And For Others), Then...

People would have to worry. Right now, I'm only getting older every day and not strong enough for myself—I'm still, e.g., jobless, single, etc.—and I've blogged and otherwise written, as well as spoken about, my struggles with Cerebral Palsy, mental illnesses, etc..

Besides, I can ascertain that many other people with disabilities and mental illnesses can relate—and who knows whether or not they feel like they wish they had the courage to speak up like I'm speaking up; despite that I'm just talking about what I endure in part to keep myself from doing something detrimental to myself, as opposed to being courageous? After all, addictions (e.g., Alcoholism) and suicide run in my family; and bottling anything up can become dangerous to the point of fatality.

If nothing else, keeping myself alive for some reason is somehow being for others and not just myself, isn't it?

This one is a Vincent van Gogh drawing that found on Wikimedia Commons.

This one I found on Facebook as I was browsing. This speaks to a lot of what I'm enduring—the loneliness, missing a lot of people, some secrets that even I, the type that believes in as much full disclosure as possible, have; and, in my case, knowing that people like me are out there and wondering why I have to numb, mitigate, or suppress my own pain just because others are suffering. Incidentally, I think about my two ex boyfriends, each of whom I had to report to the police and should not have dated in the first place—I dated one from August 4, 2004 to about May 19, 2005; and the other one I dated for literally six days, or at least I initially remembered from about February 26, 2013 to March 2 or 3, 2013. Maybe it was 10 days, from about February 20th to March 2nd—either way, that came after almost eight years of being single again and is being followed by over three years of being single again for a second time.