About luckyotter

Recovering from C-PTSD due to narcissistic abuse from childhood. I was married to a sociopathic narcissist for 20 years. Proud INFJ, Enneagram type 4w5. Animal lover, music lover, cat mom, unapologetic geek, fan of the absurd, progressive Christian, mom to 2 Millennials, mental illness stigma activist, passionate anti-Trumper. #RESISTANCE

Voting early.

earlyvoting1

I didn’t realize there was early voting in my community until I drove past the library today and saw all the campaign signs and a big sign that said EARLY VOTING.

I had a few minutes to kill, so I figured why not?  Next Saturday early voting ends and there may be long lines, so why not do it now and avoid the lines and crush of people later on?  I didn’t have to wait at all.

I’ve had my sights set on Elizabeth Warren for a while now, so that’s who I voted for.  If Bernie wins the nomination though (which it appears he might), I certainly will vote for him.  I’m not crazy about Bernie and think he’s too old, but I like many of his ideas and he’s definitely better than Trump.

No matter who gets the nomination, I will vote for them in the general election. Biden, Bloomberg, Bernie, Mayor Pete, ANYONE.  I’d vote for a cat flea over Trump.

But for now, in the primaries, my choice is Warren.  I’d love to have a woman president and she conveys a level of empathy for everyday working people that I find appealing and refreshing in a political climate that has become cruel, selfish, and heartless.  I think Warren has a much warmer, more folksy manner about her than Hillary Clinton did.   she’s relatable.

Sadly, I don’t think this country is ready for a woman president yet.  Maybe it’s ready for a Democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders who will give us things other advanced democracies have like universal healthcare and free college.  His agenda sure beats a fascist dictatorship, which the Trump regime is quickly turning us into.   It’s scary and it’s stressing me out something awful.   It probably won’t matter much for me, as I probably don’t have that many years left anyway.   But I worry about future generations. There’s no future in this country for our youth should we fall further into fascism.  There’s no future for anyone if we don’t put a stop to Trump’s destructive deregulation that is threatening our access to clean air, water, food, and quality of life. I hope it’s not too late to turn things around.  This coming election may be our only chance.

In the general election, make sure you Vote Blue No Matter Who, if you want the lawless criminal Trump out.  I have never wanted anything more in my life.

We can’t forget about the Senate and House either.  We MUST flip the Senate, and keep the House, or democracy is doomed.   Even if Trump should win, we’d still be able to impeach and remove if we have both the House and Senate.  Anything less than that will not work.

After voting today, I proudly affixed my “I Voted Early” sticker to my rearview mirror, as you can see above.

Trump, Putin, and Antichrist.

trumpantichrist

Could Trump be the Antichrist?  Or is he one of many antichrists?  Could the Antichrist be…Putin?

Are we in End Times as prophesied in Daniel and Revelation in the Bible?  Is it an extinction event brought about by human activities?  Or is this merely a dark time in history that we can reverse if we work at it or that will eventually resolve on its own?

Nyssa of Nyssa’s Hobbit Hole has written an article about all of this.  It makes for  interesting reading, whether you are a believer in End Times or not.

Trump, Putin, and Antichrist 

As always, please leave comments under the original post.

You also may be interested in videos by a pastor named Brother James Key.  He is an evangelical who is convinced Trump is the Antichrist based on Biblical prophecy.   I have to admit they are quite convincing.   He has a Youtube channel.   You may want to start with this video.

I’m not saying Trump (or Putin) is necessarily the Antichrist.  You will have to judge for yourself.   But I think it’s a possibility.

Another possibility that some skeptics have proposed is that the GOP/Trump is deliberately chumming the waters and causing events to happen that fall in line with Biblical prophecy, in order to “hurry up” the Rapture.  That could explain why some evangelicals don’t care about climate change or nuclear war.   As an example, Trump calling himself Chosen One (a precursor to eventually calling himself God) was contrived to match biblical prophecy and not a natural outcome; the same could be said of the Middle East peace deal and moving the US embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.   Rolling back regulations that keep climate change at bay or launching nuclear weapons could also lead to an Armageddon-like catastrophe.

This Blows

This is so well stated.

Please leave comments on the original post.

claytoonz

cjones02062020

If there’s one point where you give up, it’s after you learn that no matter how much you fight, you’re going to lose. That’s the danger of this time.

The United States Senate is saying Trump is guilty. The House Managers proved their case. But none of it matters because they like Trump’s policies or the fact he gives them conservative judges. They’ve given us the same answer over the past three years as to why they accept his behavior, racism, sexism, stupidity, vile ugliness and failure as a decent human being.

If the Senate allows Trump to cheat in an election, does that mean we should just give up on there being a fair one in 2020? Are the results already in? Is the election just an empty practice like they are in autocratic states like Russia or the ones Saddam Hussein ran in Iraq?

The Senate has proven…

View original post 336 more words

Can this man save American democracy?

Here, right matters. The truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost.
–Adam Schiff

America is anything but great again. It was great before. Not perfect by any means, but still a country other countries admired and tried to emulate. A country of unlimited opportunity others dreamed of making a new life in.

It no longer is a place the world looks up to, and in fact, leaders of advanced democracies think we’ve gone nuts. And they are right.

In three years, America has transformed into a nation riddled with hatred, racism, corrupt politicians (almost all Republicans), violence, intolerance for diversity, and worst of all, a nation standing on the precipice of fascism. If Republican senators vote to acquit Trump (even though they must know he’s guilty), democracy here is dead.  Say hello to a Russian-style, one party oligarchy where the president and his associates are above the law and cannot be held accountable, no matter what they do.   A nation with a King instead of a president, and totally at odds with what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they drew up the Constitution.

One man gives me hope. While he’s (of course) vilified by Trump and his conscienceless, corrupt cronies, Adam Schiff understands the meaning of democracy and the values that made America truly great. This may be the best speech I’ve ever seen in my life. If we survive this dark time in our history (and even if we don’t), this speech will be remembered the same way we remember the great speeches of Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy today. It will be discussed in classrooms and quoted in books far into the future.

I hope and pray this great stateman’s passionate words caused some of the Republican senators to reconsider their resolve to vote NO to Trump’s removal.

Adam Schiff is showing us what patriotism truly is. It’s not the jingoism, canned slogans, and flag worship of Trump and his supporters, but an attitude that those things are supposed to symbolize: devotion to the TRUTH. Only with the truth can there be liberty and justice for ALL.

Every American needs to watch historic moment in our history.

Bring back the fairness doctrine!

Originally posted August 17, 2017

Just-the-Facts-Maam

I’m old enough to remember the days when the news was simply the news and the  various networks and other outlets didn’t differ much or at all in what they reported, only slightly in style.   Reporters were mostly emotionally detached and broadcasted the events of the day without much partisan opinion or editorializing.  When they did, an opposing viewpoint would always be presented.     Sure, mainstream news back then could be boring and dry.  Opinion is  based on emotion, and an emotional, sensationalized delivery of the news is more enticing and sells better than the reciting of facts.   Old-school reporters and anchors were well respected even though they never were considered celebrities.

Until the 1980s, American mainstream news was for the most part “fair and balanced,” with only actual facts delivered or both sides given airtime when an issue was politically controversial.   Sure, there were always tabloids that were more sensationalized or opinionated, but they weren’t taken very seriously by most people and even they didn’t usually descend into telling outright lies.   Highly partisan journalism was relegated to op-ed pieces, guest spots, and letters sections.    Opinions were clearly stated as such. There was good investigative journalism like 60 Minutes or Hard Copy if you liked a little more intrigue and excitement in your news, but it was still based on facts, not opinion and pure emotion.

Today, it’s very hard to find an American mainstream news outlet that isn’t partisan.   To do so, you almost have to rely on foreign news outlets like the BBC or public radio (which Trump has marked for elimination in his budget).   On the left, the most famous examples are MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times (the last being somewhat more centrist and less politically partisan than the others); on the right, there is Fox News, Breitbart News (which has become almost mainstream due to its enormous popularity) and many of the tabloid daily papers, both on- and offline.   Now we have Trump TV, an actual propaganda channel owned by the far-right Sinclair Broadcasting that veers dangerously close to state TV like they have in Russia or North Korea.

News outlets are not required to let you know if what they are reporting are facts or opinion, and it’s been this way for thirty years.   The problem has gotten so bad that Fox News can report outright lies — such as the Seth Rich story and denial of climate change — as facts.   On the left, the problem hasn’t gotten quite that bad (yet), but I have noticed the loaded and leading questions posed to right-wing politicians and guests, and a lot of liberal editorializing and opinions without opposing opinions providing a leavening agent.

Newscasters are now celebrities.  Market share and popularity has eclipsed factual, ethical reporting and responsible journalism.  Opinionated pundits (much like our president) rely on the force of their personalities over honesty and public service.   In so doing, they have won rabid followers and have influenced politics itself,  regardless of facts.   I’m not trying to be biased, but it seems this problem is especially prevalent on right-wing radio and on Fox News, where reactionary pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly need not stick with facts at all.  They can tell outright lies and spend the rest of their time building loyalty and vilifying “the other side” using name-calling and demonizing those with different views (that’s how “liberal” got to be a dirty word and “feminazi” Hillary Clinton got to be so vilified by conservatives), emotional rhetoric, and outright propaganda.   The problem exists on the left too, but not to the same degree as on the right.   In general, the mainstream news in 2017 is more entertainment than anything else, and yet people on both sides of the political spectrum take it more to heart than ever.

The problem seems to have started in 1987, with Reagan’s elimination of a little-known FCC policy called The Fairness Doctrine.  According to Wikipedia, The Fairness Doctrine, which was made into law in 1947, did the following:

It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.

The Fairness Doctrine was the reason why the news prior to 1987 seemed less compelling and more “boring” than it does today.   Sticking with facts or giving both sides equal time just didn’t sell as well, and networks wanted to make as much money as they could. The easiest way to do that was to turn the news into entertainment (“infotainment”) and appeal to pure emotion and their own greed instead of education and public service.  Removing the Fairness Doctrine allowed them to market the news the same way a new product or sitcom could be marketed, and not have to bother with presenting opposing viewpoints.   After all, a Ford commercial didn’t have to also present the advantages of buying a Chevrolet, so why should the news have give both sides a voice?

At first, the law’s removal seemed innocuous enough, even harmless.  No one really gave much thought to the way it could lead to democracy itself becoming endangered.   No one seriously considered how  such a little thing could lead to the dumbing-down of the population so they would no longer know how to think critically or consider any point of view outside their comfort zone.   Wasn’t it a good thing for everyone if the news could be made more exciting and entertaining to its consumers, while at the same time making the owners and sponsors more profitable?   It was a win-win, right?

Not by a long shot.   The dangers of removing the Fairness Doctrine were insidious.  Over time, the lines between facts and opinions (and later, outright lies and facts) became increasingly blurred, so that by 2017, most people no longer trust the mainstream media or can tell for certain what are facts and what’s fake news.  Such a distinction — where people know what’s real and what isn’t — is vital to retain a democratic system where an unethical or even dangerous “cult of personality” cannot arise easily or at all.    Another major problem was the way it led to the political polarization we see today.   Being required to present opposing opinions in reporting kept people from drifting to either the very far left or the very far right.  It may seem like a small thing, but it was the Reagan-era removal of this little FCC law that started us down the slippery slope to fake news and political propaganda reported as fact, which in turn led to the political extremism and hatred that divides our nation.

The removal of the Fairness Doctrine is only one example of how dangerously out of control deregulation has become.   It’s time for the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  It might be the most important way the divisions between us can be bridged and our  democracy be saved.

Freedom of speech.

firstamendment_0

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. — Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 1906

I was reminded of this quote today. While catching up on reading comments, I saw one from someone who absolutely hates this blog, and proceeded to tell me all the things they hated about it. Since it attacked the content and not me personally, I decided to approve the comment, even though I had nothing to say in response to it and was not going to “Like” it.

As a blogger, it’s unrealistic to expect I’m not going to have haters.  Fortunately, there haven’t been too many of them.

We are not all going to agree. It would be a boring world if we all did. We are all so diverse and that’s a beautiful thing. As long as our differences don’t veer into hate speech or hate actions, freedom of speech is a beautiful thing.

Beware of narcissists posing as victims in the narcissistic abuse community.

Originally posted on November 24, 2014

 

 wolvesinsheeps

I came across this post today on PsychForums. It’s by a woman who’s the moderator of a site for victims of abuse (she does not specify which site). She talks about how she is triggered and angered by forum members who she perceive as “better” in some way–smarter, prettier, richer, what have you–and then proceeds to play head games with them, make it difficult for them to log in or even bans them, without ever giving a reason. This poster admits getting pleasure from making the forum members suffer and thinks it’s a fun game. She admits her own life is a shambles and she is deeply miserable. The fact she posted this on a psychological forum indicates she is are aware this is a problem and knows it’s wrong, but she says on the forum she feels like “God” and doesn’t seem to want to stop playing so cruelly with the forum members.

I’ve read a number of blog posts and articles that discuss this problem, which is much more prevalent than you might think. It’s disturbing and scary. It’s hard enough for victims of narcissistic abuse to trust other people, and they come to blogs and forums to find a haven of like minded people who have been through the same shit they have and find support. But not everyone they meet in these online havens are who they say they are. Some may be psychopaths out looking for prey, and what better prey is there than the members of a website for victims of abuse?

Psychopaths and malignant narcissists are attracted to blogs and forums focusing on narcissism and abuse, because these are places where the “prey” is abundant. They can have a field day playing with the minds of vulnerable, hurt victims, especially if they are the admin or owner and have created a website for the abused. I’m not talking about someone like Sam Vaknin here–at least he’s upfront and honest about his narcissism, and he’s actually helped many victims of abuse (I still can’t quite figure out what his true motives are–they must be primarily self-serving, but his writings have helped many). Rather, I’m referring to website and blog owners who focus on narcissism and psychopathy but are malignant narcissists themselves, yet they pose as victims or sympathetic “gurus” who only want to help but do anything but.

Bloggers and forum admins, by nature, are probably at least a little narcissistic, but as long as it’s not used to hurt or manipulate or be used against members of the community, then it’s not a problem. But there do exist those who run sites for the abused who pretend to be caring survivors but are anything but. In fact, they hate and envy those who post on their sites.

flyingmonkey

How can you tell if a forum or blog owner is really a malignant narcissist–a wolf in sheep’s clothing? How do you know that when they talk about “their psychopath” or “their MN” that THEY are really the MN or psychopath and the “abuser” is the real victim?

Unfortunately, there’s no sure way to tell. Narcissists have very tender feelings. They are easily hurt and love to whine about how they’ve been “victimized” by other people who have had the guts to call them out, retaliate, or complain about their evil behavior. They fail to take into account that they had it coming and deserved the “abuse.” When you can hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, it’s all too easy for a narcissist to leave out pertinent facts–such as what THEY might have done to deserve the “abuse” they had coming to them. Their lies and half-truths about their victimization may seem very believable. They can make their victim sound like a raging psychopath should they choose to do so. It’s a form of online gaslighting and they are very good at it.

While there’s no foolproof way to tell, especially online, who’s a malignant narcissist posing as a victim and who’s a real victim, there are some red flags to look for.

1. Does the forum or site owner ban people easily, delete posts, or not approve posts? (I’m not talking about trolls or abusive posts here)
2. Is there a lot of infighting and antagonism between the members? If so, suspect an admin or a person with power on that site playing a “divide and conquer” game with the members to turn them against each other.
3. Is there a member who constantly complains about their victimization but never seems to do anything about it, does nothing but trash their abuser’s character, or never seems to get any better? You could be dealing with a narc posing as a victim.
4. Is there anyone who seems envious or resentful of another person’s recovery or improvement, or even just fails to acknowledge that person’s good fortune, or changes the subject?
5. Is there a self centered person who only talks about their own case, but never offers support or encouragement to other members? That person could be a narc.
6. If there is someone who is openly critical or judgmental of another person’s case or behavior, that person is almost certainly a narc.
7. Is the site owner uninvolved with the members and never seem to interact with them? If so, you may be dealing with someone who is looking to achieve Internet “fame” and really isn’t interested in the subject or its members.
Narcissism and psychopathy are hot topics these days, and blogs and websites about these disorders are almost guaranteed to get a lot of hits and views. Someone who wants to achieve Internet “fame” may start a blog or site about narcissism or psychopathy just because it’s popular and trendy, even though they don’t have much interest in the topic. These blog owners probably own other blogs and sites, and those sites will focus on other “hot topics.” But if the owner is really that detached or disinterested, the site will eventually lose members and fizzle out. It’s hard for members to stay involved, when the owner isn’t even interested.

****

Further reading (with my personal experience):

9 Ways to Tell if the Victim Blog You Read is Run by a Narcissist 

How Our Societies are Turning Sociopathic

Article by Umair Haque, on Medium

How Our Societies are Turning Sociopathic

False Idol: Why the Christian Right Worships Donald Trump

There must be thousands of articles written about Donald Trump’s strange hold on the religious right, and the cultlike devotion so many evangelicals show toward him.   But this article from Rolling Stone, written from the perspective of someone who was raised in a Southern evangelical family that now is firmly in the Trump camp, may be the best written I’ve seen.  I also like the fact the author has given a short history of how the Christian Right came to be, even though a century ago, Christianity was much more aligned with the political Left (the “social gospel”).

False Idol:  Why the Christian Right Worships Donald Trump

 

A field guide to the most common narcissist subspecies.

I dug this one up from the archives. I’d forgotten all about it.
Happy New Year!

Lucky Otters Haven

hunter

Narcissists are predators, but they can be turned into prey fairly easily. Here’s a quick field guide to the most common types of narcissists you may find out in the wilderness of real life. Binoculars are good to have on hand to spot them, but make sure you keep yourself camouflaged well and carry the weapon of Truth. Truth to a narc is like garlic to a vampire–they will run faster than Montezuma’s Revenge.

It’s easy to learn how to identify the subspecies of common narcissists by using this Field Guide to help you identify the most common types, their preferred habitat, and chosen source of supply (food). They can all be either male or female, but where a particular gender is more commonly seen, it will be indicated in the subspecies description.

1. Narcissus grandiosis.

conceptual caricature of caucasian businessman in suit he whips employee pulling him around in chair

N. grandiosis is the “classic”, grandiose, aggressively ambitious (and often successful) narcissist. Usually male…

View original post 1,431 more words