@swiftsmith and @discombobulated - Yes. But she didn't say only things 100% of people could relate to. I dropped that tidbit in to be...relatable! She said 50 - 75 other things that were highly specific which I choose not to share. And I really don't need to defend the conversation. I just find the anti-other-ways-of-knowing vitriol on here kind of fascinating. I guess others haven't actually run into a legitimate one. But even so, why all the hating? Again, once every 4 or 5 years over the course of 20 years cannot be outside the range of average. I don't credit psychics with being able to know who shot JFK or whatever, but at specific phases of my specific life, the information has been helpful. Including the information I gained from the one that was full of crap, which was to pay attention who I paid money to for what. I could tell the difference. Does anyone here need to believe me about that? No. Do I? I know who I am.
My fascination with the vitriol may be because other ways of knowing run in my family. Is anyone in my family a street corner psychic? No. Do my grandmother and mother and sometimes I know things we're not 'supposed' to know? Yes. Does that look like this woman's interview? Not a bit. It's a very different experience. But it's not some cute family delusion either. It's relatively harmless, only touches on the lives of people we know and love, and comes infrequently, only when terribly important or imminent, and usually shows up as a feeling of discomfort that isn't coming from anything in our immediate lives. It's not about deaths or car wrecks or lottery wins, it's much more subtle than that. And it's equally not about controlling children's behavior or knowing when they brushed their teeth. Does anyone here need to believe me? No. I don't know or love anyone here and it doesn't affect your lives.
God knows, or Science knows, there is much more to the universe than our limited animal-based perceptions allow. So maybe my fascination with the finger pointing and elbow jabbing yuk yuks has some personal interest. But it's also intellectual fascination with the human response to things we don't understand, can't grasp with our limited explanations, and which therefore unsettle us. The comments on this story, whether The Hairpin meant it as some kind of joke story or not, is a case study in human response to what unsettles us. Including my comments. It's all fascinating.
@hairpin2 - Wow. Really? This excerpt is extremely well written, honest, vulnerable, and even hilarious. Of course she was joking about how Darlene ruined her weekend. She put that in there to contrast her life of security and stability with Darlene's life of instability and drama. Darlene's choices 'ruined' the author's privileged weekend, but will affect Darlene and Darlene's child for the rest of their lives. Yes, that was satire. The author was satirizing herself. Which is the best kind of satire.
Let's listen to Punkinpie who has worked at an attorney in legal aid. Being an attorney is brutal. Lawyers are essentially customer service representatives for the law. Like calling AT&T to yell at them about our phone bills, no one wants to talk to customer service unless they have a problem, and then we want customer service to fix it instantly, on our timeline, without having to call in additional help, and we also expect to be able to yell at them or be disgusted with them as they try to meet our needs, and then bitch about them on the side when the issue is finally resolved.
The law is an arcane, complex, byzantine historical bureaucracy to all of us, even to attorneys sometimes. We require guides to take us through the process, but then we reserve the right to despise them and hate on them, and frequently not work with them when they're telling us what we need to do for the good of our case. I'm sure lawyers frequently feel like doctors too - you can tell a patient to stop smoking, lose weight, and eat better, and when they die at 58, diabetic with a heart attack, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. It's a bizarre relationship our society has with law, lawyers, and ourselves. We want instant results, in the midst of crises, often with little or no insight into how we came to be in those crises. Thank god for lawyers, and especially for those who work in legal aid services.
Wow you guys. Methinks thou dost protest too much. Has no one seriously gone to a psychic or reader? I'm not hippy dippy but I've talked to maybe 4 in the past 20 years. The first was a street festival tarot card reader, and she was so spot on that I was devastated for days. It was bam, bam, bam, bam as what she told me played out over the next 9-12 months. She taught me to respect their work. The next was a crap store front psychic, and that taught me to always research people if I was going to spend money. The next two were heavily researched. I saw one in NYC this past June and looked her up extensively before I visited her. It took three subway transfers to get to her on a storming night when I got lost in the village. I was wet, tired, and frustrated when I popped up in her space. She was taken aback and asked me how I found her. I told her I researched her. She didn't quite know what to think of that, but she did a complete tarot card reading, and the influences and potential events she outlined have been bam, bam, bam playing out ever since. She wasn't 100% right. Some details are different, such as the person I have conflict with at my job is a woman, not a man, and she said a man. But she was more on than off. And well worth thirty bucks.
Sheesh you guys. I don't call a psychic every time the wind changes. Once every 5 years is probably pretty statistically average. I know I'm not the only one.
Then there is this response to Dylan's letter:
Author Alana Newhouse claims that Mia's decision not to press charges "disabled our ability to judge either way" since "we, as private citizens, are not imbued with the right to pass these judgments." Oh really, we're not? That's news. Because I thought the court of public opinion has the right to judge the courts of law and find them lacking or absent. Public opinion being part of the function of a free society and all that. The author then ends with a cheap psychoanalytic potshot - that Dylan isn't mad at us, she's actually mad at her mother. Bollocks, Tablet. Sniveling bollocks.
The Allen-defense rages on. And most journalism seems to be cheapened for it.
Thank you Megasus for the link to that Vanity Fair article. I read it in the past but could never remember where it was from!
I hope Ronan Farrow turns out to be Sinatra's kid. And I really don't want to read the memoirs of the two daughters Allen adopted with Soon-Yi, written in fifteen years. Ugh.