unicorn

He's working hard trying to rig the elections. He thinks he can. I'm not sure he can do as much as he thinks he can. He's mostly acted like he's above the law (because he essentially is), but at least there are some brakes being applied by the Judicial branch.

On today's ABC News with David Muir, he said that "Martin Short's family break their silence on his daughter's death!". His daughter had only died the day before! He made it sound as if Martin Short "owed" him some kind of statement the moment his daughter died. It seemed rather disrespectful to my ears. The clip is at 16:35

I was tempted to add this to a different string but resisted the temptation...

Don't worry. The last time snow was recorded in downtown LA was in 1962.

LA can be at its most beautiful in the winter...

People are free to choose to donate their money to millionaires instead of to the truly needy if they wish. I do think it's sad, given all of the real human suffering in this world. Trump himself is always begging for money, and getting it. AI Overview As of early 2026, Donald Trump's campaign has continued to solicit donations from supporters, frequently using urgent, high-stakes messaging via email . Recent requests have included calls for $47 in response to potential legal, political, and financial challenges, often framing donations as necessary to prevent Democrats from impacting supporters' finances. Recent Donation Request Details (2025-2026): Fundraising Goals: Solicitations have requested sums like $47 for a "limited-edition 2026 Trump Calendar" and $15 during a "24-HOUR TRUMP FUNDRAISING BLITZ". Urgency & Messaging: Emails often claim that the "end is near," referencing potential "FAKE impeachments," and warn against the "woke mind virus". Direct Appeals: Trump has asked for donations to "get to Heaven," framing his political survival as a spiritual mission. Donation Tactics: Recent requests have claimed that Democrats want to steal "tariff rebate checks" if supporters do not donate, according to The New Republic. Why don't you send money to Trump? Even sociopaths can use the extra $$, and maybe it'll help you "get to heaven." 😁 In the case of Dane' widow, she was actually estranged from the actor at the time of his death, yet apparently still stands to inherit some $7 million. I have no doubt that she learned something from JvdB's widow. 😉 AI Overview Eric Dane had an estimated net worth of $7 million at the time of his death in February 2026, according to Celebrity Net Worth. The Grey's Anatomy and Euphoria actor, who passed away at 53 from ALS, left his estate to his estranged wife, Rebecca Gayheart, as their divorce was dismissed in March 2025. Yahoo +2 Key Details Regarding His Estate: Net Worth: Approximately $7 million, accumulated from roles in Grey’s Anatomy, The Last Ship, and Euphoria. Beneficiary: Rebecca Gayheart, his wife from whom he was separated, is expected to inherit the estate because they remained legally married. Assets: His estate includes accumulated wealth from a three-decade career and potential real estate investments in Los Angeles. Dane passed away on February 19, 2026, 10 months after announcing his ALS diagnosis. While people are free do donate to whomever they wish, I personally find this trend sad, given all of the real human suffering on this planet.

@Riobard is correct. I would get this matter attended to promptly. As mentioned in the article, paraphimosis can lead to gangrene, and actual loss of the glans (head of the penis). Steroid creams can be attempted, but often circumcision will be needed. I'd seek the advice of a physician (preferably a urologist) ASAP, as the outcome can be quite unfortunate if gangrene of the glans sets in.

BS misquoting again. I never said that. All I said (which was demonstrated by the references I gave) was that the land was given to those farmers around the end of the US administration, I believe around 1952. Whether the land was given to them by the US or by Japanese authorities I do not know, nor is it in the least bit relevant to the discussion. The undisputed point of fact is that the land was only in these families since the middle of the 20th century, not for centuries--a totally imagined and unresearched false "fact" given by one of the dynamic trio. Once again, you deflect with irrelevancies and fabrications to distract from the real fact: that you (I'm putting the dynamic trio in that "you") simply made shit up to try to bolster your unfounded beliefs.

The "dynamic trio" is at it again. I could say I believe Lake Superior is wet, and they'd find a way to disagree with me. There are multiple amusing YouTube videos about dunces who tried to hold out for more money for their property on public works projects, and showed the consequences. Anybody of even average intelligence chuckles at their stupidity, because it's all quite obvious. Your arguments about why this case was different were all shot to pieces by actual references. While it is true that AI could be way off in its estimation of JvdB's net worth, the other pieces of evidence I gave are all very telling and cannot be ignored. I can't imagine for a second that you believe her financial needs went from a mysterious $250,000 to $1,200,000, to $1,600,000, and now to over $2.7 million and counting. Nor can I imagine for a second that you believe a bank would have shelled out $4 million for a home unless there were either evidence of adequate income or an adequate life insurance policy (or both). It's simply unimaginable, and would never happen. If anything could be any more ridiculous would be to believe charity dollars are better spent helping someone stay on a mansion in oversized property instead of helping starving children in Sudan, Palestine, or Bangladesh. Oh, and if you want to help starving Palestinians, another charity I support, which has 100% rating with charitynavigator.org, is ANERA: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/520882226 "Since 1968, Anera has helped refugees and others hurt by conflicts in the Middle East live with dignity and purpose.<br>Anera, which has no political or religious affiliation, works on the ground with partners in Palestine (West Bank and Gaza), Lebanon and Jordan. We mobilize resources for immediate emergency relief and for sustainable, long-term health, education, and economic development. Our staff serve in their communities, navigating the politics that constrict progress to get help where it's needed most. That's how Anera delivered more than $100.4 million in programs in 2020 alone, and it's how we will keep building better lives until hope finds its way in the Middle East." I really hope you three are just putting me on, because otherwise I have to shake my head.

These are perfect examples of your obsessively sticking to your "beliefs," in complete disregard to actual facts. I gave your references to sources which showed that only a small minority (about 5%) of Japanese agreed with the farmer's decision, yet you still deny it--without showing any evidence to the contrary, disputing my reference, of course. To you, if you believe it, it's a fact, regardless of what surveys at the time showed. All of the other arguments used to support the farmer's decision were also proven to be factually wrong: (1) It was alleged that I couldn't understand the reluctance of the farmer to sell the property because the US is only 250 years old, and this land has been held in the family for centuries. I then gave references proving that the land was given to those farmers towards the end of the US administration of Japan, in the early 1950s. That farmer would, in fact be born around the time his family received that land. (2) Proponents said that his stubbornness was something unique to Japanese culture--which I couldn't possibly understand. I disproved this with dozens of examples of similar hard-headed landowners from around the globe who tried to hold out for a better payout and later regretted it. In fact, I gave references that stubbornness and self-centered attitudes are actually antithetical to Japanese culture. Of course, there's also the fact that almost all of the other farmers sold their land to support the theory that stubbornness is not a traditional Japanese value (not a surprise to anyone who knows anything about Japanese culture). The most glaring and unequivocal example of your refusal to look at facts is the circumcision example, however. Parents are free to make their own choices, of course. They usually base their decisions on the father's status. However, the science is indisputable, as shown by the references I provided. The medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This is NOT a matter of opinion. It's a proven fact. Of course, as always, you provided no evidence to counter the scientific findings. Merely stating that the majority of parents choose not to circumcise their boys is not scientific evidence of anything. Like Trump and RFK, Jr., you simply assert that belief is more important than fact.

I was surprised that this came up as controversial. I thought this was all fairly obvious, and we'd chuckle together over the situation. The first couple of posts agreed. In order for the wife NOT to be a scamster, ALL of the following must be true: (1) AI is way, way off on JvdB's net worth. While unlikely, this is the most plausible in this list to be true, since none of us have access to his financial records (nor do anyone but his wife, accountant, and financial advisor). (2) Despite having medical insurance, he was out $250,000 in medical expenses. My mother had dementia and required constant care for over a year, and the sum was nowhere near that (although she had long-term care insurance, so even that amount, which was far under $250,000, was covered). If she'd had a spouse, the costs would have been far less. (3) This amount magically changed to $1.2 million, then $1.5 million. Oh, and she's now collected $2.7 million and still going. (4) Knowing of his impending death, JvdB purchased a massive estate, knowing full-well that his soon-to-be widow would be unable to pay for it, AND the bank gave him the mortgage despite a supposed inability to repay? Preposterous! Even if all of those statements were true, and I can't imagine it to be the case, they could simply move to a less expensive place. This silly argument reminds me of the musical Book of Mormon, with the song stating that facts are irrelevant. What's important is belief. If you feel your charity $$ are best spent helping a widow live a lavish lifestyle on a massive property, go ahead. If any of you are Muslim, it's Ramadan, and time to give your required Zakat. May I suggest Helping Hand for Relief and Development? I found them by accident since they were one of the charities rated 100% by Charity Navigator, and sent them some money. As it turns out, they're a Muslim charity, so I make my donations to them during Ramadan (as a bit of a joke to me). https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/311628040 "Helping Hand for Relief and Development is a global humanitarian relief and development organization responding to human sufferings in emergency and disastrous situations anywhere all over the world regardless race, gender, ethnicity, class, location, religion, color, cultural diversity and social background; with special focus on countries where the massive population is living below the poverty line. In addition to our emergency relief efforts in natural or man made disaster areas, we also work on long term relief and development programs like livelihood, economic empowerment, orphan and widows support program and skill development program." So would you rather go with the actual research Charity Navigator used to determine the effectiveness of the charity money? Or the unlikely musings of a widow from her giant mansion?

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DU3Zrp3Eaho/

Close--I'm definitely implying Spielberg donated to a likely scamster. But I did not, as you said, imply that Spielberg did so knowingly. That could be the case. For example, he may have donated to the family simply because he's a family friend, and the money is such a pittance to him. Another possibility is that he did it for the good publicity. However, it's also possible that he was scammed himself (unknowingly, by definition). None of us have any idea what was going on in Spielberg's head when he made the donation (nor is it possible to know what was going on in his head). I follow only facts.

Not quite. What the article says is that his friends state the family is out of funds and are struggling financially. However, do you really believe that he would purchase this expensive a home if it were the case that they were struggling financially?? That makes zero sense--completely irrational. And if it were true, the obvious solution would be to downsize to a home without 36 acres of land and 3 guest bungalows.

Screaming makes you look totally rational and in your right mind, of course... 😉