A Very Pissed Off Therapist

02/15/2026

02/04/2026

“Young ladies, young ladies
I like 'em underage see
Some say that's statutory.”
-Kid Rock (Cool, Daddy, Cool- From Osmosis Jones Soundtrack)

02/03/2026

If one of Trump’s child victims was black, Republicans would be using it as evidence to prove he’s not racist.

02/03/2026

Arguing about whether people can follow and film ICE is a neat little sleight of hand. It’s not a serious debate; it’s a diversion. It drags the conversation away from the uncomfortable question: is ICE operating legitimately? And replaces it with a scolding lecture about manners. It’s “stop being rude to authority” dressed up as concern for order.

Here’s the part everyone pretending to clutch their pearls keeps skipping: law enforcement operates under a social contract. It’s not divine, it’s not automatic, and it’s definitely not permanent. Agencies are granted immense power on the condition that they use it within the law, transparently, and without unnecessary harm. When they do that, citizens are expected to follow the law, limit interference, and keep protests from becoming chaos. Fine. Deal accepted.

But that deal is not a blank check.

When a department ignores the law, hides its actions, exceeds its mandate, or routinely hurts, cages, or kills people while insisting it has “good reasons,” it has already shredded its end of the contract. And once that happens, the moral authority to demand public deference evaporates. You don’t get to break the rules and then complain that people are watching you do it.

The obsession with whether filming ICE is “allowed” flips accountability completely upside down. It treats scrutiny as the offense and abuse as an inconvenience. It’s the logic of a guilty institution: Don’t look too closely; it makes us uncomfortable. If ICE were confident in the legality and morality of its operations, cameras wouldn’t be a threat. Transparency would be boring. The fact that filming is treated like sabotage tells you everything you need to know.

This argument also conveniently ignores history. Filming law enforcement is one of the few reasons the public ever finds out about misconduct at all. Without cameras, abuses are “allegations.” With cameras, they’re suddenly “isolated incidents” followed by “internal reviews.” Complaining about being filmed is not about safety or law; it’s about control of the narrative.

So no, the real issue isn’t whether citizens are being sufficiently polite while watching armed agents drag people away. The issue is why an agency with massive power, minimal oversight, and a documented record of abuse expects silence, distance, and trust by default. Respect is not a prerequisite for accountability; accountability is a prerequisite for respect.

If ICE wants citizens to keep their end of the social contract, it can start by honoring its own. Until then, filming isn’t harassment; it’s what accountability looks like when institutions refuse to police themselves.

01/28/2026

If an asteroid were headed for Earth, we’d probably unite to stop it. But if someone slapped an ‘R’ next to its name and ran it for office, Republicans would vote for the asteroid.

01/27/2026

Calling California a “communist state” sounds bold until you check the math, and the math immediately ruins the joke.

California pays far more in federal taxes than it gets back. It generates about 12 percent of all federal tax revenue and is a major donor state, meaning it sends billions more to Washington than it receives. In simple terms, California helps pay the national bills.

Oklahoma does the opposite. It receives more federal money than it pays in, and a large share of its state budget depends on those federal dollars for schools, roads, and health care. That is not an insult; it is just how the system works.

The irony is calling California communist while living in a state that relies on money California helps fund. If communism means sharing resources, the sharing is flowing out of California, not into it.

California is not freeloading. It is covering part of the tab while being yelled at by people eating the meal.

01/25/2026

This meme is a textbook example of how political misinformation works: make up a quote, assign it to a politician, then get mad at the imaginary thing you just invented.

Tim Walz did not say, “I want everyone to get in the faces of ICE agents and resist them.” That quote exists only in the meme’s creative writing department.

What Walz actually said was:

“You have an absolute right to peacefully film ICE agents as they conduct these activities. Carry your phone with you at all times and hit record.”

Notice the difference?
“Peacefully film” is not “get in their faces.”
“Hitting record” is not “brandishing a weapon.”
And “documenting government action” is not “inciting violence.”

The meme then goes full fan fiction, inventing a scenario where a “leftist” confronts ICE with a gun, gets shot, and surprise! this is somehow Walz’s fault. That leap requires ignoring what Walz actually said, oversimplifying a real and tragic incident, and pretending context is optional.

This isn’t commentary; it’s quote laundering. You swap out real words for fake ones, run them through outrage, and hope no one checks the source. Most people don’t, which is kind of the point.

You can disagree with Walz’s stance on ICE. You can argue that protests are risky or that federal agents shouldn’t be confronted at all. But if your argument depends on a quote he never said, your problem isn’t politics; it’s accuracy.

If your meme only works after you lie about what someone said, the meme isn’t “common sense.” It’s just misinformation with better fonts.

01/25/2026

Remember how JD Vance said that poltical violence was a left wing problem? Cant spell hatred without red hat.

01/23/2026

The Junk Food of Information

No one taught us how to live inside this much information.
No one prepared us for the constant flood of voices, claims, images, and opinions that now fill every quiet moment of the day. To survive the volume, we learned to consume in fragments; small enough to swallow quickly, small enough to move on to the next. But those fragments do not come without cost. They quietly claim our attention, our emotions, and our energy.

So the question becomes: how do we stay oriented toward truth in a world designed to keep us reactive? There is no single answer. Just as information arrives in pieces, our responses must be intentional and specific, shaped by the moment in front of us.
One common example shows up everywhere now. You’ve seen it. A few words over a solid background, or text stamped across an image. Short, sharp, and emotionally charged. These posts are built to provoke feeling, not reflection. They often rely on oversimplification, false equivalencies, or outright misinformation. “If you believe X, you must also believe Y.” Or, “If this upsets you, why doesn’t that?” The logic feels satisfying in the moment, but it rarely holds up under honest scrutiny.

The danger is not that these posts resonate with us; it’s that they keep us on the surface of our outrage. They offer emotional release without understanding. A sense of righteousness without responsibility. And because life is loud and exhausting, it’s tempting to accept that trade. After all, who has time to sit with complexity when something quick and affirming is already packaged and ready to consume?
It’s not unlike junk food. It’s convenient, engineered to taste good, and immediately gratifying. And we all know the cost of living on it alone.

So when a meme or a short text reduces a complex issue into something easily shareable, I’m inviting us to pause. Notice what it stirs in you. Anger. Validation. Relief. Then ask a quieter question: Is there a deeper way to hold this idea? Has someone already wrestled with this more carefully than a handful of words allows?
This is not a call to become an expert in everything that frustrates us. It’s a request to stop spreading the kind of mental noise that deepens division while giving us the illusion of engagement. The kind that lets us feel briefly outraged, label the other side as irredeemable, and then move on to the next thing demanding our attention.
I believe deeply that the words capable of changing the world will never fit on a bumper sticker. They will never live comfortably inside a meme or a two-sentence post. Changing minds takes time. It takes language. It takes conversation, reflection, and humility.

So the next time you’re scrolling and feel that immediate surge; the sharp “Yes, exactly,” or the flash of anger that feels righteous and clean; pause. Don’t dismiss the feeling. Let it tell you something important: this matters to you. And maybe that means it deserves more than a like or a share. Maybe it deserves deeper thought, deeper reading, or even silence while you sit with it.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to read this and indulge me on my soapbox. I feel the same outrage you do. I’ve simply learned that when I reach for the sword too quickly, I miss the chance to reach for the pen.

01/19/2026

Just a reminder of someone who probably hated this holiday.

“MLK was awful. He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.” -Charlie Kirk, America Fest 2023.

Happy MLK day!

01/15/2026

I want to slow this down and really examine an image that keeps circulating; one that a lot of people want to either instantly agree with or instantly dismiss. The image suggests something deeply uncomfortable: that maybe the people we love, the people we trust, the people we grew up with, are not as good as we believe them to be.

I know this image provokes predictable reactions.
Maybe you’re like me, and it hit you in the chest before you had time to think.
Maybe you dismissed it immediately as liberal hysteria.
Maybe you felt insulted, outraged at the comparison to N**i sympathizers.
Maybe you’ve never even seen it, which might be a clue about the media bubble you’re living in.
Or maybe you’re rarely on social media at all, in which case, thank you for briefly crawling out of your peaceful cave and reading this.

Whatever your reaction, the fact that this image keeps resurfacing means it’s touching something real. Not a slogan. Not propaganda. Something unresolved. So let’s actually talk about why it resonates with so many Americans instead of reflexively defending ourselves against it.

First, we have to be honest about what brought us here.
There is overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump has repeatedly used immigrants as a scapegoat to generate fear and rage. “They’re not bringing their best.” “They’re eating the cats and dogs.” These are not policy critiques; they are dehumanizing myths. And the data does not support the claim that immigrants are the root cause of America’s most pressing problems. Housing costs, healthcare, education, wages; these issues dwarf immigration in terms of daily harm to Americans.
Trump did not solve those problems. He exploited fear of “the other” to win loyalty.

Some people voted for him because they wanted lower egg prices. Some because they wanted abortion outlawed. Some because they felt ignored by coastal elites. Some genuinely had no animosity toward immigrants at all. But ignorance is not a strong defense. The warning signs were everywhere. And when the rhetoric started to feel ugly, many people chose not to look too closely. They backed away into comfort, into denial, into “it’s probably not that bad.”

That willingness to target vulnerable groups for political gain is not a distortion of historical fascism; it is one of its defining features. That is why this image exists.

Now fast-forward to today.

We are no longer talking about rhetoric alone. We are talking about bodies. We are talking about people being harassed, detained, brutalized, and killed. Renee Good. George Floyd. These should not have been complicated moral questions. Any functioning sense of humanity should have produced the same response: This is wrong. This is not the kind of world I want to live in.

And yet, again and again, the immediate reaction from the right was not grief, not outrage, not accountability; it was defense. Justification. Technicalities. Excuses.

There is a dangerous belief at the core of this response: the assumption that if authority is doing something, it must be justified. That the system is fundamentally good, and any visible cruelty is just an unfortunate exception. This belief allows people to preserve faith in institutions without interrogating outcomes.

But what if the cruelty isn’t an outlier?
What if it’s the system functioning as designed?

If our minds were houses, many of us have built elaborate defenses inside them. Walls. Locks. Alarm systems. Not to keep danger out, but to keep truth from getting in. Because the idea that authority itself might be corrupt is terrifying. It destabilizes everything. So instead, we cling to a comforting shortcut: They must have a reason.

For many white, affluent Americans, this is especially easy. We live in castles. We turn the music up. We insulate ourselves from the screams outside. As long as the violence stays abstract, as long as it doesn’t knock on our door, we can maintain the fantasy that order still exists.

But what happens when they do knock?
What happens when they come looking for Anne?
Do you sacrifice comfort then? Do you risk inconvenience, reputation, safety, peace of mind? Or do you fall back on the same phrases that have protected you so far: They’re just doing their job. There must be a reason. Well, technically she broke the law.

This is where history doesn’t ask for ideology; it asks for courage.

Many people will dismiss this comparison as hyperbole. Fine. That’s why there are receipts. The abuses of ICE are not hypothetical. They are documented. They are recorded. They are ongoing.

You have a choice. You can ignore them and keep your head comfortably buried. Or you can get curious. You can read. You can watch. And while you do, you can temporarily suspend your blind faith in authority and ask yourself some uncomfortable questions:
Should I take this seriously?
What if the warnings are real?
What if people are screaming because something is actually wrong?

Corrupt authority is not a foreign problem. The United States has a long, bloody history with it. Pretending otherwise does not make us patriotic; it makes us complicit.

So step down from the castle for a moment. Come sit with the dissidents, the agitators, the people you’ve been taught to dismiss. You don’t have to agree with everything. You just have to be willing to see.

That’s where change starts.

This is maybe one percent of the stories. I encourage to research more.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/08/us/mississippi-ice-raids-cnnphotos/index.html

https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mother-speaks-out-after-teen-with-disabilities-mistakenly-arrested-in-immigration-raid

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-held-5-year-old-autistic-girl-massachusetts-pressure-father-surren-rcna233146

https://www.cpr.org/2025/10/30/durango-ice-arrests-mother-interview/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2eV8L9WYwI

https://ictnews.org/news/five-native-americans-detained-by-ice-during-ongoing-raids-in-minneapolis/

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/05/nx-s1-5598373/npr-fact-checks-kristi-noem-on-ice-detaining-us-citizens

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/maryland-mother-who-says-shes-a-u-s-citizen-is-released-from-25-days-in-ice-custody/4039780/

https://newrepublic.com/post/205280/fed-agent-permanently-blinds-fractures-skull-anti-ice-protester

https://www.ucc.org/ucc-pastor-shot-by-federal-agents-with-pepper-round-speaks-about-standing-on-the-side-of-love/

https://www.ucc.org/ucc-pastor-shot-by-federal-agents-with-pepper-round-speaks-about-standing-on-the-side-of-love/