List three jobs you’d consider pursuing if money didn’t matter.
Today’s prompt is an excellent question for a number of reasons.
Teaching in a Middle School
1 My dad told me when you get up in the morning if you have to think twice about going to work it’s time to get a new job .
Imagine seeing a miracle one a month and never exhausted after work…
I’ll be back shortly with the next reply.
1. Not one person raised from the dead reported their findings:
2. Not even Moses could see ALL of God:
3. Of for ANY REASON if one should leave this place and return’s without being ALL KNOWING and ALL SEEING and full of love and hope – go back and do it again…
Good Night Diane Keaton
October 12, 2025 – MsConcerned’s Manifesto
Diane Keaton, an acclaimed American actress, has had a fascinating personal and professional journey. Despite being linked to several high-profile relationships—including Woody Allen, Warren Beatty, and Al Pacino—Keaton never married. She chose a path of independence, focusing on her career and personal interests.
Her decision to remain unmarried wasn’t a rejection of love—it was a quiet declaration of autonomy. In a culture that often equates fulfillment with partnership, Keaton stood firm in her own rhythm. She adopted children, built a remarkable career, and cultivated a life rich with art, architecture, and introspection.
Keaton’s legacy isn’t just in her films—it’s in her refusal to conform. She wore what she wanted, loved whom she chose, and never apologized for her solitude. That kind of clarity is rare. That kind of woman deserves a good night salute.
So tonight, we honor Diane Keaton—not just for the roles she played, but for the life she authored. Unmarried. Unapologetic. Unforgettable.
Now We Are Free
for Ms. Dolores, September 29
She no longer struggles to remember.
The names, the dates, the rooms that blurred—
they’ve been lifted like dust in morning sun.
Now she walks where memory is not a burden,
but a breeze.
And I—
I am not bound by the forgetting.
My love was never conditional,
never waiting for proof.
It was always here,
steady as Darwin’s gaze,
fierce as her laughter.
Now we are free.
Not from each other—
but into each other.
I would come in the semi-fog,
like dew in the early morning.
And every call, she would ask,
“When are you coming?
You can stay with me.
I’ll tell him to call you.”
She remembered me in the way that mattered—
not by name,
but by welcome.
The page contains a powerful, poetic draft titled “Bulletproof Glass Beneath the Volcano” that explores themes of trauma, silencing, and resilience particularly from the perspective of a young girl who refuses to be buried by societal neglect.
“Bulletproof Glass Beneath the Volcano”
They told her
her voice was too loud,
too raw,
too jagged to be poetry.
But silence—
silence is the language of the buried,
and she was never meant to be a tomb.
She screamed once.
Not into the void,
but into a wall—
bulletproof glass,
buried miles beneath a volcano
that erupts on schedule
but never spills its truth.
Her terror was not theatrical.
It was tectonic.
It cracked the crust of comfort
and made gods tremble
in their marble halls.
She was thirteen.
She was fifteen.
She was a child—
not a muse,
not a plaything,
not a passport to pleasure
for men whose marbles
fell from the Chinese game board
and shattered
on the broken GPS of morality.
They wandered,
those men,
desperately seeking a potter
to glue their shame into shape.
But clay doesn’t lie.
And neither do the children
they tried to mold
into silence.
She is not silence.
She is eruption.
She is Medusa’s gaze
turned inward—
a mirror to the pain
they said didn’t count
because it didn’t leave bruises
in the places they measured.
She is the morgue’s overflow.
She is the church steps.
She is the grocery store parking lot
where grief parks itself
and waits for justice
that never clocks in.
She is the forgotten file,
the redacted name,
the “not my department” shrug
from men in suits
who praise themselves
for arresting shadows
while the monsters
sign autographs in daylight.
She is not lost.
She is the map.
She is the volcano.
She is the lava
they swore would never spill.
And now—
she speaks.
Each state can determine the legality of checkpoints used to locate intoxicated motorists. Now, 12 states either prohibit DUI roadblocks or do not use them. The remaining 38 states and the District of Columbia allow sobriety checkpoints.
Some states prohibit DUI checkpoints by state law. They may also interpret the U.S. Constitution through case law to block the use of checkpoints. Several do not allow them through their state constitutions. For instance, Texas prohibits checkpoints based on its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and constitutional rights. Interestingly, though a Michigan case prompted the Supreme Court’s ruling that sobriety checkpoints are legal, Michigan ultimately decided its state constitution prohibits their use.
The frequency of these checkpoints can vary by the time of year. They are set up more often around specific events, like holidays or major sporting events. Typically, states allowing checkpoints require publication of the details of the DUI checkpoint beforehand.
The following chart details DUI checkpoint laws by state.
Constitutional Nuance
Note: Some states block checkpoints via state law or their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Texas and Michigan are strong examples—Texas rejects them based on federal interpretation, while Michigan bans them despite prompting the Supreme Court ruling that legalized them
“While some states block DUI checkpoints through their own constitutions or interpretations of federal law, for many communities, legality feels less like protection and more like a pre-paid card—pre-loaded with suspicion, surveillance, and charges.”
Systemic Insight: When Legality Isn’t Protection
For many Black and Brown communities, the legality of DUI checkpoints feels less like a public safety measure and more like a pre-paid card—pre-loaded with suspicion, surveillance, and charges. It’s not just about where the checkpoints are placed (often in urban, over-policed neighborhoods), but about who’s expected to fail them. Even when states claim constitutional protections, those protections don’t always reach the people most vulnerable to discretionary enforcement.
The law may be written in ink, but it’s enforced in bias.
The law may be written in ink, but it’s enforced in bias.
George Clooney’s latest collaboration with HBO, Surviving Ohio State, dives into the decades-long sexual abuse scandal involving former university physician Richard Strauss, accused of assaulting over 300 athletes. Directed by Oscar winner Eva Orner, the film centers survivors’ voices while exposing institutional complicity.
But the documentary has triggered a political maelstrom.
President Donald Trump reportedly urged White House staff to “give Clooney a pass” on past allegations—including claims of retaliation against actress Vanessa Marquez. Staffers who resisted say they faced threats and retaliation. Meanwhile, Clooney remains defiant, stating his focus is on truth—not appeasement.
Representative Jim Jordan, who served as assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State during Strauss’s tenure, is a central figure in the film. Multiple survivors allege Jordan knew about the abuse and did nothing. Jordan declined to participate in the documentary, but his name surfaces repeatedly in survivor accounts. One wrestler recalls Jordan saying, “It’s Strauss. You know what he does”.
Jordan, now Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, had launched impeachment proceedings against President Biden, citing vague allegations of misconduct. His tactics include threats against prosecutors and efforts to discredit investigations into Trump’s legal troubles.
Adding fuel to the fire, newly appointed FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi have issued sweeping law-and-order mandates:
Both officials emphasized that justice would be blind to political status—yet their current actions reflect a weaponized agenda.
Despite rumors, Surviving Ohio State is not a Netflix production. It premiered on HBO and is streaming on Max. The confusion may stem from its cinematic scope and Clooney’s Hollywood clout, but the platform is firmly HBO.
Promises made promises kept….
Update August 3, 2026
In a tense exchange with journalist Terry Moran, the President of the United States defends the use of a photo shopped image—purporting to show MS-13 markings on the hand of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man forcibly returned to the U.S. after deportation. The image, meant to evoke ties to gang activity, sets the stage for former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s explosive claims.
Bondi accuses Garcia of playing a central role in a violent human smuggling ring—one that allegedly made over a hundred illicit trips across borders and ferried women, children, and suspected gang members into the country. According to a grand jury, Garcia is linked to the widespread movement of MS-13 affiliates and thousands of undocumented migrants. More disturbingly, he is alleged to have trafficked minor children, trading their innocence for profit.
The indictment goes even further: Garcia is reportedly connected to the same smuggling operation responsible for the deaths of more than 50 migrants in 2021. With accusations this serious—and the media’s rush to amplify visual narratives without rigorous fact-checking—the question emerges: Who controls the truth, and what happens when propaganda overshadows evidence?
We all know the injustice when folk receive extremely different sentences for the same crime. Now we have become comfortable with NOT knowing why the media presents misinformation without fact checking immediately. For example JD Vance stating that the Hatians are eating the cats and dogs and they are illegal. First lets understand perhaps why the media may have not addressed the lies told by the Republican Party (those that engaged in the disrespect of the citizens of the United States). Let’s explore the policy created by the FCC to monitor the news and the delivery.
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy introduced by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949. It required broadcasters who held licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. The doctrine had two main elements:
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987, and the FCC removed the rule from the Federal Register in 2011. The policy was intended to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, but it was also criticized for being burdensome and infringing on free speech.
The role of media in shaping public perception has become increasingly complex, especially in the age of rapid information dissemination. One area that has drawn particular scrutiny is how media outlets sometimes contribute to the spread of misinformation by failing to engage in thorough fact-checking processes before broadcasting or publishing content. In an effort to attract viewers and generate engagement, many media companies opt to use video clips that capture sensational events or statements. However, without immediate verification of the facts surrounding these clips, the narrative constructed around them can often deviate sharply from reality.
Video clips, especially those containing emotionally charged imagery or statements, have a powerful influence on viewers. They evoke strong reactions and can frame issues in a way that favors one perspective or another. When the media broadcasts such clips without first confirming their accuracy, they risk amplifying false narratives that can have serious repercussions. This phenomenon has been widely observed in instances ranging from political campaigns to breaking news events, where initial reports based on unverified footage can lead to widespread misconceptions and erroneous conclusions among the public. The split-second decision to prioritize content over clarity results in a landscape where misinformation can thrive.
Moreover, the consequences of such practices extend beyond individual stories. When media outlets inadvertently propagate falsehoods, they contribute to a broader environment of distrust in journalism and in institutions. Audiences may become skeptical not only of certain narratives but of the media as a whole, obscuring important truths and sidelining factual discourse. In an era where misinformation proliferates online, the responsibility of the media to fact-check and verify reports is more crucial than ever. By applying rigorous standards for verification before sharing video content, media organizations can mitigate the risks of misinformation and foster a more informed public. Ultimately, the challenge lies in maintaining the delicate balance between timely reporting and the integrity of information—a responsibility that will continue to shape trust in media going forward.
The intertwining of religion and politics has long been a potent force in American society, but the phenomenon observed during Trump’s presidency brings to light a particularly troubling dynamic. Many of Trump’s followers viewed him through a quasi-religious lens, even going so far as to refer to him as “Jesus.” This elevation of a political figure to divine status raises significant questions about due diligence on the part of the media and the public’s discernment. Instead of fostering informed discussions, a substantial segment of the media appeared to overlook the implications of such rhetoric, failing to critically assess or challenge the conflation of faith and political allegiance. This negligence contributed to a distorted narrative where allegiance to Trump’s agenda often overshadowed fundamental biblical principles.
Furthermore, the biblical characterization of Satan as the author of lies and confusion resonates powerfully in this context. The proliferation of disinformation by the GOP appeared to amplify the very confusion and denial that kept many supporters from recognizing the potential consequences of their loyalty to Trump. Issues such as losing healthcare or deteriorating living conditions—a reality that could adversely impact their families—became secondary to the fervent emotional commitment to a leader perceived as a savior. This religious fervor, coupled with a dispassionate media environment, may indeed reflect a societal shift towards embracing ideology over facts, where individuals were more inclined to accept comforting narratives over disconcerting truths.
The failure of the media to confront and critically evaluate this religious-political amalgamation compounds the challenge of fostering discourse predicated on honesty and clarity. When influential voices permit disinformation to persist unchallenged, the potential for reasoned decision-making among the public diminishes significantly. In a democratic society, where informed voting is paramount, the dangers of such a scenario cannot be underestimated. As the intersections of faith, truth, and political identity continue to evolve, it remains essential for both media and citizens to engage with these facets responsibly, ensuring that compassion and critical thinking coexist constructively in the civic sphere.
“When loyalty to a man eclipses the tenets of faith, the media’s silence becomes complicity.”
Source –
Feldman, D. [DavidFeldman]. (n.d.). YouTube channel. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/@DavidFeldman
New York Post. (2024, November). CNN bans pro-Trump commentator for ‘beeper’ joke aimed at Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvNoCwbYY6o
David Feldman – David Feldman delivers the news with the kind of tenacity you need for a daily uphill trek in steel-toed boots. As chaos threatens to drop from every corner of the sky, Feldman doesn’t flinch—he gathers the pieces, wrings out the confusion, and repackages the mess in just about an hour. His digestible format makes sense of the senseless, all while keeping his audience awake and thinking. Hop off the corporate media express and catch the trolley to his site—it’s independent, engaging, and free of charge.
You must be logged in to post a comment.