James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

Dolly Parton, a rhinestone-studded, rags-to-riches daughter of Appalachia who for six decades ruled country music — and much of pop culture — with an outsize personality and down-home wit that enshrined her as one of America’s most cherished originals, died on Tuesday in Nashville. She was 80.

Her death was announced in a video posted on social media by her nephew Bryan Seaver. No cause was provided. Concerns about Ms. Parton’s health were raised last year as she postponed and later canceled a Las Vegas residency, and intensified to the point that she took to social media in October to announce, “I ain’t dead yet.” This May, she said that she had responded well to treatment after her immune and digestive systems had, as she put it, “got all out of whack” in recent years.

From her hardscrabble beginnings to glittering stardom, Ms. Parton’s life was the stuff of make-believe. With her voluptuous figure, sparkly stage costumes and blond bouffant wigs, she was likened by the writer Chet Flippo to the Big Rock Candy Mountain, the Depression-era symbol of abundance. Her songs spoke to millions, confronting privation and loss even as they radiated possibility and hope.

She was, quintessentially, a uniter of people. In 2019, The New York Times ran a story with the headline “Is There Anything We Can All Agree On? Yes: Dolly Parton.”

Ms. Parton cannily exploited — and transcended — rural stereotypes and kitsch to fashion a folksy chic entirely her own. (“A country girl’s idea of glam,” she called it in the song “Backwoods Barbie.”) In the process, she became an international celebrity who headlined stadium tours, starred in Hollywood movies, built a business empire and appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone. Her at times girlish soprano notwithstanding, she was anything but the “dumb blonde” invoked in the title of her 1966 single.

“I’ve created this and played it up — the makeup, the whole persona,” Ms. Parton said, alluding to her plastic surgeries as well as her colloquial “Dollyisms” in a 2002 interview with The Times.

“But this isn’t all I am,” she added. “It’s not even most of what I am. Hopefully people can see beneath the hair to know there’s a brain, beneath the boobs to know there’s a heart and behind all the other stuff to know there’s some talent.”

Inducted into both the country music and rock ’n’ roll halls of fame, Ms. Parton was the top-ranking female singer on country radio from 1967 to 1993, and had a total of 25 No. 1 country singles.

Her early breakthrough came in 1967 when she was hired as the “girl singer” on “The Porter Wagoner Show,” a syndicated country music television variety program. Several years later, she had No. 1 country hits with records like “Jolene” and “I Will Always Love You.”

Both songs were among about 3,000 titles she published in her lifetime, hundreds of which have been recorded by other artists, including Tina Turner, Norah Jones, the White Stripes, Merle Haggard, RuPaul and Whitney Houston.

Featured in the 1992 movie “The Bodyguard,” Ms. Houston’s version of “I Will Always Love You” spent 14 weeks at the top of the pop chart. The song had previously been a No. 1 country single twice, in versions released by Ms. Parton in 1974 and 1982.

With Loretta Lynn and Tammy Wynette, Ms. Parton blazed a trail for women in country music, inspiring contemporaries like Linda Ronstadt and Emmylou Harris, as well as latter-day hitmakers like Carrie Underwood, Kacey Musgraves and Taylor Swift. She recorded a pair of albums, “Trio” and “Trio II,” with Ms. Ronstadt and Ms. Harris.

“I can’t imagine anybody, especially in country, who doesn’t try to emulate Dolly in some way,” Ms. Harris said on the occasion of Ms. Parton’s Kennedy Center Honors award in 2006.

Ms. Parton was one of country music’s greatest ambassadors, but she also collaborated widely with artists outside traditional Nashville circles, including Mavis Staples, Queen Latifah, Julio Iglesias and Ladysmith Black Mambazo. “Islands in the Stream,” a triple platinum-selling duet Ms. Parton recorded with Kenny Rogers, topped both the country and pop charts in 1983. (The song was written by Barry, Maurice and Robin Gibb of the Bee Gees.)

Stylistically, Ms. Parton’s music ran the gamut: mountain bluegrass and soul-inflected countrypolitan, disco-era pop and covers of classic rock touchstones written by Neil Young and Led Zeppelin — all of it rendered indelible by her irrepressible spirit and alternately keening and gossamer soprano drawl.

.

Dolly Parton in 1975. She was likened to the Big Rock Candy Mountain, the Depression-era symbol of abundance. Her music confronted privation and loss even as it radiated possibility and hope. 

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

When survivors of trauma recount their experiences, they are often questioned because of how they relay their stories. They may have problems remembering what happened, or their memories may be jumbled or even contradictory. People hearing those stories—attorneys, reporters, healthcare workers, or friends—may expect a clearer, linear narrative.

Those unaffected by trauma may also be surprised to hear how the person acted in the moment. It’s easy to assume that someone experiencing a traumatic event would have a “fight or flight” response, instinctively fighting off a perpetrator or fleeing the scene—but that might not be the case.

Understanding the science of how trauma affects memory and behavior reveals why these responses can actually be expected and are not contradictory.

In both my academic and clinical work as a psychologist, I have witnessed the impact trauma has on people’s memories and behaviors, especially when an event in their present life triggers something from their past.

Research shows that taking a trauma-informed approach, which prioritizes understanding and curiosity about someone’s experience as opposed to judgment or critical evaluation, increases empathy for survivors’ thoughts, feelings and behaviors.

How trauma affects the brain

According to the World Health Organization, approximately 70 percent of people worldwide report experiencing a traumatic event in their lifetime. The majority of these people do not develop PTSD, a clinical diagnosis of symptoms, such as having nightmares and flashbacks about the event, avoiding places that are reminders of it, and increased arousal that can make concentration and sleep difficult. Many survivors don’t meet criteria for PTSD but struggle with feeling distressed, depressed or anxious.

In traumatic situations, people often respond in unexpected ways, and they may second-guess themselves. This may happen particularly when someone experiences a repeated trauma, which is more likely than not due to how many people experience traumatic events.

Trauma also distorts how memories are stored and retrieved.

Research indicates that people experience traumatic memories differently than memories of other significant events, such as sad or positive experiences. Two of the main brain structures scientists believe are involved in storing traumatic memories are the hippocampus—responsible for memory storage—and the amygdala, which is responsible for processing emotions.

During trauma, the amygdala becomes highly active, processing emotions such as fear, and the hippocampus becomes overwhelmed by stress, leading to problems with memory storage.

Traumatic memories do not follow a neat, linear story. Instead, people may experience the memory as disconnected fragments of sensations, emotions, smells, or images. Such memories cause the body to reexperience the past threat as if it is happening in the moment. This may cause a person to feel like running away or fighting back—flight or fight. Or they may freeze.

In other words, people don’t have the distant perspective they often feel with other memories from the past. Rather, they may feel they are reliving the original experience.

Misinterpreting victims’ behaviors

With this understanding, consider someone who experiences a trauma at the hands of a professional during an appointment. They may appear outwardly calm while it happens and then leave the session as they typically would—checking out, providing payment, and possibly even scheduling the next appointment. While their response to act normally may seem odd, such behavior makes sense for someone trying to escape a threat.

Fight, flight or freeze responses have become widely known in popular culture. In a freeze response, a person’s mind goes blank and they may be unable to speak, leading to a “deer in the headlights” behavior.

On the other hand, a person may act paradoxically—perhaps by going on about their day as if nothing happened. They may not report the event or may question whether the incident even occurred. This represents another survival response—the lesser-known fawn response. This way of handling stress occurs when someone acts calm, appeases the threatening person, and retreats to de-escalate the situation. Instead of literally backing away, in this example, the person metaphorically backs away by completing the session and exiting as expected without further conflict.

Outsiders may misconstrue these behaviors as evidence that a trauma did not actually happen or that a survivor lacks credibility. But that logic reflects common misconceptions about how people “should” remember or respond to trauma.

If this was the person’s first experience with a traumatic situation, afterward they are likely to feel afraid, disoriented or hyperalert. However, if they had previous similar experiences, this scenario may trigger past memories in the moment. This can muddy the experience even further, making it difficult to recall the incident later, especially under stressful circumstances.

When a survivor reports an incident and ultimately testifies against someone who harmed them, memory recall might be uniquely affected. Most people in this situation would be highly stressed, especially if the perpetrator were in the room.

To make matters worse, the feeling that the recalled memory is actually happening in the moment and not in the past may cause a survivor to convey a more fragmented story. They may also have either a more intense or detached emotional experience, depending on their own trauma responses.

Legal and other professionals unaware of the range of natural responses to trauma can easily misinterpret these behaviors as signs of lying or malingering.

In reality, the percentage of people who falsely report sexual assault, for example, is low—between 2 percent and 10 percent.

Providing better support

Research shows that people who better understand nuances of trauma and mental health in turn are more empathetic toward survivors. Some healthcare settings have adopted a trauma-informed approach to prevent retraumatization and build safety. Studies show that even being attentive to word choice can help ensure effective care for patients that avoids victim blaming.

A trauma-informed approach can also improve legal and justice systems so victims are better supported. This includes understanding why accounts aren’t linear and not equating memory inconsistencies with lying.

Research also shows that trauma-informed responses are equally important in everyday relationships. In friendships and close relationships, or in the workplace, patience and empathy convey a sense of respect, safety and trustworthiness. These offer a strong foundation for positive social and working relationships, which can lower a survivor’s distress and support their healing.

When people have a greater understanding of how trauma affects the brain, they gain insight into how survivors think, act and process their memories. What initially looks confusing or inconsistent is actually behavior that flows logically from a traumatized brain.

Having a trauma-informed perspective helps people to be better friends, co-workers, and professionals. By extension, responding from this awareness may even help survivors understand their own reactions and experiences, which may ultimately aid their healing and ability to lead fulfilling lives.

.

Naeblys/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

“By the grace of God, I’m still here,” Glasgow said. But Kenya and Kennedi could not be saved.

Margate Police said in a press release that first responders immediately performed CPR on Kenya and Kennedi when they arrived at the home and sent them to the hospital. But the two died shortly after they arrived.

“Worst feeling in the world, and to turn around and see your wife and your daughter there lifeless is even worse,” Glasgow recalled of the moments after the lightning strike.

While roughly 37 million lightning strikes hit the ground in the U.S. each year, the odds of being struck are less than one in a million, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s even rarer to die from a lightning strike, as nearly 90 percent of victims survive.

“The biggest heart in the world, puts everybody before herself, everybody. My daughter, my wife, amazing, amazing people,” he said. The father also gushed about Kennedi’s love of musician Benson Boone and how she could sing his songs word for word. Glasgow is now left to pick up the pieces of his life and stay strong for his surviving two-year-old daughter, Kensli.

“I just lost my best friend. My daughter just lost her best friend,” Glasgow wrote in a Facebook post Monday. “After I lost my father a few years ago I learned a very valuable lesson and that’s to never question God.”

Addressing Kenya and Kennedi, Glasgow said, “We will make you both our story and take it one day at time because I know you both are guiding us.”

.

Florida father Kameron Glasgow has been left heartbroken after his wife, Kenya, and two-year-old daughter, Kennedi, were killed in a lightning strike over the weekend (Kameron Glasgow via Facebook)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to restrict mail-in voting before the midterm elections.

In an emergency order, the justices said President Trump could proceed with implementing an executive order he had signed, which directed the U.S. Postal Service to help decide which voters should receive mail-in ballots. Under the executive order, the Department of Homeland Security will also create lists of U.S. citizens that the administration believes could be used to monitor voter rolls for noncitizens.

The decision means the administration can move ahead with planning for restricting the use of mail ballots even as a lower court continues to weigh the legality of Mr. Trump’s executive order. But with little more than two months until Election Day — and considerably less before early voting begins in many states — it remains unclear whether the White House’s rules will be in effect for a midterm election in which control of both chambers is at stake.

The order by the court was unsigned, as is typical in such emergency rulings. The majority wrote that it agreed with the government’s argument that it should be able to move forward with its plans, finding that the Trump administration was “likely to suffer irreparable harm” unless the justices lifted a freeze that had been imposed by lower courts.

The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warning that the majority “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”

The majority said the states that challenged the president’s order could not demonstrate that they were sufficiently harmed by voting rules that had not yet taken effect. The justices cautioned that their order was preliminary and not a final decision about whether the administration’s order “will necessarily be lawful” once the plans are complete. “On that score, time will tell,” the majority said in the 10-page, unsigned order.

That could mean the legal battle will return to the justices, perhaps quickly, as the administration moves to implement the president’s order before the midterms.

Mr. Trump signed the executive order in March as part of his broader attempts to curtail voting by mail. It directed federal agencies to create “state citizenship lists” of people who will be 18 or older as of Election Day. Federal officials were then directed to send those names to state election officials, who administer the vote, purportedly so they could use them to purge voter registration lists of anyone who is not a citizen. The order also instructed the Postal Service not to mail ballots on behalf of anyone whose name was not on the approved list.

Several court challenges immediately followed, including a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts brought by Democratic state attorneys general. The challengers argued that the president exceeded his authority because the Constitution gives Congress and the states power over elections, not the executive.

In late June, Judge Indira Talwani, a Federal District Court judge in Massachusetts, temporarily blocked the president’s order, finding that it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. She also determined that Congress had not delegated authority to the Postal Service to determine which voters should receive mail ballots, and that the executive order did not allow enough time before November for the Postal Service to follow the legally required process for agencies when they adopt new rules.

Judge Talwani issued a separate broader ruling in a related case this month, blocking any enforcement of the executive order for the 2026 midterms. She again emphasized that the Constitution does not grant authority over elections to the executive branch. She also noted that, contrary to Mr. Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud, the government had not provided “evidentiary support of illegal or fraudulent absentee voting.”

A federal appeals court earlier upheld Judge Talwani’s temporary block. At that point, Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency application asking the justices to step in. Several Republican state attorneys general filed a separate, parallel request.

In a brief to the court, the Democratic state attorneys general wrote that the executive order “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.”

They also argued that allowing the order to be implemented would mean a chaotic rollout not long before states begin to send out absentee ballots.

And they wrote that voters could be confused and disenfranchised, given that the federal government was likely to make errors in compiling citizen lists and that valid voters would have little time to challenge the government’s determinations.

.

Volunteers processing mail-in ballots on Nov. 5, 2024, in Dearborn, Mich. Credit…Nick Hagen for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________