dogdays2

After waiting all year for this show to start, I must say I was disappointed in the ep. It was difficult to hear some of the dialogue and, while chaos is what Code Black means, there was so much chaos that it was hard to keep track of the storyline. So, in addition to having almost the same Fentanyl plot line as this week's Chicago Med (which is excusable, but odd), let's see what crazy things happened this week. First, there's a (I think) resident who spends the entire ep shooting a movie with old style video equipment There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. I can only believe that his video is going to be important going forward b/c the whole idea of it is so incredibly ludicrous . . . Second, a doctor slugs a patient's relative and nothing happens. Just an apology and everyone is good. Seriously? No WAY would he be allowed in the same room as the guy he slugged -- the hospital's lawyers would be all over that on. Third, the patient who is allergic to Toradol has no wristband or other indication of allergy readily visible. I had a relative with a med allergy who visited the ER and the allergy notification was plastered everywhere in big red letters -- wristband, front of chart, etc. Not to mention, the patient was asked about allergies before every single med. Not to mention that the filmmaker (er, resident) was not being supervised and should know he's not allowed to give meds w/o consulting his more senior resident Fourth, patient possessions are always placed carefully in plastic bags, not just dumped someplace where they can cause trouble Not blaming Pepper, but the system that doesn't first protect its own staff. Fifth, Willis uses a rescue squad as an armed car, totally destroying it. No one even seems to notice that this very expensive vehicle is now toast. Even if what he did was perfectly justifiable, the paperwork would keep him busy for weeks. Sixth, the patient who refused to get a head CT . . . you can't force patients to do things they don't want to do, unless you declare them incompetent. The mistake was not in failing to force him to get the CT but in not getting him to sign that he was refusing it against medical advice. I'll stop here. I like the acting of Lowe and Harden. And I like getting out of the ER for a change, even if the plot was somewhat contrived. AND, I recognize that all medical shows take liberties for the sake of telling compelling stories. But this one had me shaking my head and hoping they turn this ship around or it's going to be a summer w/o CB.

I may be in the minority, but I don't like the fact that this season has turned into an informercial for RF. I like his gowns and his prices and, were I a bride today, I would probably be very interested. But the show is supposed to be about brides choosing their gowns. This season (and especially this ep) has been turned into the Randy Fenoli Project Runway show. I could care less whether his models have too much or too little lip gloss! Or whether the hemline of a gown is too short (wear lower heels!). Seriously. Please let this be over. The NJ bride -- who was paying for her dress? I don't think the show made this clear. If it was the bride, then she has every right to pick whatever she wants, though her mother's comments re a modest dress for a church wedding made sense to me. If mom was paying, then mom should get a strong vote. She shouldn't force her daughter into a dress she hates, but the daughter should try to compromise. I watched this thanking God that my parents and I were totally on the same page WRT my dress, esp since they were paying. Like others, I was prepared to hate the Gold Diggers (or whatever) bride and entourage but ended up liking them. It was nice to see a full-figured bride and the challenges folks like her face in bridal salons. Given that the average woman is a size 12-14, it would be nice if salons carried more dresses to fit them. I remember trying on dresses as a true size 8 and having many of them be too small! That's crazy. And I actually like the Pnina dress she chose.

Can't imagine walking down the aisle in something like that. And as a guest with a bride wearing that crap, I'd be embarrassed. Too many brides seem to have trouble with the concept of "sexy." There's a difference between looking gorgeous on your wedding day and wearing something more appropriate for your honeymoon night. Grace Kelly, Princess Kate, Julie Andrews (Sound of Music), Sarah Ferguson . . . looked "sexy" on their wedding day and not one of them looked like she was ready for the boudoir. This Pnina/Randy (and probably others) trend of showing skin is so off-putting. I just hope no one I know wears something like that b/c you're supposed to tell the bride she looks "beautiful" and God would probably strike me dead if I said that while she was wearing pasties.

The "average" cost of a wedding in the US is now approaching $30,000 -- closer to $55,000 in NY, SF, DC and other high-cost cities -- and that does not include a $12,000 dress. I suspect that more than a few folks (wedding couples and/or their families) are taking out loans to pay for these weddings. because most people in the US do not earn enough to pay for this out of pocket. Since financial woes are probably the leading cause of divorce, if the couple's forking out the money, they're potentially sabotaging their marriage for the sake of a wedding day. If it's the parents, in a few short years, the kids who had the great wedding will have to support their parents who spent the retirement fund on the wedding. It's very short sighted. The above said, a friend of mine who got married within weeks of me did her entire wedding for less than $2000, which included a church wedding and reception for about 100 people. But there was no $12,000 dress . . .

Must admit that the anorexia story was spot on. Almost the exact same thing happened to a colleague's daughter a couple of years ago. She had been battling anorexia for about 15 years (almost exactly) -- was ~27 when she died. She'd been in and out of hospitals and treatment centers for years. She weighed about 70 lbs at the time of her death and was about the same build as the actress. However, she didn't affirmatively refuse treatment. Rather, her body was so decimated by the disease that, when she ended up in the ICU for the umpteenth time, her heart stopped and they couldn't restart it. The point being that one can die from the long-term effects of anorexia even without a conscious decision to do so. Dr. Charles' seemed to be spot-on regarding this one . . . it's a nasty, devastating disease that seems all the more tragic because it is (in theory) fully preventable/treatable but in reality, often neither. It's also devastating for the parent(s), who most of the time have tried almost everything and often spent their life savings trying to help their child.

What I don't understand is why no one hits the reality button. I was very fortunate in that my (not rich) parents were willing to let me have the dress of my dreams, within reason. NONE of the dresses I considered even approached the $5,000 - $15,000 we seem brides routinely quote on SYTTD. At some point in the process, I decided I was not going to ask my parents to spend thousands of dollars on a dress I'd wear once -- even if this was the "most important dress of my life." We found a spectacular dress (IMHO) for under $1500. Now this was years ago, but even today, talking around $2500. I still love it, 20+ years later -- and love the fact no one went to the poor house to buy it. I also wonder where these folks find the money. We see brides buying one or more dresses where the price point just for the dress is $12,000. This doesn't include alterations, veil, shoes, lingerie, jewelry -- not to mention the entire rest of the wedding. There are either some seriously wealthy people out there or they are going seriously into debt. Just sayin' . . .

Well said. The mere process of trying to choose a dress, stay within budget, and get your mother/sister/whomever to agree that it looks okay is drama enough for most. IMHO, there's a not-too-fine line b/t looking sexy and looking like a sl--. I don't know where brides today get the idea that they need to wear their honeymoon night look on their wedding day. Or that anyone other than their DH wants to see it.

Much of Randy's stuff looks like what you can find at David's Bridal, for half the price . . . and twice the material up top. :) Has anyone attended weddings recently? Are many brides (beyond what we see on the show) actually wearing these tacky, see-through, cleavage-showing dresses? As a guest, I'd be embarrassed for the bride, but maybe I'm a prude.

I kind of felt bad for the pricing tool lady as she got eaten alive (though hard to know if it was actually worse or better with the editing). The idea itself seemed somewhat clever, though I don't know how many products go through multiple price drops. And, there also seems to be a gap if your price is slightly higher than the discount. So, if you say you'll pay $60 for the $100 dress, you aren't told when it goes to $65 and, in fact, you might have paid that. I rather agreed with the consensus that she was there too soon and was too unfocused -- though Mark dropping out when she said she wasn't going to college seemed cruel. He should have explained himself first, and then dropped out. Speaking of young entrepreneurs, can anyone remember an "update" when one of the products ostensibly made/marketed by kids ever made it big? Not saying it hasn't happened, only that I can't remember it. And, thankfully, we've been mostly spared kiddie presenters this season. Count me as one who did not see the allure of the glasses, other than as a one-time gag gift. I tend to agree with Mark that, if you're regularly drinking wine or hard liquor this way, you have a problem. And beer is easier to drink out of the bottle.

The whole ep seemed like a Pnina informercial. My guess is that she got the dresses at cost in return for half hour of free publicity Pnina received. The first dress was OK -- but strapless is now looking very dated. The tattoo lady probably looked better in black but I must agree with Randy that, in the US, wearing black to a wedding is . . . well, like wearing white in India. It's the color of mourning. But, if the bride wants to look like she's going to her funeral on her wedding day. . . it's a free country. My question was who was putting up the $12,000 for the dress. If mom, then she gets a vote. If the bride was footing the bill, then she should get to do as she pleases.

Clothing on dogs isn't cruel, provided the outfit fits properly (i.e., isn't too tight). My little dogs love to dress up, primarily b/c they get lots of attention and treats. There are plenty of costumes and dresses and sweaters and just about everything else on-line or at your pet store. I don't really see what's so special about the stuff we saw -- nothing differentiated it in my book. Also, the fact that people viewed the video doesn't mean they want to buy the costume for their dog. As a dog lover, I did NOT understand what GOAT lady was pitching. At first, it reminded me of this collar gizmo from about a decade ago that claimed it could read your dog's mood -- it had these pre-programmed comments that were supposedly triggered by . . . something. Someone bought one for me. I tried it once and thought it was useless. Then I found out it was pretty expensive. And then I felt bad for the person who bought it for me. So do you program it to say what you want it to say? Or does it randomly generate statements? It's certainly not reading your dog's mind. And what's special about being able to take your dog's photos with it? It's not as if everyone doesn't already have a cellphone. Finally, if you have a small dog like I do, the collar would be like wearing a lead weight all day. No thanks!

You're correct. In China, it's part of daily life for workers. After lunch, it's "nap time" (that's the English translation for the word(s) in Chinese). The lights are dimmed and everyone either goes to sleep at his/her desk or pulls out a sleeping bag and sleeps under the desk. And I do mean everyone. And they are asleep. It lasts about 30 minutes and ends with soft music played on the speakers slowly getting louder. The lights come on and folks get up and go right back to work. Very strange for a Westerner seeing it for the first time.

I agree but would throw out two points in mitigation. First, if she loves the dress and feels special/beautiful in it, that's what's important. Second, when you've said you were dying for this dress and your "boss" is paying for it in this type of employment relationship, you're probably reluctant to say, "Well, now that I have it on, I really don't like it. Let's try on more." It's maybe a slight downside of the (overall good) circumstance she found herself in. Once she gets a dress in her size, puts on makeup and a veil and some decent shoes, she probably will look fabulous. We can all debate the motives and whether the nanny was comfortable . . . but it seems like the mom/boss was trying to do a nice thing. Sometimes good intentions don't turn out perfectly, but I at least applaud the effort to create a special and memorable day (at Kleinfeld's now and for the wedding later).

I'm surprised so many of Randy's gowns are strapless, given that this look is clearly (and in my view, thankfully) on its way out. I like his price point being in the range many brides can afford. And the dresses seem to have a lot of style/design for the price -- IOW, they look more expensive than they apparently will be. Found the nanny story refreshing. As portrayed, it was a really nice thing to do. I'd rather watch that than "colorless lady" any day.