realityplease

Best moment for me - when Erin pounced on Jessel's acknowledgment that Jessel's party was sponsored because Erin wanted to justify why Erin & Abe's anniversary party was sponsored - and Andy immediately pointed out that Jessel's was a business event and Erin's an anniversary (personal) party. A different kettle of fish. Erin strikes me as smug, self-satisfied, eye-rolling, in judgment of & placing herself above everyone else on the show. Quick to say I'm sorry - but not really understanding where & when she's actually wrong. (Like not serving guests enough food.) Pride goeth before the fall.

Except to say that I'm glad that howling buffoon in the audience in Episode 16 wasn't in the audience for this one, I think it's too fine a line to discuss this episode (and the last) without delving into highly political issues that might breach forum rules. Unless simply an oversight, I expect the reason a topic for this episode (17) wasn't created - and no topic created for episode 16 - is because of the chance for highly charged political debate - all extremely difficult to skirt for this show in general, but for these episodes in particular. Therefore, I won't respond to the post above except to state that there's a lot to be said on both sides, that I vigorously disagree with some things stated - and leave it at that. And if this post is a breach of some forum rules - please just remove it. It's not intentional.

To answer, "When is enough enough of proving yourself?" It's a harsh fact of life that when you work for others: Never. Few can coast for long. Maybe it stops when you retire, or win the lottery, or gain the means, skills, interests or independence to own your own business & call your own shots - but even then you'll still need to prove yourself to your consumers or clients. Those options don't seem to be in the cards for you in the near future. All the cards are still in the hands of those to whom you need prove yourself. Very understandably, you dislike being judged by others - to prove yourself to family, alumni, employers. And you don't have to. But being judgmental of others is what people do - whether you want them to or not. And seeing a way forward is hard. One can, if they choose, wallow in despair, bemoan a lack of options, blame others or themselves. It's hard & sometimes overwhelming to envision & get oneself out of a rut. Hard to steel yourself to keep going. But what's the alternative? More months of dissatisfaction - prolonged by stopping all effort. I get that you may feel emotionally & mentally drained now. Anyone would. It's stressful trying to guess which door hides the prize. Whether to stay or to go. Dealing with choices imposed by others on you rather than made by you. But in a lifetime, many are the hurdles, tragedies, surprises or unwanted situations that come up & will need to be dealt with. Compromises made. Situations to swallow. Hiding out in a dead end job, ending all job search & networking efforts, taking no chances, is not going to move the needle. It only moves the calendar forward for more months. And you'll be just as dissatisfied in January as you are now. But it's certainly your choice & based on what you feel is right or helpful for you to do. Hopefully, new opportunities will be there for you in the New Year and you'll be refreshed & ready to start anew then.

Yes, it is hard to get up, dust yourself off & keep putting yourself out there. But what does shutting things down & going radio silent accomplish? Except provide an excuse to hide behind, & maybe a false sense of control, as in, I'm CHOOSING to hide out so no one will find me Because guess what - the results won't be a surprise - no one will find you! Why push the can many more months down the road. If you lack the fortitude to stick with your goal - doesn't that send a bad message to future employers who, let's face it, need to be convinced that YOU are the person they need - one with the ambition & focus that will push their business forward? After all, their goal is to find a dedicated & hardworking cog in their operation, or if needed, a business-promoter or getter. If you can't push yourself toward your own goals and hide out for months at a time, what does that suggest about your ability or willingness to be the dedicated company person that they undoubtedly want. So why are you accepting the blame for not sealing the deal? I've been part of many interviewing sessions. If the folks you last interviewed with wanted to "test you out" in a lesser position in order to let you get your foot in their door - and in fact, chose someone in house - that's your HUGE clue - they hired from within. Your resume/interview was irrelevant or of lesser importance or didn't outshine the person they already knew. They wanted to see if they could find some better than the person they already had. And ultimately went with someone tested & known - rather than take a chance on an unknown quantity. Their decision & reasons - rather than your fault. Unless it was a complete b.s. move on their part, it sounds as if they thought you were worthy enough to be part of their organization - but weren't ready to let you join at a higher level. Sometimes you do have to take a flyer on a parallel position in order to get a foot in the door - & once there - wow them with your dedication & spirit - so they can see whether you're going to live up to your promises. I dunno - the new CEO of Costco started as a forklift operator or some such & gradually worked his way up. It happens. Instead of viewing the offer as an insult, maybe it was a huge opportunity. You'll never know. It's up to you. You can continue to feel miserable and worthless. And give up. Or you can put this in perspective & soldier on or take chances.

I really don't know what type of job you're seeking or your qualifications for it or what you're doing vis-a-vis the needs of the employers that is affecting these outcomes. So all I can really say is that I'm really very sorry that you're going through this. The folks who tell you not to worry mean well & want to make you feel better - but at this point, what will make you feel better is landing a job you've sought! It's akin to telling a single person who wants (but isn't finding) a serious relationship, "Don't worry. When you least expect it, you'll meet someone." When even with nonexistent expectations, no one turns up! It's all platitudes. They haven't a clue or crystal ball - no one does - they're just trying to be soothing. But know this - you are NOT a loser because you "only" work in a call center & others have "careers." Not only are you gainfully employed even if you feel it is beneath you - but you are you - special, talented & unique in your own particular ways - no matter your job title or what you do during the work day to earn a living. Work can be meaningful -but it's supposed to finance your life - not necessarily BE your life. (Though some people make it so or get so attached to presenting a certain image that they can be, or feel they need to be, nothing else.) So-called "careers" can engulf peoples' lives to the point of overtaking any work/life balance so that it's all work - and no life. Many career people are miserable for a myriad of reasons. The work doesn't fulfill them. They're fulfilling someone else's dream, not their own. They have a title, but not satisfied doing the work. They hate supervising or being supervised. They want to do something else. Their level of success doesn't match their effort. They're imposters who can't really do the work they oversold others that they can do. It goes on & on. The grass is always greener syndrome. If YOU think of yourself as lesser - instead of someone who has not yet arrived at that place you're aspiring to & taking longer than you hoped it would - than other people will think of you as lesser too. Why not? It's what you're leading them to believe. You are out there trying. Bravo! Keep doing that. It's not easy. You've taken some blows, but will endure. Instead of avoiding alumni gatherings, think of them as a networking opportunity. Let all there know what type of work you're seeking & be enthusiastic about it. People are drawn to positivity. It's a chance to sell yourself. Maybe someone will know of an opening, have some insight into a place at which you're hoping to land. If not or they're not receptive, screw it. Move on to others who might be. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Rinse & repeat every opportunity you get. Ask them how they got their jobs - learn from their success & importantly, what they did to succeed in landing the job they have that you now covet. Thinking of what you imagine they think of you - whether family or alumni - who cares? First, they might not really think as poorly of you as you imagine. Second, that'll just lead you down a rabbit hole, waste your time & sap your energy. No one appointed them to judge you. Life is full of rejections - of all sorts. NOTHING is promised or guaranteed. Attitude is everything. You ARE gainfully employed. You get responses to your resumes. You get callbacks. You make it to final rounds. That is NOT a loser. That is someone who hasn't sealed the deal - YET. Meanwhile, live your life with all the gusto you can. We're rooting for you!

There's a decades long history, at least since the 1970's. One or the other or both of the wedding couple smashing wedding cake. I even know of one groom who smashed wedding cake in his mother-in-law's face. I particularly remember it because I knew that groom in college. Friend-zoned him then & for some years after. He went on to be VERY famous, celebrated & successful. Tales of his brash tactics & bravado are legendary. So I might have wondered, what if? But when I read, so long ago, that he smashed wedding cake in his mother-in-law's face, I knew that my initial instincts about him were right for me - if he'd done that to MY mother (or to me), I'd have walked out right then & there - without a glance back. On the other hand, his wife, all these years later, is with him still - so she was either unbothered, or forgave him, or the pros outweighed the cons. Sometimes things turn out just the way they should. Good for the bride who is now suing for divorce -- she can still dodge a bullet. If the groom couldn't accept what she expressly asked of him, or just a jerk whose dumb sense of "humor" & disrespect overrode her feelings - then good riddance to him. It wouldn't be getting any better.

A bunch of untrustworthy idiots! Backstabbing & tattling at peak levels this episode. A bunch of bigmouths disclosing what could only be hurtful to another &/or didn't need to be or shouldn't have been disclosed (the existence & location of Ubah's boyfriend, Pavit's retracted bipolar dig at Sai.) The disclosures were either hurtful to people that trusted (maybe stupidly) that the information wouldn't be disclosed or hurtful to the people that heard what others said about them. Circle of trust, hah! I'm so sick of people who maintain that they're being honest - as an excuse for being mean or hurtful. Especially when what is "honest" or "true" to them is better left unsaid, or sometimes, not true, but instead a clear misinterpretation of what they've been told. (As the production replays of earlier scenes easily proved.) Both Sai & Erin didn't listen or didn't understand what was being told to them about Pavit's Vietnam trip & ticket. Both Sai & Erin were mean girls trying to belittle Jessel's marriage - though overly self-satisfied with their own. Sai violated the trust Ubah placed in her. And Brynn's big mouth violated any trust placed in her & should preclude anyone from telling her anything or speaking in front of her in the future.

Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention - but I thought when Brynn was being filmed during her covid quarantine (as when she spoke to Ubah while Ubah was in a bubble bath), she was supposedly being filmed by her cellphone. As for Sai & Erin - they're despicable. Jessel is a try-hard & can be tone-deaf to other's emotions, but she didn't seem to be purposefully deceitful to Sai or Erin - nor trying to upset Sai, but simply trying to connect in an awkward way. For Sai to keep insisting that she didn't care & didn't want to be there was flat out mean & intentionally hurtful. That's not a "truth-teller" - that's an asshole. As for Pavit & his points - it IS a thing. I don't blame him for wanting a brief escape with first class service - at a great discounted price - in order to garner points for later use on a family vacation AND get a brief pampering. (I used to call the airport my "happy place" when once every month for five years (!) I escaped to go home cross-country for a day or two - both to get a respite from being caregiver to two stroke-impaired parents for the rest of the month & to touch base with my regular life.) Eating caviar at 36,000 miles, having a banh mi before returning home doesn't seem like a bad deal nor imply something like sex tourism or whatever the hell Sai & Erin were mean-girl suggesting. Better they should pay attention to their own lives, husbands & children.

Maybe they do want a long term relationship - but figure that sex sells at any age - the image of a youthful, sexy, active person more important to a first impression than whether their libido actually survived menopause or not, or whether Gerry has performance "issues" due to age, or not. So some will lead with that image - even if some have to fake it 'til they make it. After all, the goal here is to stay in the game - not necessarily to project the entirety of their true selves. As Chris Rock said long ago, they've sent their "representatives" out to play & date - the "real" person, fatal flaws & all, may not emerge for a while - until after the deal is sealed, or for as long as they can "sell" their creation.

Why should seeking "true love" be cut off or end at some pre-determined age? A 70-year old could just as easily as the "youngsters" be an attention or fame-seeker or looking for (last-chance) hanky panky. (Why else is it that STDs are rampant among the elderly? As my grandfather said, "Just because there's snow on the roof doesn't mean there isn't a fire in the furnace.") Setting aside issues such as dementia, having mental problems or quirks or having no shame is no less an issue for some 70-year olds as for those younger. Not always is it that "with age comes wisdom." Some nut cases or dummies remain nut cases & dummies their entire lives. Some look to replicate a lost love. Some look for what they never had - but never lost hope to find. Some leap in without care -- no differently than they did when young. If true that 'love makes you stupid," that doesn't change with age. Instead of looking at these folks as if they are animals in a zoo, maybe consider that they're just people - with the same quirks & foibles as any people - only they've had more birthdays. Unfortunately, these folks seem a bit quick to suck face - and that's a turnoff for me as a viewer. I'd hoped for the development of a more nuanced or deep connection. More gravitas - instead of simply vying for attention. But, oh well, it is a Bachelor show, after all - golden or otherwise.

It's certainly your right to think so, and frankly, I suspect that too. But the legal process played out & Freedman was never charged or found guilty of a criminal act. In addition, the statement, "Freedman is guilty of the same criminal acts that he's accusing the network of doing," ignores the fact that Bravo was not accused by him or found guilty of any criminal acts, much less rape. Freedman & Geragos merely wrote a letter to threaten Bravo with a civil action. To my knowledge, no lawsuit or legal action followed. If taken, it would consist of a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages, not a criminal charge. Only the government can bring a criminal charge. I understand that feelings can run high on certain issues, but was only looking to cool down the rhetoric when certain facts were, to my mind, misstated or omitted. It's all good.

Whoa - let's be clear before bandying about certain terms. Bryan Freedman is not "guilty of the same things he's accusing the network of doing." If no criminal case was brought against him, he was never found guilty. Innocent until proven guilty in the U.S. The alleged victim refused to press criminal charges. A civil suit was settled with no admission of liability - for a relatively small amount in the scheme of things - so we cannot begin to guess the extent (or not) of his involvement, or the circumstances. In other words, it sounds bad - very bad - but who knows the truth? In addition, no one is accusing Bravo of criminal acts - there's only been a letter as to potential civil claims. You may never find an "article where Bryan Freedman denied these allegations or the settlement." Articles are not lawsuits, nor filed in a court of law & journalists are not usually lawyers. A formal "Answer to the Complaint" was no doubt filed on behalf of Freedman in the civil lawsuit - it would contain his denials of the specific causes of action filed against him. The settlement document for that action was likely confidential - but entered into and agreed to by both sides - it likely contains a phrase, as many do, that there's "no admission of liability" and the settlement is to further the resolution of a contested claim. We may never know what has been claimed - we may never know what actually happened. As for Geragos, various state bar charges have been brought against him as well as lawsuits, undoubtedly with varying degrees of success. If neither Bethenny nor her 80 followers checked out the backgrounds of Freedman or Geragos before retaining them, it's on them as nothing prevented them from doing so. Or if the 80 misled by Bethenny to their detriment, possibly, on Bethenny for negligent referral, should they incur damages as a result. As for addressing a female lawyer by her first name, yes, it's sexist - but not first or last in a long history of that type of conduct or disrespect. I was often the only female among a number of male counsel. Often got letters addressed to: "Gentlemen and (my first name)" or "Gentlemen and Ms. ___" or to me by my first name alone, instead of just "Counsel" or something like that. So long as it arrived, I didn't sweat it - you're there for your client, first & foremost, not your own sensibilities. There's more important things to worry about. (More troubling is the sexist judge who lets male lawyers have unlimited uninterrupted time to argue, while female lawyers can barely get a sentence out before being interrupted & have to hang in there in order to make a record. Some don't even realize they're doing it - others know full well.) As for the letter, the lawyer might not even focus on how a letter is addressed if an administrative assistant sets it up, he or she reviews the body & signs. Again, more important things to worry about & all in a day's work.

Totally agree that most people ask for advice because they want validation of their own opinion about how to proceed. Only every now & then do you actually find someone who lacks experience or with absolutely no idea about what to do next. If asked, I will give advice though, but whether someone takes it or not is totally up to them. Some people get bent out if their advice isn't taken. Not me. You ask. I give it. Thereafter, do what you will with it. Take it or don't. And I try very hard not to say "I told you so" when they ignore what I've advised.

Buckle up! The self-absorption may or may not end when this friend gets used to her married status - but hopefully, she'll calm the heck down. No telling which way it'll go - or whether, she'll next have a baby - and then every burp, poop, smile or gas pain will be the most adorable thing ever - and she'll want you & everyone else to know about it - in detail. It'll be Christmas and the kid will say "ho, ho, ho" and you'll hear about it for months - as if it's the most brilliant utterance that ever happened. As if no one else ever had a baby. (And these types usually become insufferable grandparents as well.) There's just some people who are perpetually smug or self-satisfied and they want you to know it. But there's also some, that if you indulge them for a bit, will eventually get over it & return to reality or come down to earth. All depends on which one they are & what your tolerance level is.

And what the heck was with that "no boards on boards" thing on TWoP? What did that even mean? Not that too many seemed to know - because it was violated often - though apparently a big no-no. But heck if I ever understood what it meant even though it was repeated - often.

Erika sued again! This time in connection with a criminal indictment Erika & Tom Girardi cooked up against a costumer, Christopher Psaila, who she claimed overcharged her or racked up unauthorized charges of nearly a million dollars through Psaila's business, Marco Marco. Through Tom's "connections" to a Secret Service agent Rob Strange, she & Tom got Strange (who may have owed Tom a quid pro quo because Tom helped settle a lawsuit for Strange) to investigate & ultimately convince the local U.S. Attorney's office to bring a 9-count federal criminal indictment against Psaila. (I believe I described this in a Feb. 2023 post either in this thread or the media thread.) Meanwhile, Tom also got American Express to refund the $787,000+ back to him, though Amex's investigation later found a billing discrepancy of only $4,500. After 4.5 years & just before trial, the indictment was dropped by the US Attorney's office for lack of evidence. In the interim, Psaila, who had been trying to adopt a child with his partner, was denied that opportunity given the criminal indictment pending against him. Further, before the charges could be dropped, Psaila's father died of cancer & his brother died of drowning, never knowing he'd been cleared. As such, Psaila alleges reputational damages, loss of business, expended defense fees, & emotional distress. The Psaila lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, alleges malicious prosecution, violation of constitutional rights & conspiracy against Erika, Erika's assistants Michael Mindin & Laila Ribatallada, American Express, Rob Strange (the Secret Service agent) and two other agents, all of whom are defendants in this lawsuit. While as to other lawsuits, Erika claimed she lacked knowledge of Tom's actions (withholding settlement money to various clients) - her fingerprints are all over this. It's her costumes, her claims of overcharges or unauthorized charges that later proved to be untrue, & she's purportedly the one who met with Strange to urge criminal prosecution of Psaila. She even wore a wire to a meeting with Psaila about the charges. Even though Tom likely steered her to agent Strange & Tom likely the one who squeezed the refund back from AmEx, Tom's not a named defendant, however, probably because his competency issues would just gum things up. Erika may be dealing with her Las Vegas residency, but she's also going to be enmeshed in this new litigation that seeks over $18 million in general damages, other damages, and an unnamed sum in punitive damages.

They're hitting a dead end here. We now know these women & there's probably nothing to look forward to that we haven't already seen. Brynn will continue to flirt - with anyone who crosses her path and to no avail - because it is her M.O. to flirt - even with those she isn't interested in anyway. Jessel will still not understand why treating Pavit with disdain at worst, or at best, not accepting his opinions without a lot of pushback, is going to backfire - or why her kids are out of control. Erin will insult someone she thinks insulted her - tit for tat. Someone will leave without saying goodbye, leave to eat, say something that doesn't suit her. She'll call them out. Or she'll have a mood swing & be upset over something that was said that earlier she found funny. Or upset over what might - but didn't - happen. Her sister will back up any complaint without applying any objectivity. (Two sour constantly griping sisters. What a fun household that must have been!) Jenna will bring another round of gifts that won't be appreciated & then act awkward and ill-at-ease over that - or just about anything else that happens in her day. Sai will be hungry but not like any of the food available to her. And if the previews prove true, Ubah will get hotter than UbahHot because she's crabby from being sick & in no mood for any of these women. Not a lot of promise for future episodes based on this lackluster one.

Actually, I think Midwest elementary school English teachers & MPK's grandma would have done a far better job writing these episodes & been more faithful to the original spirit of SATC than these "typists." Perhaps they should have been brought in before the second season of AJLT when it was already clear that the focus, sharp writing & humor that many of us enjoyed in SATC wasn't going to be duplicated. I was actually disappointed that AJLT was renewed. Because I don't think I can watch any more of this tripe. This final episode - with an insane 5-year "no visitation" period begged belief. Even prisoners are allowed visits - some, even conjugal visits. But no, Lurch didn't want Carrie to so much as to step another foot in his home until his child was 19. And this was perfectly fine with Carrie who gave him a send-off snog. Miranda, with her Bozo the clown level red hair (because g-d forbid it should be gray & she'd look old!) suddenly going, in a couple of months, from intern to impromptu representation of the organization at BBC appearances. Charlotte, after the kids are already teens, is FIRST telling Harry to step it up? But not getting her kids to pitch in - and keeping less, not more, of an eye, on kids who are obviously going through stuff & need some direction. Could teachers & a grandma actually do worse??? I don't think so. MPK & typists knew how bad season 1 was - tried to do a course correct & failed. A 3rd season should not be permitted. They're just not up to it.

Sounds reasonable. But nah, these women are already in AARP territory & MPK can't deal with it now. Blatant ageism shown. Carrie horrified by the sight of older women at a function or a woman on a walker. (Despite having a broken hip last season that in real life would mean therapy with a walker. But no, on crutches & healed in a nanosecond.) Then there's Lisa's pregnancy & miscarriage where menopause would be more realistic. And no medical issues that can't be cured with kegels. (But for Big's death. Big gone & even questioned as a big mistake.) Five years ahead & they're in Golden Girls territory. Five years older & Carrie's cute-sey clothes border on Ms. Havisham territory (as one poster above cleverly noted.) And who is Carrie to meet now much less 5 years ahead? Age appropriate men who chase younger woman. Younger guys looking to be kept. Sad widowers, the bitter divorced. The financially unstable. Baggage galore. (Probably the case now for her & worse in 5 years.) No, MPK has his characters paired off at the end of this episode - except for Carrie. He won't age them when he can merely walk it back & have Aiden reconsider a time frame that now stretches to when the kid's 19. At worst, he & the kid should be set free at 18 with Wyatt off (to college or wherever.) Why keep Lurch home that extra year? Makes no sense. Or Lurch is gone & that's it. MPK didn't pull together anything plausible at the end of this episode NOW - so moving it forward 5 years won't help - and might make it even worse. Actually, MPK could do anything if the humor was there. But SATC clever wit is just a dim memory. The "typists" aren't up to that level of humor - they can't even land one single joke for a stand-up comedian. We've seen the best they can do - it's lame. They're just lucky many people watch because of residual nostalgia for the original characters. And keep waiting for the spark, the humor, clever writing to return - even for a moment. But it's just not happening. Didn't happen during the season, didn't happen in this finale for the season.

There's little hope for this kid. I give it a year or two, at most, before Bethenny convinces Brynn to get plastic surgery to "refine" her nose - or make regular visits for dye jobs or "highlights" when Brynn's hair inevitably darkens a bit. Brynn is just Bethenny's real life doll to play with & to turn into an influencer. (Though any adult dumb enough to be "influenced" by a 13-old makeup maven deserves to be separated from their money.) Just what the world needs - a Bethenny clone - when one is more than enough. It's heartbreaking that the dad is being cut out of the picture bit by bit wherever possible. But I can see why Jason and his family just gave up & abdicated. Bethenny is way too controlling & immature to "share" her toy. Except with the world & only so long as it brings attention or can be monetized or both.

He didn't lose that much weight - it's just that the clothes are too large for him (he's a small guy) & don't match. It took thought to pull together an outfit that mismatched. Plaids with checks. Gray with blue with khaki. Slippers, not shoes. Even if he or his caregivers don't give thought to what he looks like on typical days, given the importance of this hearing, his conservator brother could have well ensured that Girardi was well-dressed (or at least matching & shod) for this hearing. So it would seem Girardi's mismatched, slipper shuffling "look" was a conscious decision. Many assisted living homes offer weekly barber and hairdressing services to the residents, including the dementia floor residents - but clearly, he didn't avail himself of it. All to look more disheveled. Lost. Poor. Unable to care for himself. Not fooling many & won't fool the judge. Girardi is facing a Hobson's choice - really no choice at all. Either he's deemed competent & goes to trial on the criminal indictment, probably convicted & if so, to prison. Or he's ordered to federal prison for up to 4 months for a mental health evaluation to determine whether he's competent to stand trial, or conversely, that he's incompetent (cannot understand the charges, penalties & cannot assist in his defense) & to be held in the mental hospital portion of the federal prison system for some determinate or indeterminate time, or in rare instances, to some type of monitored release.

The first day of the competency hearing for Tom Girardi took place today in federal court in Los Angeles with respect to the criminal indictment against Girardi. The government's expert witness, a neuropsychologist, testified today. She concluded that Girardi has mild cognitive impairment & is malingering. The expert's arrived at her conclusions after extensive interviews with Girardi, after which, she determined that Girardi was able to follow questions & conversations, even though he questioned why he was there being interviewed. The expert testified that she viewed the Hulu program, "The Housewife & the Hustler," & the American Greed program for general background, as well as a videotape of the complex litigation panel that he headed just shortly before the bankruptcy filed, his assets frozen, & his claim of dementia first arose. The expert stated that while Girardi was "self-protective" about discussing details of the case against him, he was able to discuss with her, at length, various hypotheticals she posed to him that mirrored his case. While he claimed not to remember one of his wives, he took a call from her during a break & asked her how her trip to Spain went. Defense counsel argue that Girardi is unable to learn & retain information and therefore, unable to assist in his defense. (And should be declared incompetent.) Girardi's scores on a variety of tests went from high, dipped to low, then scored high again, suggesting a waxing & waning of his condition. Girardi arrived at the courthouse, far from his dapper self, but practically dressed like a clown - but for flapping clown shoes. Instead, he had on gray slippers instead of shoes, with an oversized plaid gray jacket, a blue checked shirt & voluminous khaki pants.

Tom Girardi's competency hearing with respect to the Los Angeles federal court criminal indictment against him takes place tomorrow, August 23, 2023. (The concurrently pending Illinois federal court criminal case has received the reports filed in the Los Angeles case and will likely defer to the LA court's ruling.) The prosecution expert determined that Girardi is only mildly cognitively impaired and faking more serious dementia. The defense experts determined that Girardi has mid-stage dementia. If found incompetent by the Judge, the Judge can order Girardi to federal prison (for a period of up to 4 months) for an evaluation to determine whether Girardi is able to participate in his defense. (That is, understand the charges against him, confer with his counsel, relate facts that bear on his defense.) If found competent, a trial date will be set.

I agree Bastet! I got a text last night, but the tropical storm warning this morning startled the beejeesus out of me - and the worst of the storm is still hours away. (Though the freeway nearest me is flooded out already.) I signed up for City & County alerts but might need to re-think it. What good is it if I'm alerted to natural disasters but die of heart failure caused by that major-decibel warning? Never got the earthquake warning - but sure felt it. Went immediately to the USGS site & saw that it measured 5.1 - usually nothing falls off shelves or drawers shake open unless it's at least 5.5 or more (or the fault a bit closer.) Not feeling any aftershocks. Just another price we pay to live in California!

It was - the worst. I'm embarrassed for John Corbett. Cheesy scene, horrible acting - and while we're re-watching - what's with that lanky, long, unflattering haircut? First, that god-awful jacket & now the hair. You'd think that the showrunner, writers, costumers, hair & makeup people just HATE Aiden. (But listen to the podcast & it's clear that MPK & the writers love all of the characters & think that they're all doing a bang-up and sensitive job in presenting them wonderfully & true to the series. They're clearly delusional!)