realityplease

It's interesting how many family law attorneys find a wife (or second or third wife) among their clients. Not all attorneys are the most attractive, or wittiest, or interesting. His looks aren't that amazing. Some are book smart, but some lack common sense. Or street smart but not that intelligent except to the extent they can memorize & think enough to pass the bar exam. Or not as solvent or high-earning as you'd think despite a fancy car or facade. So what did SHE find attractive about HIM? Cuts both ways. Yes, he may have had younger or pretty clients than Taylor - but young & pretty isn't everything & not so great when paired up with stupid, dull, clingy or a myriad of other bad traits - & eventually even the young & pretty end up being not so young & not as pretty. Going through a divorce or tragedy, clients are typically at their most vulnerable & insecure. Some young & pretty want momentary reassurance & their attorney may be there for a fling, but it doesn't mean they were clamoring to marry him. Or vice versa. As for him taking up with clients, there are State Bar prohibitions against it - but in life - things happen. Maybe they started dating after his work for her ended. Some attorneys swoop in & take advantage of the vulnerable & insecure - or like playing the savior. Taylor & her husband have been together for a while now - so clearly there was something each liked in the other - it certainly wasn't her money - & it's worked so far. More power to them.

Dorit can afford elective surgery but stiffs the nurse - what a grifter!! Even if Dorit contested the amount - & that might not be the case at all - she should have paid the uncontested amount & worked out the rest. But no, given the court's award of the whole amount due plus costs - it's clear that Dorit didn't try to pay anything. For what? To buy another overpriced purse? That's disgusting!

Know-it-all Bethenny's out there again - now she's got the solution for feuding siblings Teresa Guidice & Joe Gorga and William & Harry. Given, she says, that "blood is thicker than water." Which she knows how? Because her family relationships with her father, stepfather, mother were so great? And she mended them - ever? Because she is or has any experience whatsoever with siblings? Her brilliant idea: The siblings should be put in a room with a therapist until they resolve things - and no spouses allowed to be present to screw things up. I guess she doesn't think things will unravel as soon as therapy ends & the sibling talks to their spouse or others. She claims that unless resolved, the siblings will forever be sorry about missed family bonding opportunities. Like she's so concerned about families & doing anything to encourage her daughter to have a relationship or bond with Jason or his parents? Other than continually running her big mouth about other people's problems & what she thinks they should do, she thinks she has all the answers. In this instance, she doesn't come by it by training, education or experience. But when it's a slow news day, how nice she gets to put her opinions on blast.

It was pretty terrible - sex in the convertible's backseat with a trite overused shot of the Beverly Hills palm trees, more sex & shopping, the dopey assistant trying to "warn" Chaim (who once again failed to maintain his weird semi-Israeli accent though he tossed out his Star of David necklace from under his t-shirt to give us a clue), the hot guy getting fired, dumb crap about a hairbrush. Halfway through the episode Tedros mumbled something with the words "carte blanche" in it. The "e" at the end of each word is silent but he pronounced it "cart-ay blanch-ay" - so for the rest of the episode all I could think was, "What a dumb-ass!" and "Why didn't SOMEBODY correct him & re-shoot that?" Or are we're supposed to think he's a reader who saw those words in a book but never heard them actually used?? Not bloody likely! Took me right out of the scene (not that I was really in it) and sent this show even further down in my already low estimation of it. This episode even worse than the first two. Can't look away from the train wreck - but if there's anything better on. . . At least there's only 2 more to go.

Who can really know - but from the few interactions we've seen that included the boy (sorry, I don't know his name) and how he interacted with Rachel and the little girl - he seems like a very caring well-mannered kid who is very much integrated into the family as a whole & has a warm relationship with Rachel. It's not just the adult Fudas saying it - watch the boy's reactions. Sure, he's a little shy before the cameras. As a typical teen boy, he's not going to be effusive about his feelings, but at least to me, he shows love for Rachel & old enough to be certain when he says he wants to be adopted. (More so than just because he was promised a new phone or pressured.) Rachel seems very respectful of his feelings & wishes. I might not always care for Rachel as she instigates or responds to other housewives, but as a mom, she seems very focused, grounded & loving. Respectful of the boy's feelings & even of the birth mom. Not going to fault her for this.

If I continue to watch, it'll only be hate-watching to see how low the show sinks. I don't know what's worse - the trite story line, the ridiculous dialogue, the stupid characters, the awful clothes. Or maybe Hank Azaria (as Chaim?) who can be a decent actor, but here, struggling with his accent - sometimes faintly Israeli, sometimes a bit Yiddish, sometimes entirely gone. Or that reporter - who just can't act. Or Jane Adams barking out nonsense direction & opinions - with attitude & scraggly gray hair. (Meaning what? Experience? No mirror?) Or The Weekend - not very attractive here, much less Svengali-like. As some TV critic wrote, Lily-Rose Depp's best acting came & went in the first episode when she tried to land 5 or 6 emotions for the photog - though the critic thought she expressed all of them - and I think she - maybe - had 2 or 3. A big waste of that Blackpink singer & Da'Vine who aren't given much to do yet (or maybe ever.) I suppose it's a tale of an insecure "talent" & the useless hangers-on, handlers, agents, & employee/friends who need a meal-ticket & inhabit the world of a star in limbo - and how the talent comes under the spell of an unsavory influence - who either helps or ruins her career & life. But they all seem so aimless, useless & bored - so what a bore for all of us!

In writing about the battle brewing over the recent psychiatric expert who deemed Tom competent to stand trial (though certain to be disputed by Tom's counsel), Metropolitan News (a local legal newspaper) writes that Erika recently stated she wasn't proceeding with the divorce action against Tom because she didn't want to pay spousal support to Tom, now supposedly destitute. (Although someone (& you know it's not Erika) is paying Tom's room & board at his assisted living memory care facility, likely $10k or more a month. It was thought that Erika wasn't proceeding with divorce so she &/or Tom could claim spousal privilege & she wouldn't have to or be able to testify against him. And that may still be a reason. But the support angle is more like the greedy Erika we've seen on RHoB. Always the "what's yours is mine - and what's mine is mine" type of gal. Tom poured millions into her career, clothes, jewels & entourage, but with the tables turned, she doesn't want to pay a dime to him in support. (Not that Tom, cheater & disgraced crook, deserves a dime from anyone.) Still, this ungenerous side of Erika is everything we've come to expect of her. Always true to herself.

I'm confused. When Frank piped up with "attorney-client" privilege - who's the client being protected and who's the attorney? Because if Frank was supposed to be the attorney who needed to stay quiet on Joe Gorga's behalf when Gorga was called in by the FBI to discuss Joe Guidice - Frank's been disbarred for years & can be no one's attorney, much less Joe Gorga's. Or did this take place before Frank was disbarred? Time flies & I didn't watch during Tre's prison years. Maybe the FBI called Gorga in while Frank was still in practice, not after he was disbarred. Teresa & Melissa screeched so much over everyone, I got lost. (Or maybe tuned out for a bit to quiet my head or due to boredom with these twits.) Also, I sensed Paulie was side-stepping a bit on the issue of marriage to Dolores. Anyone else? Not divorced yet (after 14 years??) & speaking for Dolores, he said he wasn't in a hurry & neither was Dolores (or words to that effect.) But I think he's dead wrong about Dolores - she's wants that ring - badly - and it better not be a claddaugh. She turned around to look at him when he said this - and not happily. I'm sensing cold feet from Paulie. I think we're going to see, yet again, Dolores making excuses for not getting a ring & things dragging on for these two. She's living with him so he's complacent & his current undissolved marriage protects him from taking the next step. She'll either wait - and wait - or it won't end well. Some people think Dolores is smart - but as to her relationships - not so much. If they were both on the same page about it, no problem. But I think she wants the commitment & he's stalling - or he'd get that divorce finalized.

A government expert in the criminal indictment case against Tom has determined that Tom is competent to stand trial! Reported in the Los Angeles Times. I put a description of the article & comments in the "RoBH in the Media" thread.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the expert retained on behalf of the government, Diana Goldstein, who evaluated Tom Girardi for competence to stand trial in Los Angeles (he's been criminally indicted in both Los Angeles & Chicago) has issued her report & determined that Girardi is competent to stand trial. Based out of Chicago, Goldstein is purportedly an expert on malingerers who try to fake dementia. Goldstein's report has been filed under seal with the court (meaning not available to the public.) The public defenders who represent Girardi in the Los Angeles matter also retained experts (reportedly not one, but two) to examine Girardi. Their findings have not been made public. No doubt they'll say Girardi isn't competent. A hearing on this issue is set for August 3, 2023, before the federal judge assigned to the case. The State Bar in their state bar investigation into Girardi's misdeeds had earlier attempted to have Girardi examined for competence. That judge, however, simply accepted a declaration from a psychiatrist or psychologist who wasn't even a geriatric dementia specialist, appointed Girardi's brother as Tom's conservator, accepted Girardi's claim of incompetence, and denied the Bar's request for further examination & evaluation. Eventually, Girardi was disbarred by the State Bar. In the meantime, a bankruptcy trustee gathered assets & wrested the $750k diamond earrings from Erika. Several civil complaints were filed against Girardi & Erika. Criminal indictments brought against Girardi, a son-in-law (who practiced with Tom) & Girardi's firm CFO (who is accused of having a side-fraud in addition to assisting Girardi in raiding client trust accounts to fund GIrardi's lifestyle. The battle now turns to whether there are competing expert opinions, and whether the court will or won't determine that Girardi is competent, & therefore, stand trial on the criminal indictments & testify in his own defense. Girardi was, apparently, still managing affairs at his law firm until the day the bankruptcy trustee filed & the firm dissolved. Just a month prior, Tom gave a videotaped ABA interview & also moderated a complex litigation panel. His defense has insisted, however, that progression was quick & he's medicated for dementia. (However, there is no medication that reliably works to reverse - at best, progression is slowed in some -but not in all or even in many. There's a new drug not yet marketed.) Should be interesting. If he's competent, Erika should be able to more easily complete divorce proceedings - in limbo since 2020. However, since a wife has the right not to testify against her husband, or he has the right to block her testimony, perhaps the divorce limbo was more about potential testimony issues than any financial considerations.

Ariana doesn't HAVE to censor her anger. She can react however she wants within the law. But SHOULD she have censored herself? Probably, if she wants to continue her "I'm going to monetize this & want the public to support & sympathize with me." Frankly, I think it's dumb that a corp. thinks I'll buy their product due to sympathy & absent a connection to the product - but if Ariana wants to make bank - then yes, she needs to think about her image & restraint. LOTS of production, PR folks, & others contacted & put contracts before her. She was well advised before the reunion. She's used HER mental state to excuse her conduct but didn't consider OTHERS mental states in lashing out. Not excusable just because they acted without considering her. Rise above, and all. The world's fickle - people like heroes & stalwart - not the bitter. So sure, lash out, but know there's a price to pay. No question Tom & Raquel should have done things differently & more humanely. People do dumb, hurtful things & satisfy their own desires while ignoring others. So yes, express anger. (I hate you, I'm hurt, I'm angry you did so & so.) But say things to mentally destabilize another (you're nothing, you have no friends, you. . you. . .you.) Too far. Because someone hurt you doesn't mean self-control is no longer required. No guarantees she & Tom would last & no common law marriage in California. Ariana & Tom were both unmarried & legally single though cohabitating. Maybe they had certain contractual rights, for example, a jointly bought home. Perhaps, understandably, she didn't want to leave it - but no one forced her to stay & they worked it out. Unless she bought him out, once sold, she'd have to leave it anyway. People break up all the time. People cheat. Do crappy things. Sure, we can sympathize, but how one responds reflects each person's grit & substance. Do what you want to/for yourself, but lash out at someone else & it will be judged. And if she continues to push products willy-nilly without any purpose but greed, they will tire of her. Human nature.

As I recall it & haven't seen any re-runs - Bethenny wanted Jason to share in the success of Skinnygirl (pre-Beam sale) while doing everything to frustrate, diminish & demean him as he tried to cope with her setting up her staff & assistants in their first small apartment. She apparently saw no reason to separate their private & public lives. Or too cheap to rent office space. She bragged about the computer she bought him as a present - but it was a company computer. She wanted him to help her with marketing & whatever & professed he'd be an equal partner - but then nitpicked & micro-managed everything he did. Though he accompanied her on trips to the bottling plant (in Canada?) his role was vague & undefined & variable from day to day. Once she had the baby, his "use" was over. She barely tolerated Jason's parents though they were gracious & welcoming to her & over the moon about their granddaughter. His friends, who pre-marriage, she extolled as being the salt of the earth, turned practically overnight into unsophisticated hicks. She was moving toward more sophisticated & pricier (though not necessarily better) things & people. Though Jason helped her get Skinnygirl off the ground & a sounding board, his contribution became even more vague. They bought a new apartment, which again, B turned into a quasi-office, & he was, once again, surrounded by her taste & her staff though it was theoretically his home too. By the time they had the filmed vacation in Mexico, the resentment of each for the other jumped off the screen. Bethenny's personal assistant, who sometimes smoothed things over, could stand it no longer, and she too, headed for the hills. Escaping the Bethenny-driven nightmare though she tried to leave on good terms & to her credit, never openly dissed B. I remember shouting at the TV screen, "Run Jason Run" when B got out of the limo & instead of heading into the wedding venue, immediately did a right turn & excitedly ran over to greet the paparazzi, thrilled with their paid attention. A reflection of who she is. Then I watched Jason diminished & belittled until they split. Then the nightmare divorce - but was it any wonder?

I do sympathize with Ariana's situation - she seems the victim here - but I also think there's a lot we don't know about Ariana's situation. The La La backseat story is just a hint that an open relationship existed on levels that neither Ariana nor Tom are admitting. The fact Ariana knew about but excused Tom about Miami Girl & perhaps another - & both she & Tom lied to put up a united front & for their "brand." They're BOTH liars when needed to keep the $$$ coming in to them. Actors & business people first. Lovers last - a facade or occasional thing for who knows how long? Raquel was different - both as to duration & brazenness. And Tom was smitten. If only once in a while or nothing serious, Ariana didn't seem to care - so long as the brand continued. But Raquel had Tom's attention & time. Ariana long complained that Tom didn't spend time with her & that wasn't changing. S&S meant less time or more opportunity to "dip" out. So why did Ariana want the relationship to continue? If he was looking for something else, he WAS going to find it. The end coming eventually. It wasn't what she wanted but she wanted the brand, stuck in a rut, wouldn't walk away. He lied & should have walked - but wanted both the brand & the side-piece. Yes, it's fresh & raw. A betrayal. Ariana's angry & entitled to want to wish death & horrible things on Tom & Raquel. (Like the very old Tonio K song: "I wish I was as mellow as for instance Jackson Browne, but 'Fountain of Sorrow' my ass motherf**ker, I hope you wind up in the ground.") But VOICING those thoughts on air in the most vicious, nasty, horrible way & interrupting Tom & Raquel & keeping them from explaining was not okay. She should have tried to stop James & La La from taking over - even if they were trying to support her. (Though more likely, themselves.) Tom & Raquel's lack of a plausible excuse (except they wanted to), their deplorable timing & acts, lack of decency or consideration to her, & inconsistent stories would have shown them up worse than her epithets. But she didn't let them hang themselves. And in doing so, didn't gain more sympathy, but rather, sent some sympathy their way. People screw up. In very bad ways. But they didn't try to kill her or engage in criminal acts. She left the relationship with her life & a host of endorsements & opportunities. She walked out - not crawled out. She can count her blessings that she avoided a most extra bullet - & before children were spawned - largely unwanted by her - & move on, head up & with dignity. (And continue to curse in her head - but not on my screen.)

No. As per - Ariana. Her words. Not saying she was wrong to want what she wanted as a prerequisite for sex - doing more things together. But what she said she "needed" is obviously different from what Tom wanted or "needed." (She wanted walks & dinners, he wanted action activities.) For that & other reasons, Tom didn't want to continue the relationship with Ariana (though scumbag wanted to hide his other involvement) - but Ariana did want to continue - until she learned of Raquel. (She was ok with Miami girl & the one other. And not blaming Ariana for that decision at all. Her relationship - her bridge too far.) But the fact is - they were basically incompatible on various grounds for some time & neither wanted to budge about what they wanted or make further effort to get on the same page. You can want certain things - but if you're not getting your needs met - either game over & leave - or adapt to what you're not getting. Once she learned of the cheating it was relationship over. But that relationship was over before that. Neither one was dealing with their situation very well - but neither was completely happy for a long time. And neither facing up to that.

Don't care what psychiatric "labels" are put on these folks - they're ALL horrible. Not a redeemable one in the bunch. Not seeing a path forward for some of them to film together - none true friends - each pushing their own agenda for money & celebrity. To me, none deserving of either. Frankly, after this season, there's nothing more I want to see of them. In any formulation. For one thing, they're all adults, using the term loosely given their attitudes, actions & capabilities - but adult age anyway. Some almost middle-age but learning nothing by way of experience or education. Tom wanted to leave - he blamed Ariana for what was missing. He didn't want to work at the relationship but too weak, scared or financially tied to leave. So he did what many others do. Cheat. With someone in their circle. Doesn't excuse it because others do it. He's still an amoral jerk. But not unique. Ariana wanted to stay - she blamed Tom for what was missing. She ignores her part in any void. Complacent - but wanted to keep on going - on her terms. Until blindsided. Maybe. (The signals were there - maybe she ignored them.) She got cuckolded - also not unique. Despite the big pity party, don't need her to sell me products. Please stop. Raquel got caught up - but she's no innocent. Perhaps worse, she KNEW what she was doing was horrible but continued on. Also, not unique. To directly inquire of Ariana about whether Ariana wanted to stay in the relationship - get a "yes," but then continue to deceive her - BEYOND ballsy. If she feels ashamed - she should feel ashamed. But Ariana's verbal abuse was over-the-top & her rage & bitterness & hatred - a woman scorned, indeed. What else could Raquel or Tom say except a lame-ass sorry - we tried to fool Ariana & all of you - didn't work. Nothing said would have been satisfying to Ariana at that time. And if there was more that they didn't say - it's because damn LaLa & James, & to some extent Ariana, and even LVP, didn't let them get a sentence out. Andy's lack of control - quite obvious. Though what would be accomplished? When she did say more (the bombshell that wasn't) Raquel STILL lied - about St. Louis, for example. As for the others, Katie sat there with self-satisfied smirk. Sheana too - though 100 yards due to HER lack of control. LaLa & James made it about themselves or diverted the discussion into nonsense -La La vs. Raquel as a "nickname" (who cares?) or Poopy-head childish crap. Schwartz mulling over his Casanova looks declares he won't likely re-marry. (He'll be lucky to even date again as wussy & without game as he's been!) Ally's just happy to be anywhere. Not that it's over - it's OVER for me. Nothing more for me to know about these twits. They're not learning from their mistakes - it's not in them. They're mean, nasty, judgmental & unforgiving people (except each about themselves) who lack introspection. Greed & self-absorption getting the best of them. I'm out.

Exactly. Barnacle Bethenny latching onto rumors about Meghan & Harry's marriage & spouting crap about move-away orders & conflicting out all the "good" attorneys is off-the-top of her head & beyond superficial. (And discussed with much greater specificity & thought in the Succession thread when Tom & Shiv were divorcing in Season 4.) Yet another effort to project herself as a know-it-all about everything - without really knowing anything - except the world according to Bethenny. Also, interesting that Bethenny doesn't mention it now, though she spread it around back then, but Meghan Markle's ex-husband, producer Trevor Engelson (now re-married with two kids) dated Bethenny once after his divorce from Meghan. Guess Bethenny didn't learn much anything about Meghan from Trevor - or by now, B would have spilled whatever nonsensical useless tidbit she could about that.

Why doesn't she approach any of the cute guys she sees "wherever she goes?" There's no law that the guy has to approach her. An approach is all it is. She doesn't have to follow up if there's no spark or something is a turn off or they're not single. Just as she may approach & they're not interested. But standing around waiting is a waste of time. It's not easy. Especially for the shy types on either end. But obviously, she's in the vicinity of "potentials" & they're not meeting. So DO something. Sidle over & strike up a convo - even if over something stupid, the time, the weather, whatever. Get in their space. It may go nowhere - or who knows - maybe that shy guy will have an interest where he was oblivious before --

Well, Kim crossed the writers' guild picket line to go to her acting gig on American Horror Story. After Kim's SUV crossed the line, the security guards who escorted her into the building put on bullet-proof vests, which would seem to be a bit of overkill (no pun intended.) She's not officially a scab (or, as New York Mag put it, a "skab" in Kardashian-speak) for crossing the picket line because actors are permitted until June 30 to complete acting gigs - but she did, nevertheless, dishonor the striking writers by crossing the picket line & not showing support for the writers. Consistent for Kimmie, however -- tone deaf as usual. Seems convicted criminals are a cause she can put her rear end behind - the writers who put the words in her mouth for her to "act" (and I use that term loosely) - not so much.

Sometimes people choose not to marry or delay marriage. Sometimes the option just isn't there - you haven't met & may never meet "the one." Sometimes two people are on different tracks, have different goals, ways of dealing with life, or the timing is off. Sometimes luck or health or other people intervene. Sometimes there IS something wrong with their character - there are plenty of screwed up people. Basically, it would be nice if people didn't judge. But they do. Not always fair. Sometimes in-roads can be made - slowly. But that's life.

Clooney WAS married - in 1989 to actress Talia Balsam - lasted 3 years. Then single for a long time with a series of shorter-term girlfriends. Then met Amal & got married again. He's not one of those "never got married" until later in life guys. My remarks were directed to a post about older guys who hadn't married. For those guys, dating decades ago, the trend was toward marriage. Not so much today. Decades ago, generally, women weren't as independent, career oriented or for whatever reason (clicking time-clock as to children,etc.) pressured for marriage more than the guys who either left after an ultimatum they didn't want to accept, or the woman left him after she couldn't get him to pull the trigger. Not so much today. Just as not many children born before marriage. Not as much today. Until the '70's people didn't live together as much. Changed quickly and now, very accepted. There were always exceptions but people did succumb to social pressure more back then. Not getting married when in a LTR, meant legal issues to be overcome - moreso for women than men in those times - but more protections now. Times change.

Depends on how old you are - the older you get, the less likely that the guys you meet will not have had an earlier relationship - and kids. They may still be kind, employed & non-smokers (as you wish) but a bit more encumbered than you think you want. Or if they're older & never married - sometimes it's because they have impossible standards & a revolving door of relationships. Time-wasters. Peter Pans. Fine in the early stages, but bolt when pressure placed on them to make things more committed. Or they just don't want to commit to you - and somehow, it's these guys who marry the one just after you. They're waiting for the lightning bolt - and why it's someone else & not you - who knows? If you're at the mall & you're meeting old guys - well, maybe that's because it's mainly old guys who hang out at malls. But since you're there - go to the men's departments of various stores, look for a younger guy who's shopping & ask him to help you pick out - whatever. Go where younger guys are - generally more activity-driven places, like parks, hiking, traveling, they're playing baseball with friends, grocery shopping, etc. If you're afraid of stranger danger, then volunteer. Join. Legal aid. Volunteer at a hospital. Work for whatever political party appeals to you. Somewhere where other people know the guy. Work can be a good place to meet guys - depending on the job. Some jobs don't have a constant influx of potential or available guys. Plus, it's always tricky to date someone at work & keep it discreet. And if things don't work out - can be uncomfortable or impact your position as well. But your workplace - or the workplaces of friends - might be a source. "Nurse with a purse" is the goal of older guys who either never had money or lost it in the divorce. Someone to take care of them. Someone to support them. But just because someone doesn't want that or has money doesn't necessarily mean they're gonna spend it on you. Sometimes rich guys are the cheapest. Sometimes the ones with nothing are generous & fritter whatever they have on you - but also "cash short" a lot because they live a "here today, gone tomorrow" existence. Friends or relative set-ups can be frustrating (as in, what were they thinking??) but it does take out the scary stranger factor. And enlarges the dating pool. Get to know lots of folks, check out lots of different organizations - you never know who they know. Get it out of your head that they just want to be friends. That's almost NEVER a guy's end goal - no matter what his age, social standing or situation - unless you need another gay friend.

If meeting guys at the mall - how do you know he's really got any money? Because he said so? Hah! Why would that subject even come up - unless he's trying to impress (if he's got it) or bluff (if he hasn't.) A lunch at the mall is cheap. Even if he does - & you're really looking for a sugar daddy - he could have an ex-wife (or several) & lots of kids to suck up his "wealth" in the form of spousal or child support (before death) or inheritance (after) that you expect him to spend on you. If he's telling you he's got money, it's just honey to attract the bee. May or may not be true. Or he wants you to disclose your finances by "sharing" his because he's looking for a "nurse with a purse." Someone to take care of him in his old age - who can pay her own way - or maybe for him too. Things aren't always what they seem. No matter how old, friendship's not the goal - for him. They always think they want sex - whether physically up to it or not. Old goats! Never too late for kids either. Oh so fussy - then get older & hooked by the young chick. At 60, running around playgrounds after a 4-year old & they're huffing & puffing. The guy who wanted to retire & travel - not so free to travel or do what he wants because the tot(s) come first - for the next 20 or so years - which he may or may not live to see. So go out with guys you're attracted to, enjoy being with, have fun with. Other motivations aren't always what they seem.

Please DO NOT bring this show back. It's beyond tired. In theory, Tom & Raquel's affair was interesting & interesting to talk about here. But actually watching it play out on TV - with middle-aged twits & grandma Lisa weighing in on it or acting shocked by it - kinda boring. And before it - the road trip to Vegas & Dullsville, Katie & Schwartz' divorce antics - pure punishment. Nowhere to go with this. They are all much too old to be acting like such idiots. James - gleefully screeching like a child - too smug, too loud, too mean. (Ally's young but if he ever misdirects his anger at her - & he will - she's gone.) Katie - trying to control Schwartz (even after divorce) because he places her last on his list. Wants his attention even if she has to be annoying to get it. The torch she's carrying is burning all the candles in the room. Move on Katie, move on. You got it - he doesn't like you - he's never moving you up the list. Also, your venture's cutsey (& labor intensive - tie every sandwich with twine?) Hopefully you & Ariana can eke a living out of it once VPR is done. But get off my screen. Schwartz - passive/aggressively placed Katie last on his list because he has no clue how to be a participating partner to anyone - & she IS annoying & now, an Ex. With Sandoval, however, he'll forgive anything even if he sinks financially, professionally & every which way by attaching himself to that loser. Sandoval - perpetual man/child who wants the thrill but not the responsibility of a real relationship so he finds a Raquel to act thrilled over him. But even she seems to be over him. Raquel - looking for validation from any guy she meets. Acting on every impulse good or bad - no matter who she hurts in the process. Including herself. LaLa: Let herself be bought by a phony, loser, player. But now she's the expert on other's relationships. And wants another baby? Now? Koo-koo. Sheana: Seems happy now. For someone the others loved to hate or scorn - she's become the OG and settled with her lot. Good for her. But hey, watch that anger - whether a punch, scratch or push. Ariana: She can bask in the public's love now. But they'll move on. I seem to recall her acting above the others when first on the show - though now she's the bestest supportive friend. Sad victim with touches of bitterness. Not a good look. She was kind of complacent about her relationship with Sandoval - there's some truth to his complaints - though how he handled the situation was deplorable. Lisa: All calculated business decisions. She doesn't love these people - she tolerates them - so long as they draw business to her over-rated tourist-trap restaurants. That's why she still sucks up to the Toms. How much of a draw can goat cheese balls & Pumptinis be after so many years? There's nothing more I need to hear or see of these folks. So i guess, after the reunion, I'm done-zo.

Mattson wants a figurehead - not a knucklehead. A figurehead who appears to the world to know what they're doing - even if directed by Mattson. Greg is a stumbling bumbling twit. He'd be an embarrassment & would need constant direction. Unable to think & execute on his own or finesse problems as they arise. Too young. Too unseasoned. Mattson would have to be too involved in the day-to-day nitty-gritty & he couldn't want that. Not seeing it - at all. Even Tom would be better. He's actually running ATN - been through the ranks at Waystar (though in the problematic Cruises division), at Logan's elbow at the end, and a married-in member of the Roy family - though on the receiving end of derision from the Waystar bench of old-timers (Geri, Frank, Karl, Hugo, etc) & not really connected or supported by anyone on the Board.

Bar prep courses are great prep for the 200 multiple choice questions that comprise 1 day of the CA Bar Exam. Called the multi-state, it's used for many states' exams. (And if you haven't already learned the essentials of each of the subjects covered - law school or independently - pretty hard to pick it up at the end.) Meaning, you've got to remember the start to end of your studies. The second day of the California Bar Exam is essays. Fact patterns that can cover any of 21 subjects. Must recognize issues, analyze facts, apply law, and come to a conclusion - with the writing ability to clearly & logically set it out. Unlike the multi-state, can't just memorize & recognize - have to think. In California, yes, there's a baby bar exam (lst yr. student's exam) that must be passed by those in unaccredited law schools or independent study. (Those in accredited law schools need not take it.) Kim took 4 years (not 1) to pass it & it's only 3 subjects! She'll need to remember those for the bar exam & learn all the others. She's crowing now about learning 1 more subject - but so many more to go! Pretty safe bet she won't be taking the bar in a couple more years at this pace. And guessing, since the exam only given 2x a year, many years after that to actually pass. (Hopefully not surpassing Maxcy Flier - 48 times before passing.) She likes the notion of being an attorney - like her dad. Makes her sound smart. But many who work in a law office & excel at the procedural aspects, technical tasks, or learn one facet of law (e.g., probate, naturalization, family law) think, I can do this - & go to law school. Many make it. But some - first to drop out. Cave when faced with the reading, writing, logical thinking, areas of law they have no interest or affinity for. Not easy. But not impossible - there's plenty of not so bright attorneys. Then, some get past the bar exam - but hate actual practice. Not taught in law school: deadlines, differing court rules for different courts, abrasive opposing counsel, demanding judges & clients, juggling many cases at once, the business of running an office, overseeing associates, dealing with partners, the overhead. Kim likely thinks she'll buy people to do much of this for her. Even research, arguments, writing, thinking - & maybe she will since money is no objective for her - but at some point she'll have to get into court & someone's life & freedom will be in her hands - and she'll find out it's no game or day at the Met Gala. Good luck Kim. I think it's a pipe dream that's taking far too long to show that she's really serious or dedicated. Prove me wrong.