KittyQ

I wondered how old his kids are. If she's talking about kids in their 20s, maybe she has a right to be annoyed. If they are teenaged or younger, then really, his care for them would be an indication that he values family. Either way, it seems clear that they weren't on the same (divine) page, so breaking up is for the best. - I wondered if they had ever discussed and agreed on that "divine" order before. If not, then Eboni would do well to be sure that her next boyfriend is aware of her expectations.

That was big hair? Haha! I think I feel a Crocodile Dundee reference coming on (I wish I had an appropriate picture) - "This is big hair!"

As an alternative to the mob-oriented storylines, at least Stella harks back to the more classic soap opera busybodies that stir pots. It is unclear to me why Chase would want to hang out in the bedroom where Willow and Michael had sex. Was Austin actually sitting on the bed? That seemed a bit too much for me. I also hope he's able to help Chase back down the stairs and up to the house, because if he can't, the cat will be out of the bag for sure.

I didn't know all this View history. It is interesting how different people work to encourage their friends in place. Not very different from other workplaces, in some ways. However, my original comment was more about Sunny's work as a prosecutor. If she doesn't believe in merit, how does she explain her law career? Did she have "guardian angels" that helped her get her legal jobs and keep them? Surely she would be insulted if anyone said that she only got them because of connections. I would think that she would just have to look at her own life to see that while no career path is purely based on "merit", assuming that other people only have their jobs because of personal relationships is grossly unfair.

Sunny says that it is false that life is a meritocracy, that "access" (via relatives/friends). So who got her into her position? She got it without merit? I doubt she'd think that was true. I think Whoopie's perspective is more rational. If you have a connection, try it, but you have to struggle on your own and work hard to improve yourself because no matter how you got a job, you won't keep it long without being able to do the work. I also agree that having programs (in schools or other organizations) that make it possible for young people to learn skills and find out about opportunities is extremely important. Cutting them is a great disservice to everyone.

I understand Whoopi's stance about those criticizing Simone Biles for dropping out of the gymnastic team final, but the part about how few people could do what she does - so what. I don't think that makes any difference. You could swap out almost any job that an audience member does and the chances are that Simone couldn't do it (especially without any training or practice).

It would have been better if one of the other hosts listed her book. It is one thing to announce that you've written a book and another to choose your own book as recommended reading.

*Disclaimer: I'm not an historian* This is an interesting topic which has made me do some reading and learn more about our history. What I found was this: For the Constitution to be ratified, 9 of the original 13 states had to agree to it. It seems that there was much discussion and difference of opinion between the states about what powers the federal government would have vs. what powers the states would retain. It seems most likely that each state had its own motivations for wanting to restrict the power of the federal government. While Virginia didn't end up being the deciding vote for ratification of the Constitution (it turns out that New Hampshire's ratification was the 9th and last one required), they did bargain that a list of amendments should be addressed as the next step post-ratification, and even provided some suggested amendments, including one that looks to be a precursor to the 2nd Amendment. I would guess that since the Constitution was officially ratified before Virginia signed on, the Constitutional Convention could have ignored Virginia's concerns, but flat out ignoring any of the original 13 states' issues would be a bad way to start off the "United States". So, while Virginia (and other states) could have seen such an amendment as a way to protect how their militias were used, there doesn't seem to be a guarantee that their list of suggested amendments would end up being used, or used in the same form. Other states also proposed various amendments to be considered, so Virginia wasn't the only state to say that they wanted some additional rights to be added onto the Constitution. This is the long way around to say that Sunny's statement has some validity because how the states chose to use their militias would be out of scope of the federal government. So if some states used their militias to quell slave rebellions, that use could be "protected" by the 2nd Amendment, but it seems like an over statement to say that protection of slavery alone was the reason for the amendment.

I have to agree with JJ - this case was confusing as well as boring. IMO most construction issues are dull, though, so no surprise there. It is a good example, however, of the problems that arise when responsibility boundaries are not clearly defined. Also, in the hall-terview, it sounded as though the defendant was blaming the plaintiff because his addition was too close to his pool and the (kitchen?) window was too low to install a backsplash. But I thought he said he didn't use her plans and instead did the work all on his own. Did I hear that wrong? If that was the case, how is she at fault for any shortcomings? Again - confusing.

The 2nd Amendment was based on protection of slavery? The colonists worried more about protecting slavery than the possibility that external forces (or even the new government) would use force against an unarmed (and hence, an unprotected) population?

I suspect most of us do (including me) - it is hard to resist that, but you have to at least try. After all, we aren't all clones of each other and react differently.

I'll bet many women do! I used to love turtlenecks and cable knits and I had to give them up along with other cozy clothes that I can't wear now, even in winter. I know some people who have brazened it out at work, carrying little remote fans around, but that isn't something I felt comfortable with.

Good for Stacy London addressing menopause. There are so many issues around it. It is hard enough to deal with symptoms in a personal space, but when you are at work it can be very awkward. Unless you are in a business that has a lot of other women (especially "older") dealing with the more visible symptoms like hot flashes can give your coworkers poor impressions. If you think that the "oh it must be that time of the month" type of thoughts (or comments) are unfair, the thinking around "oh, she's going through the change so she's totally unreasonable" is worse. The more it can be normalized, the better.

Sunny says that Ramona (of Real Housewives of NY) is "privileged" and the show is "vapid" - obviously she doesn't watch the show, because I think that's kind of the brand of RHONY. This is not a "deep" show, and tbh, these are not "deep" people (although I'm sure they'd be offended if you told them that). If you want to inject deeper content than party plans, fashion, and interpersonal issues, you need to do it in a more nuanced, natural way, not as a lecture. I think it can be done, but it would take a defter person than the new housewife appears to be to make the housewives think much about these concerns.

Haha to Yvette asking Colin Farrell where to get a pint! Despite being sober (I think he still is), he was able to suggest several places to go with good humor.

Re: not accepting student IDs for voting. Not all states deny student IDs for voting, but some do, and that may have something to do with the state requirements for acceptable IDs. Whatever IDs are allowed for voting should meet similar requirements to validate that the holder is the same person who registered for voting. There are some IDs that are intended for "internal" use by the organization that issued them and don't validate identity outside of that organization. Depending on the school, not all student IDs may include much supporting information. while some gun permits might have that info. Having consistent requirements across states for which IDs are acceptable would be a big help here.

Judge Judy didn't have experience with electronic signatures (at least when this case was heard). She's considering only types of electronic signatures that involve physically signing something and then sending it via email or fax (or something like a credit card machine) so there's a signature to compare. However, other e-signings don't use any "physical" signing, just the submitter's agreement that the electronically produced "signature" (which doesn't look anything like the person's signature) will be considered valid and they provide supporting documentation to verify that. In other cases, the person just types their name in the form and it is accepted as the official e-signature. It is still odd that the leasing company wouldn't send a copy of the lease because it has to be on file somewhere, but perhaps the plaintiff didn't talk to a person with the ability to access those documents. I would imagine that access might be restricted due to privacy concerns, so more hoops than usual have to be gone through.

If only our actual legal system worked as quickly as the one on GH! Or maybe not, since the GH legal system has a tendency to act on little or scant evidence, with minimal investigation, which is why innocent people end up in their prison system and career criminals seem to bounce out without even having to get parole, etc. However, it was hilarious that Martin's recording of the judge (secretly recorded) was sufficient to get the Superintendent of Police (!) to make personal visit to the prison to release 2 (only 2, what about all the others who were sentenced by the very biased judge - oh, I guess that will work out somehow) prisoners the very same day that she heard the recording (in fact, it seemed to be the same day the recording was made). I sincerely hope no viewers are under the impression that that is the way the system actually works.

I would guess the attorney is a relative or friend, so maybe the trip alone was compensation.

In my area much of the show was pre-empted for what is sure to be the top topic tomorrow - Bill Cosby's release. I wonder what Sunny will say about what seems to be a big misstep by the prosecution (at least that's what gathered from what I heard on TV and radio).

I agree this is an issue. It just seemed so awkwardly shoehorned into a topic that was only tangentially related. It would have been better addressed as a topic on its own.

I agree. I thought it was clear that the "no family, no friends" policy was meant to reduce the number of people entering the country who might carry the virus. The whole discussion seemed to revolve around workplace accommodations for breastfeeding moms. As it happens the policy for the Olympics was reversed, so this "hot topic" is now moot.

That's an interesting point. My impression (mainly based on anecdotal evidence) was that the school districts had plans to teach something (CRT or whatever) and parent objections along with publicity / social media input resulted in calls to ban the curriculum. If there is no intention to introduce CRT (or whatever they are calling it) into the curriculum, you'd think that the easiest thing to do would be for school districts to state that clearly and loudly and point out that banning something that isn't planned is a waste of time and effort. That isn't something I've heard anyone do, but it might not be getting the kind of coverage it should.

I suspect that much like "defunding the police", the name Critical Race Theory is being used by many people who don't seem to share the same definition of what it is and how it should (or shouldn't) be implemented in places other than law school. For example, neither school departments nor parents seem to be clear about what will be incorporated in schools and what the purpose is. I think this is the result of a kind of knee-jerk response by school systems to the demonstrations of 2020 . They don't want to look like they aren't doing anything, so they grab onto whatever sounds good, without taking the time to deeply examine what is involved, and determine the best implementations, appropriate to different ages and grades. If a school's approach follows along simplistic lines like "white people bad (or at least unhelpful)" and "black and brown people are constantly victimized by everyone", then it is going to be divisive and make true social reform more difficult if not impossible. If a school's approach is more thoughtful and nuanced, they should be able to explain that to parents and community members to gain their support and assist in meaningful social growth.

I think Joy's "comedian" instincts are stronger than her common sense sometimes. She may not be as empathetic as she'd like us to believe.