KittyQ

I think if my first time was recorded and played back to my whole college, I might be a little gun shy about it. At the very least, I'd be super paranoid about checking for recording devices anywhere I went. Kind of a sexual PTSD. So maybe not having sex all the time is understandable.

Does Ana have investments in drag queen shows or appearances? It seemed odd how focused she was on that topic. It also sounded as though she was saying that there's some issue with parents who want to take their kids to drag queen shows. Perhaps I misunderstood because I was doing something else at the time, but I thought that the issue with drag queens wasn't that parents could take their kids to these shows, but that the drag queens came to the school as part of a book reading (or some other activity). The difference is that in one case the parents have a choice, and in the other case, there's no choice because the performers are coming to the school. Again, with the Will Smith "apology". Does anyone other than Whoopi think that was "heartfelt"? Why does Ana not take Chris Rock's "victim" comment for what it is, instead of making it sound like Chris Rock is somehow at fault here? The only person who seemed to kind of understand the "victim" comment was Sara and even she glossed over the point. IMO the point of the comment was that there is a tendency lately for people to seek sympathy because they are so "victimized" even if they brought some of their problems on themselves. I think it definitely was a joke about Smith (who still hasn't offered a sincere apology). There are real victims in this world, but I don't think Will Smith is one.

While there are more "serious" issues around, Will Smith could be a positive example for many people if he makes a true, sincere apology for this incident without publicizing it. Putting out a video and hoping that Chris Rock would accept this type of proxy apology that doesn't involve Smith taking real responsibility for his obnoxious, immature behavior is just self-serving.

Without going out on much of a limb, I would say no, we wouldn't know her name and no, this wouldn't even be topic. Most people detained abroad are "regular" people (meaning not particularly well-known). According to a website I visited there are at least 67 people who've "disappeared" in many countries. One good thing about Brittney Griner's case is that it brings the topic to public awareness. Although I think it is unclear if having publicity is good or bad for efforts to negotiate releases. If the View continues to mention Brittney Griner (and I think they will), I wish they would stop making it sound as if she was a financial refugee (suggesting that makes it more important for her to be released) and make the point that there are many US citizens who are still stuck in foreign countries.

Sunny keeps mentioning that Brittney Griner was in Russia because she needed the money (as she only makes 200K per season) as if that is at all relevant to her case. Whether she went to make more money or because she loved Doctor Zhivago, the State Department should treat her the same as any other US citizen unfairly arrested abroad. Brittney doesn't make as much money as the players in the NBA. Lots of people don't make that much money; lots of people don't make as much money as Brittney, either. The pay disparity is an issue for the sports leagues to address and shouldn't have any import in the effort to have her released. One thing that the ladies did not mention is the possibility that by arresting and detaining US citizens, certain countries might make favorable deals to get some of their real criminals being held here released. Does the current discussion about releasing Brittney and Paul Whelan (held for several years on a charge of spying) for a guy known as the "Merchant of Death" sounds like an even swap? It seems possible that if any dangerous person from another country is apprehended, some (relatively) inoffensive American citizen will be detained as a pawn for future exchange.

I was surprised that they showed her fiddling around with her pen (?) during the discussion. I wonder if she does this all the time, and someone decided to stop shielding her.

A few thoughts about yesterday's show: So Nik can not only get Esme's "internship" reinstated, he can get her access to Ryan? I get that he's got influence (on the Board?), but unless he actually owns the facility, why would anyone let him dictate things like this. At the minimum IRL there'd have to be some meeting about it. Also, if I were working there, I'd want some kind of paperwork to CYA in case things go sideways. (Of course, in Port Charles, everything goes according to plan - right?) Do they give "internships" to people who just want one? I think internships, especially for something as sensitive as criminal offenders (and psychopaths!) would require specific qualifications, not just an "interest". I could see Esme being a volunteer of some kind, but giving her access to dangerous patients / inmates would be restricted. The ADA should be more precise with her language. "Cavorting" doesn't describe standing in a corridor having a conversation. "Cavorting" sounds like liquor, dancing, and skimpy clothing are involved. Joss is so hypocritical. She didn't care at all about the guy who was getting beaten. She only cared about getting a "gotcha" on Sonny. If she really tried, I'm sure she could find something even more illegal than that, even just snooping around the house.

It is amazing how many people are actually thrilled about this pregnancy. They act as though it is something extra special in their lives, not just someone else's good news. So Sonny tells Carly that he was "admonishing" someone and Joss recorded it on her phone and Carly's reaction is that Joss can do whatever she wants. Not even pretending to be disturbed by the whole situation. Drew, too, acted as if Sonny just talked about a fender bender or something. In other news, the guy that was beaten up is just laying there; no one called 911, no one called for help. Is Dax (Dex?) going to hoist him up and carry him to the hospital himself?

Doesn't Sunny realize that her cute little anecdotes about her kids will get back to them and maybe not in a kind way? I wonder if the emphasis on sharing everything is going to result in a situation where no one does anything authentic or spontaneous anymore, either because they want to appear great in shared media OR they want to avoid being shared, so they build a shell around their feelings and behavior.

A few months after the break-in at the Watergate, Nixon was re-elected. However, putting all the pieces together took the next few years. One thing that made that case was that all the evidence was checked and rechecked, and more than one source was used to verify everything. If any investigation now is going to succeed, it needs to be as meticulously done or it will just be a hollow exercise.

Whoopi, are you sure that the Democrats "couldn't get it done" rather than "didn't make much effort" WRT codifying abortion rights? It may be that the party in power at the time had other priorities and felt (wrongly as it turns out) that having Roe v. Wade in place was enough. It reminds me of my work in software development - there are always some bugs that don't quite meet the bar to be fixed before a product release, and all the teams say that they will be addressed in the update or next version, but somehow, there is always something more important that takes priority and those annoying little bugs stay in place for years. (No, I'm not bitter).

I think Joy is incorrect - changing your mind on / voting for a particular issue because it affects you or someone close to you is not a specifically Republican characteristic; it is human nature. Many people of all political persuasions do not focus on issues that have no personal relevance to them. Once they become aware because it is "personalized" for them, they will pay closer attention. Sometimes a person may be able to empathize with a situation that is NOT in their experience or related to anyone they know, but I suspect that many people are more concerned with whatever is "close to home" for them. Joy is ready to attribute any negative or lazy behavior to "Republicans" but she doesn't seem to view "Democrats" with the same scrutiny.

The smiling defendant seems to embody many of the irresponsible characteristics of some people (mainly young, but not exclusively) - she claims that the bank sent her the "wrong statement", so she just gave it up, saying "I know I made the payments, so whatever." Is that how you plan to run your life? You just lost this case, because you couldn't provide proof of payment (assuming she made any payments). Why not persist a little with the bank to get the right documentation? She kept smiling / grinning because it was better than frowning. Huh? Those aren't the only two facial expressions! You could look serious, concerned, sorry - any of those would be appropriate. My guess is that she took this whole thing as a joke because realistically she isn't out any money herself.

Jennifer seems to "fall in love" easily. With luck, it will last, but only time will tell. I don't think this relationship is especially romantic in an idealistic way. I can't see them pining away for each other for twenty years, overcoming obstacles in quest to be together. I think this is a situation where both parties found themselves single at the same time and replayed some of their original relationship. So good for them, but I wouldn't consider them any kind of romantic ideal. For some reason Sunny (and I think a couple of the other ladies) seem very excited by this marriage. I think that JLo's mother has been an audience member frequently so perhaps that personal connection is the reason they feel this is "meant to be".

Jennifer Lopez / Ben Affleck - I hope this works out for them, but neither one has a great history of stable relationships, so who knows. I hope Sunny was being sarcastic when she said that this is the first marriage where JLo was really in love, because if she really believes that, it makes JLo seem very shallow.

This is a weak point for anti-abortion advocates. In the past 50 years, no group (pro or anti) has adequately addressed many of the reasons that women seek abortions and identify solutions for post-birth issues. In addition to creating or supporting childcare options, there should be more emphasis on developing birth control options that are efficient and reliable enough that more people would use. Abortion should not be considered as the ideal "back up plan" if a woman doesn't want to have a child. As trite as it is to say that abortion should be "rare", that is true, although there doesn't seem to be much work done to ensure that is the reality.

Al and Manny sound very entitled! I get that when there are two people working, you have to compromise on who does which chores, but "expecting" that dinner will be served (especially at a particular time) is pretty insufferable, no matter who is demanding it. It is hard to believe that Sunny and Ana would go along with that. I also agree with Whoopi (again!) that the time to work some of this out is at the beginning of the marriage / living situation. At least set a few expectations, knowing things might change in the future.

Does the Metro Court have an HR department? Security? Because this is the kind of situation where you'd want to walk the ex-employee out so they can't sabotage anything. I think it would be hard for Carly to do anything to damage MC, but since NINA owns part of it, she could get over her squeamishness.

I think that your point about Kansas possibly restricting abortions for out-of-state people makes some sense. It does rely on reporting, however. I suppose that if clinics were required to provide demographic details about clients that might be helpful, but wouldn't a clinic giving specific patient details violate HIPAA? The details would have to be well thought through and I think various states would have to deal with their voters. So far as I know, no one who has floated this idea has bothered to outline how it would work, so I'm saying either they have no idea and are just posturing, or they really think this is a fully baked plan (Yikes!). If my state has elected officials who would enact knee jerk, slap-dash legislation, I would never vote for them again because they are too stupid to be in office. Whoopi doesn't always make great sense, but she does have some points that people should think about.

No one can predict exactly what people will or won't go for, although my personal experience is that the vaccine, especially the first version, was very much wanted. I stood in lines of many people waiting to get it as well as the booster shot. What I suspect is happening now is that people are tired of the never-ending restrictions that don't seem to have the great results that were promoted. I doubt it would be different for any other President, but Biden has to deal the hand that was dealt. My point is that any candidate for President should have been aware that a global pandemic would be a huge problem going forward. So for the panel to suggest that Biden was surprised by ongoing COVID problems is silly. As for being ratted out - there's going to be a tip line or something? Who would act on these tips and how quickly? There's also the matter of "proof" - who would collect that? Are we imagining that there would be some kind of web of informers of the kind you expect in totalitarian regimes and police resources would be devoted to tracking down evidence (vs. following up on the many existing crimes)? Any state government that hasn't at least thought this through is idiotic and should all be thrown out come election time, even if the alternatives are literally clowns. I think Whoopi had a good point there, because we don't live in a country that thrives on informants.

For some reason it seemed Whoopi might think that COVID just popped up during Biden's administration. Anyone running for President in 2020 had to know that COVID was a big problem and would not just go away after the election. So Biden knew what he was getting into on this issue at least. If he hasn't managed it well, that's his problem. Most Presidents don't go into office with a "blank check" to do whatever they want without any opposition. Part of the job is being able to work with competing interests to obtain results that are best for the country, not for themselves or their particular political party. It was a quick line, but Whoopi also made the point that if a woman travels to another state to get an abortion, how would anyone in her home state know. People travel for all kinds of reasons, and we don't have to give testimony of why when we cross state lines. I don't know why those who are pushing the idea that women traveling for abortions should be charged for some crime would not consider this as a huge block to the plan. I think they just want to scare people.

About LeBron James' comment on whether Brittney Griner feels let down by the US because she's still in Russia - LeBron must have an unrealistic expectation of what the State Department can accomplish and how long it might take. There are other people who have been in Russian prisons longer than Brittney by years, so perhaps expectations should be adjusted. I think it would be normal to be a bit bitter when you're incarcerated unfairly no matter where that is, but relationships between governments (especially ones that are at odds for other reasons) are going to require diplomacy and negotiations that can take quite some time. As to Whoopi's point, I'm not sure that the fact that Brittney Griner has played in Russia "for years" is a good talking point for her. You'd expect that a person who must be more than passingly familiar with a country would have at least a general knowledge of its laws and know enough to be cautious when traveling there, unlike casual tourists who often don't know all that much about the country they are visiting. One has to wonder if she became complacent because she'd been there before with no incident. Although the ladies keep making this point, I don't think that the fact that she's been playing in Russia to get extra money because the WNBA doesn't pay that much (according to www[.]sportingnews[.]com she makes $227,900 per year) is relevant to her case. It isn't as though she was there at the behest of the US government. If a US citizen is travelling to another country for business or personal purposes, they should get the same kind of assistance regardless of their income. (Although, for a variety of reasons, not everyone ends up with especially helpful assistance - Amanda Knox for example).

About the vegan wedding - I think Whoopi made a good point. This wasn't some random guest - it was the groom's sister who has lots of allergies. You'd think that when planning the wedding the couple would have made some kind of accommodation for a close family member. I also can see Sunny's point that if you know that you have issues with the food (assuming you are a random wedding guest) then you should eat something beforehand instead of bringing your own food. Unless the reception is a cookout or other really casual venue, bringing food containers seems crass.

Sad that you lost your argument for this reason. Way, way back when I was in middle school, I used a particular phrase in an assignment that I knew was correct because I read about it in the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, my teacher "corrected" it to the more frequently used but not correct term. It still bugs me decades later. :-) I agree that Alexis is not approaching journalism in an objective way. I don't think that it is necessary for a newspaper (or news source) to have a "point of view" other than "these are the facts as they are known at this time". Alexis' lack of experience in journalism is leading her to make these choices and to be so defensive about them. She really should be trying to learn instead of assuming she's already super competent.

Why on earth would anyone (even a dim-witted board of directors) think that giving a girl who hasn't even completed one psychology course access to a psychotic serial killer for any reason, let alone the stupid reason Esme is giving? Would they not care about liability, for heaven's sake? They have no idea that there's a prior relationship between Esme and Ryan - and if they did, that would be even more reason to deny her access. Also, wouldn't they take the word of their very responsible doctor (director?) over a volunteer intern, or even Nik Cassidine? What qualifications would Nik have anyway? This storyline is irritating.