Sue in her 60s

Or even be elected in the first place.

Does it shed any more light on what happened on that day's or week's episode? Do you recommend it?

I read the various comments here about what Sunny said, so was happy to get a look at the clip. First Sunny was describing how their make-up person was reacting to the earthquake and then she brought in the recent eclipse and the cicadas (yet to come), couching it similar to "some people could believe there is a connection." It was sort of distancing herself from having that opinion, but still, she brought it up, so she seemed to be trying to have it both ways.

I appreciate your diligent research! Who knows if Whoopi sees the same symbolism as I do in that scarf. One note, though, a scarf like this one is supposed to fray at the edges.

Having compassion for the Palestinians in Gaza does not make one anti-white or anti-Jewish. There are no heroes in this war among the leaders of Israel or Hamas, but there have been 1200 (murdered) + 253 (taken hostage) + 30,000 (bombed)+ 600 (IDF killed) victims. But Dems currently have a Senate majority, so they don't need Republican support.

If you're talking about the black (gray) and white USA flag scarf, I think it represents that the promise of America will not quite reach its full potential until we have achieved "liberty and justice for all." When we get to full equality of opportunity, the flag will be resplendent with color.

Today's program was previously recorded. So the audience from an earlier live-broadcast show must stuck around for the taping of the second show, to be aired at a later date. Whoopi is just being honest about it, though not very clear to the at-home audience.

Whoopi's bored behavior most often appears when the topic is gossip, like what happened with Princess Kate. But behind the boredom is an objection to bringing these topics up at all. In pre-show discussion, I'm sure she advocates for omitting these topics, but the producers feel the audience likes them. The "bored look" is really a protest. I don't care for these gossip segments either. Unless they affect other people, the private lives of celebrities should stay private.

I think the big hair and long nails, sometimes along with her flashy clothing choices, are a way to distract, or maybe intimidate, the person she is reading. She speaks fast, she constantly says "you understand?" with an air of demanding, not really asking, if they understand. Besides, she has become known for her big hair. It identifies her.

I was disappointed that The View gave Theresa Caputo exposure today. I realize that ABC and Lifetime, the network showing her new series, are connected through their corporate owners, so maybe this segment was non-negotiable. But the readings for Sunny and Ana (both celebrities with lots of writing by and about them) were taped beforehand, and we don't know what editing had been done. How many questions were asked but not aired that neither host responded to positively? Although Sunny insisted that Caputo knew something she had never told anyone, Caputo framed the first questions very generally, and could read Sunny's reactions to narrow them down. Sunny herself gave the specifics about what her grandmother meant when she said it was OK, or something to that effect. I believe Sunny and Ana's tears were very real. Who wouldn't react emotionally when talking about the subject of beloved family members' deaths? Who wouldn't want to be reassured that their dead loved one still cared about them? The panel always has a legal note when statements are made that politicians are legally contesting. I wish the same kind of "skeptic's note" had been made at the end of this segment.

I followed the first laws that were enacted in various states to charge homicide of a fetus (I don't know of cases concerning an embryo - 8 weeks of development or less) - when a pregnant woman was killed. The laws were brought forward decades after Roe (1973) by those opposed to abortion, for the very purpose of pointing out the perceived ethical conundrum of, on one hand, a woman having the right to an abortion before viability, and on the other, additional punishment of a murderer who ends the life of a fetus. The difference between these two situations is that in one case the woman is making her own decision and in the other someone else is making it. But these laws are often mentioned as reasons why abortion should be banned - ignoring the fact that abortion rights came first, and the double homicide laws were put in place to help challenge the right to an abortion.

Yes, you are correct. Frozen embryos have been classified as property of the mother and father. (Not sure how that works in divorce cases.) And in this case, the parents of the embryos want to sue for wrongful death, not the state. But if this stands, can the state now start charging for wrongful death if parents have agreed to destroy unused embryos?

What's amazing to me is that as a lawyer, she has made an obvious logical error. She has said in regard to abortion rights, that she has her beliefs but does not wish to impose them on others. Fair enough. But in this case, she herself used IVF and made sure to include in her statements about it that for ethical/religious reasons they made the attempt to implant every embryo created, which led to two healthy children. She expressed relief that not all of the embryos "took." This is contradictory enough. But then she went on to agree with charging someone with wrongful death because these frozen embryos were destroyed in an accident. If taken to its logical conclusion, the use of IVF technology would be severely impacted, from restricting the number of embryos created, to increasing the time and expense to undergo the procedure, to charging IVF doctors with wrongful death if an embryo does not implant and thrive. And to cap it all off, the court ruling in this case relied heavily on religious interpretation, which Sunny herself has said should not be imposed on others. She is being highly contradictory here.

Sunny took her position to the extreme when she nodded in agreement to charging the person who dropped the tray of frozen embryos with wrongful death of a minor or "extra-uterine child." If this holds, IVF doctors will be charged with wrongful death each time an embryo does not implant. In other words, the end of IVF.

The common perception is that Biden is failing because he miss-speaks. There are two questions I'd like some answers to. 1) Biden has always been a "gaffe machine." I read a couple of neurologist's opinions from when he was vice-president or before, theorizing that his miss-speaking is probably related to his stuttering disability as a child. Biden himself rejected this opinion at the time, but I think he worked so hard to learn coping mechanisms to overcome his stutter, that he wants to think he conquered it. 2) Are the instances when Biden miss-speaks getting more frequent as he ages? I'm not sure.