Khan

I agree. And I, too, felt it was unfair how Janet was vilified for the "nip slip" while Justin was basically sent to his bedroom for one night without his supper. Reading the article and those tweets helps explain (to me, anyway) why Janet's career basically cooled in the years since that incident. (Gosh, has it really been FOURTEEN YEARS?) It's easy to say, "Well, it was because Janet (and Mariah, Madonna, etc.) were edged out by the new, younger generation of artists"; and who knows, maybe that's part of it. But I always wondered whether there was more to the story. To think: if Les hadn't been so vindictive, Janet might have been spared the twin indignities of starring in "Why Did I Get Married?" and "Why Did I Get Married Too?". (...or not, lol.)

I don't think their relationship worked -- but, then again, I don't think any of Hayley's romantic relationships worked (outside of maybe Brian Bodine). Kelly Ripa's cute and all, but.... I, too, would love to know why Cecily's return flopped. Agnes Nixon, Lorraine Broderick and Megan McTavish were all working on the show during Rosa Nevin's first stint, so it isn't as if they didn't know who Cecily was. (I used to suspect it was because Maurice Benard sabotaged things BTS, making sure Cecily didn't shine without Nico. But why the [!@#$%^&*] would he care about what was happening on AMC, when he had made a much bigger splash on GH?)

My question is, how will it affect her more lucrative gig at "Big Brother"? Will the network keep her there (and at "The Talk") out of some misguided sense of loyalty to Les? Or....?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lodestar-mike-pence-anonymous-new-york-times_us_5b905dd5e4b0511db3dec1e1 For God's sake, Bubbles, GET A THESAURUS.

Three kids in five years? No, he didn't work after OLTL, he was just (gettin') busy. I'm kidding.

Well, I've read the RS article...and maybe, once again, I'm reading too much into stuff...but it does seem awfully suspicious how Cornyn felt the need to take everyone to task after Harris and Booker. Would Cornyn have responded the same way to two WHITE senators who chose to "cross-examine" Kavanaugh in the same fashion?

"I was born at night but not last night," lol!!!

Let's hope so!

Yup. Oh, I agree, Vee. It IS the right thing for Booker and his ride-or-dies to do. I'm just saying that if Cornyn goes through with invoking Senate Rule 29 and we end up losing (IMO) a great Senator because he tried to serve in the best interests of the American people, then it's gonna be sad as hell. Meanwhile, I'm loving Booker's "Bring it!". He forgot the word "bitch," but the sentiment remains.

And like that, the hell mouth breaks open.

"Welp. I guess SHE got told." Damn, I wish I could see (or hear) more of Marland's GH. His work never ceases to thrill me.

I'll admit that I thought he was all wrong for Charlie. He was too old and, frankly, too sophisticated for that role. Nevertheless, it is a shame that he died so suddenly and so relatively wrong. Like I said in the other thread specifically about his death, what IS it with the Kennedys? Do they really live under some sort of curse, or what?

IIRC, the plan was for Liz's wedding gown to catch fire after brushing against some candles, thereby burning her alive. Talk about "dark."

And you know she will, lol. (Not that I'm empathizing w/ Julie, because I'm not. Even if, IMO, it would serve him right to be hauled into divorce court. But she hitched her wagon to his for a reason; and chances are, she, like Melania (and Ivana and Marla) and Camille Cosby and Georgina Chapman before her, knew what kind of man he was long before now.) IKR? And folks wanna burn their Nike merchandise because the company chose Colin to be its' spokesman? Lord, where is thy light?

Hell. Yeah.

"Odd" doesn't even BEGIN to describe this, Carl. I'm not surprised he gets to leave with a "golden parachute" for being such a repugnant bastard...but that doesn't mean I'm not outraged by it all. I mean, he got to remain as CEO while the investigations were underway, which was bad enough. But, even now, with the heat still turned on, he'll get to leave -- not in handcuffs, not in total disgrace, as it should be -- but with a $100 million payout? And they're actually debating whether that number should be HIGHER? Are these people [!@#$%^&*] kidding? If you are truly remorseful for your inappropriate behaviors toward these women, Les, and for the effects they have had on their careers and lives, then, at the VERY least, you should opt to step down, with NO payouts. Better yet, take the money and give it all away to charitable organization that benefit women's causes. It's not like you NEED the cash anyway.

Yup.

You must be new to the Internet (let alone SON). It's the most curious case of road rage I've ever seen.

So, I followed Vee's advice/nudging and read the darned thing. First of all, I'm not convinced the NYT op-ed was written by one person. The paper’s editorial staff says it was. I dunno, maybe it was. Or maybe, one was selected from the group to “fall on the grenade,” as it were, and present it to them as its' sole author. Regardless, reading it gave me "Virgin Suicides" vibes, so if Trump is determined to uncover the author's identity, all I can say is, best of luck. Do I disagree with the arguments that the op-ed presents? Of course not. But I also found the op-ed to be self-serving — an act of covering one’s ass — rather than the Norma Rae-esque act of defiance this individual, or these individuals, probably wanted us to view it as. You're absolutely right, DD: in a way, these “resistors” ARE worse than your average Trump supporters, because they KNOW the man is dangerously unfit for office, yet they refuse to take the steps necessary to have him removed. ("We don't want a constitutional crisis." Well, WTH do you think this administration has been from the start?) Admitting they know he is incompetent does not, in any way, absolve them of anything; and the good they THINK they've been able to do in spite of his authoritarian impulses...? Well, as the saying goes, let's just agree to disagree, and then move on. So, here's my bigger question: is the writer -- whether male or female, one person or actually several -- naive enough to believe his/her/their identity will never be exposed? Or was the decision to remain anonymous, in fact, part of an agenda, along with writing the letter itself, to sow the seeds of even more chaos within an already frustrated regime and ultimately, send the president, or at least those working closest to him, packing? If it's the latter, then what does THAT say about the overall moral character of the Trump administration? That a man who was once host of a "reality" series that encouraged its participants to "win at all costs," week after week, has now brought the same sense of cutthroat gamesmanship to a far more influential group who, in many cases, are the only ones separating the rest of us from total annihilation; and that, while the nefariousness he endorsed on "The Apprentice" and its spinoffs is very well leading to his own undoing as this nation's chief executive, it is also creating a dangerous precedent for administrations to come? To put it another way: "Is this just a game to you, people?" Sigh. I dunno. The more I sit on this, the more it seems to disagree with the little man in my stomach, to quote Edward G. Robinson's character in "Double Indemnity." Of course, I could be way off-base, this whole matter blows over by tomorrow, and we're onto the next dog whistle. On the other hand, Trump is already demanding the NYT turn over the letter-writer to the government "at once," setting the stage for a battle between the president and the fourth estate over the right to protect the identity of anonymous sources in the pursuit of news. So, this could get really ugly, really fast. Furthermore, I'm not liking the timing of the editorial’s publication. Nothing in the article suggests it couldn't have been published last month, six months ago, or last year. Yet, here it is, as hot and ready as a Little Caesars pizza, as Trump's designated "enemy of the people," the American press, remains under siege, and with full publication of Bob Woodward's book mere days away. To the person (or persons) responsible for writing that piece, my advice would be thus: whether or not you intend to remain invisible, know that you will be found out. Nothing and no one stays hidden forever; and in the meantime, your fearless leader will leave no proverbial stone unturned until he finds you (or finds someone to rat you out). Heads, as they say, will roll. If you don't have a contingency plan, get one. And to anyone in the entertainment and/or publishing industries who will, no doubt, entice the author(s) with lucrative deals of one kind or another, my advice would be to think twice. Trump is a loathsome human being, but so is the person (or persons) who would expose even an imbecilic tyrant to the light of public scrutiny, especially when they won't even leave their name(s) at the sound of the beep. Don't let this individual profit from their cowardice. This is me, giving my fiercest "WAKANDA FOREVER" salute.

Yeah, I think he was referring to her admission that she had retired from acting, not that she was outing the men who basically forced her into it.

ICAM. IOW, you want everyone to agree with you.

"At war with the establishment"? Oh, please. "The establishment" has proven they will kiss Trump's ring like everyone else. If TrumpCo. is actually scared of "the establishment," then they must not be paying attention. Sure, he might be fuming about Woodward's book at the moment, but because he has one of the shortest attention spans on record, he'll be over his butt-hurt by the time I finish typ -- and oh, look, he's over it already. Like I've said before, if you really want to destroy this man's ego, implying that he's incompetent and dangerous won't do it. It might sting him a lil' bit, but that's all. No, if you REALLY want to ring his chimes, so to speak, tell him he ain't rich. THAT will be the kind of hurt that lasts with him. Either way, I'm not reading it. I don't care what anyone within the administration has to say at this point. Anonymous, or not. If they aren't working to get that man removed from office (and sent away to a mental health facility), then they're just part of the trash that's way past needing to be taken out. Look, I'm no fan of Alex Jones', but if he wanted to pick a fight with a Congressman, he should have chosen a worthier target than Marco [!@#$%^&*] Rubio.

I thought running into a bunch of annoying teenagers would do the opposite.

Yep.

I'm sure the right will bring up "Wired" as a means of discrediting this book.