Natt /Gaetz invites Britney to testify before Congress, saying the legal system mistreated her. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gaetz-britney-spears-speak-congress-mistreated-america-legal-system
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:08 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > As the article states, this is not even in response to her most recent > motion. But she is never going to get what she is asking for (end of > conservatorship forthwith, without further evaluation ). Whether she is > incompetent or not, in her current state she has to prove she is competent. > Contrary to what she is requesting, she needs an evaluation to end the > Conservatorship. > > I know Kevin is being snarky, but he also is on to something with his > Cosby invocation. Cosby could not prove he was innocent on the merits, but > was able to convince the court that process errors made his conviction > invalid. With a good and motivated lawyer Spears might be able to find a > similar process problem with her conservatorship. > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 8:43 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Judge rules that the status shall remain quo >> >> Maybe if she hired Cosby’s lawyers? >> >> >> https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-conservatorship-request-denied-remove-father-1235009486/ >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:48 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It’s not true fir any of the meds she is in record as taking. But the >>> bigger point had to do with reproductive control. The US has a horrid >>> history of trying to prevent “undesirables” from reproducing, and in >>> response a body of law has developed making it very hard for the state to >>> insert itself into this. Roe v Wade depends on this tradition, and while >>> that is in shaky ground with the current court, the underlying foundation >>> is not. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:44 AM Melissa P <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I certainly have no medical expertise, but somehow I know that >>>> dermatologists won't prescribe a certain acne medication to women unless >>>> they're on birth control. >>>> >>>> Perhaps that's also true of one or more of the medications Britney is >>>> taking, and a judge has ordered her to take that medication. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 1:31 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That may or may not be the best medical advice; we have lots of >>>>> psychiatric pts who get pregnant, and there are ways around that, >>>>> including >>>>> taking a 9 month drug holiday. But regardless of whether it may not be a >>>>> good idea for her to get pregnant, it is certainly her decision to make. I >>>>> can’t imagine any court approving an order to force her not to get >>>>> pregnant, based on psychiatric symptoms or medication. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 10:07 AM Melissa P <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Well, essentially she's already supporting Federline's 6 children, >>>>>> only two of which are hers. >>>>>> >>>>>> But what makes most sense to me is that she shouldn't get pregnant >>>>>> because of the psychotropic medications she's probably taking, which >>>>>> could >>>>>> harm unborn children. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:15 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> And just in the interest of a complete historical record, here is a >>>>>>> relevant NYT piece from a few days ago expanding in what Spears claim >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> she is somehow being prevented from removing her IUD is so shocking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This claim is shocking enough that I continue to lean towards not >>>>>>> believing it is literally true. If it is true, then this alone would >>>>>>> justify all the fan site histrionics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But what I found particularly interesting is the speculation here as >>>>>>> to why Jamie Spears might be trying to prevent his daughter from getting >>>>>>> pregnant: he may be trying to prevent her BF and the likely father of >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> baby from gaining a claim to control some or all of Brittany’s assets. >>>>>>> This >>>>>>> is interesting because this worry about Brittany being vulnerable to >>>>>>> “undue >>>>>>> influence” seems to be at the heart of the justification for the PC in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> first place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, it strikes me as unbelievable that in 21st century California >>>>>>> any court would stand for forced sterilization (even a temporary kind); >>>>>>> more likely Jamie is making something else Brittany wants contingent on >>>>>>> her >>>>>>> having IUD in place (perhaps, in conjunction with their father, who >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> have a similar self-interest, access to her children). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/health/britney-spears-forced-IUD.html?referringSource=articleShare >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 10:19 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LAT has a good analysis article this morning. Their conservation >>>>>>>> expert (Leslie Salzman, a clinical professor of law at the Cardozo >>>>>>>> School of Law) articulates several of the concerns I have been >>>>>>>> focusing on. >>>>>>>> The story also points out how cozy the relations are between the >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> players in this process, and there really isn’t an independent, >>>>>>>> objective >>>>>>>> advocate for the conservatee. But they still don’t explain how a >>>>>>>> psychiatric dx qualifies someone for this kind of Conservatorship. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I used to do forensic evaluations for the state of California >>>>>>>> (Competency to Stand Trial and Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). One >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the most common things we would say in our reports is something like: >>>>>>>> “Yes, >>>>>>>> this subject does have a mental illness, but no, it does not make them >>>>>>>> incompetent to stand trial.” I suspect I would say something similar >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> Spears if I were evaluating her, unless there is some huge deficit or >>>>>>>> pathology that has just not come out publicly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “According to the New York Times, which reviewed an internal 2016 >>>>>>>> report, Spears told her probate investigator that the conservatorship >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> oppressive and that she wanted out. The investigator said it should >>>>>>>> continue because of her “complex finances, susceptibility to undue >>>>>>>> influence and ‘intermittent’ drug issues, yet called for ‘a pathway to >>>>>>>> independence and the eventual termination of the conservatorship.’ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Salzman was troubled by several aspects of the proceedings from the >>>>>>>> beginning. One, the judge didn’t allow Spears to hire her own attorney. >>>>>>>> Two, her court-appointed attorney, according to Spears’ testimony >>>>>>>> Wednesday, never told her that she could file a petition to terminate >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> conservancy. And three, against Spears’ objections, the judge did not >>>>>>>> appoint a neutral conservator but selected her father, with whom she >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> known to have a rocky relationship.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-26/britney-spears-conservatorship-claims-raise-serious-concerns >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 8:28 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Under California law a conservatorship justified for a “person >>>>>>>>> who is unable to provide properly for his or her personal needs for >>>>>>>>> physical health, food, clothing, or shelter,” or for someone who >>>>>>>>> is “substantially unable to manage his or her own financial resources >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> resist fraud or undue influence.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://apnews.com/article/6a484c43ce6c5ff1e73af0dfd97d948a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The standard Kevin invokes is for temporary involuntary >>>>>>>>> hospitalization (in California often referred to as a 5150). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Spears is not being conserved because of tabloid rumors or raunchy >>>>>>>>> behavior. She is being conserved because a Court found that she can >>>>>>>>> not be >>>>>>>>> trusted to care for herself. Almost always this is done because an >>>>>>>>> older >>>>>>>>> person is in full on Alzheimer’s, or a younger person suffered serious >>>>>>>>> brain damage, or something else from which folks don’t recover. In >>>>>>>>> Spears >>>>>>>>> case it appears to be because of a psychiatric disorder, probably >>>>>>>>> bipolar, >>>>>>>>> which is unusual. It is possible she did something to injure her brain >>>>>>>>> (trauma or drugs) that we don’t know about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The AP article says the Conservatorship specifically makes medical >>>>>>>>> decisions for her, which I guess explains the IUD, but that still is >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> most shocking example of how unusual this is to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The article also points out what may be obvious but is worth >>>>>>>>> keeping in mind, which is that it is almost impossible that the court >>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>> simply grant her request to be released from Conservatorship. >>>>>>>>> Legally. One >>>>>>>>> someone is conserved, the burden of proof shifts to them to >>>>>>>>> demonstrate >>>>>>>>> that they are competent; the state does not have to continue to show >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> they are incompetent. This is why, even though one predicate for her >>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>> conserved is bipolar disorder, in my view it almost certainly can not >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> the only reason. I can’t think of a single purely psychiatric (as >>>>>>>>> opposed >>>>>>>>> to clearly neurological) condition that could be assumed to be so >>>>>>>>> unchangingly active and severe as to justify the presumption a person >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> perpetually incompetent (including something like schizophrenia). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is not to say she can never be released from the >>>>>>>>> Conservatorship, but it means it will take more than her outrage (or >>>>>>>>> public >>>>>>>>> outrage) to do it. She will need proper medical judgement that >>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>> previous condition led her to be incompetent is now clearly resolved. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One more thing; if I wanted to fan the conspiracy flames, I would >>>>>>>>> focus on the allegation she made yesterday that her lawyer had never >>>>>>>>> told >>>>>>>>> her over all these years that she could or should formally request to >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> the Conservatorship removed. This raises the question of whose >>>>>>>>> interest the >>>>>>>>> lawyer is acting in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 8:50 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To reiterate my prior comments, I only had brief encounters with >>>>>>>>>> her when I worked in the industry. While she was odd, so are most in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> industry, including me. What the public saw most certainly is not >>>>>>>>>> “the real >>>>>>>>>> Britney,” but — again — that’s indicative of Hollywood. Your >>>>>>>>>> experience is >>>>>>>>>> good at framing the key issues, but ultimately we can only >>>>>>>>>> speculate. The >>>>>>>>>> public argument for keeping her in someone else’s care is that she is >>>>>>>>>> incapable of making sane, sober life choices… see previous sentence >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> being indicative of Hollywood. To me, the only reason to legally >>>>>>>>>> deny her >>>>>>>>>> access to what she has earned (for better or worse) is that she is a >>>>>>>>>> danger >>>>>>>>>> to herself or others. She has publicly abused substances, but that >>>>>>>>>> alone >>>>>>>>>> doesn’t seem to be a deal breaker in re sanity. My conclusion >>>>>>>>>> therefore is >>>>>>>>>> there is a giant chunk of the puzzle which we are not aware. I don’t >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> we are entitled to be aware, but that’s a different argument. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding her dad being in charge of her… yeah, that needs to be >>>>>>>>>> changed. That’s ten levels of wrong, morally and ethically. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:11 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BS had another hearing today, and for first time formally >>>>>>>>>>> requested to have conservatorship terminated. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Brief quote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> “ I feel ganged up on, I feel bullied and I feel left out and >>>>>>>>>>> alone," Spears said. "And I'm tired of feeling alone." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> She detailed parts of her life that had been unknown. She said >>>>>>>>>>> that she was being exploited and that she can't sleep, is depressed >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> cries every day. She stated that she wants another baby but is >>>>>>>>>>> forced to >>>>>>>>>>> keep an IUD in place. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "All I want is to own my money and for this to end.” >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> She asked that her opening statement be made in public, most of >>>>>>>>>>> the rest that transpired was closed (as it ought to be). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> While the claims made by Spears have to be taken serious and >>>>>>>>>>> investigated, they can not be assumed to be true, or complete, as >>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>> stand. Presumably she is in this situation due do a Dx psychiatric >>>>>>>>>>> condition, and I can testify to the fact that for a number of >>>>>>>>>>> reasons not >>>>>>>>>>> everything people in that situation say can be assumed to be >>>>>>>>>>> accurate. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Several questions remain unanswered (as far as I can tell, I >>>>>>>>>>> only read this story about today’s events): >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Why is she on a Probate Conservatorship (rare for a >>>>>>>>>>> young person who obviously can take care of her basic ADLs)? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. What harm is the court trying to protect Spears from? >>>>>>>>>>> This is basically another way of asking Q1. Presumably part of the >>>>>>>>>>> answer >>>>>>>>>>> is damage to her large estate, and future earning potential, but I >>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>> think there is more than just financial interest at play here. I >>>>>>>>>>> continue >>>>>>>>>>> to suspect that A) She is seen as being unduly influenced by a >>>>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>>>> unreliable source and B) there is concern that the physical, >>>>>>>>>>> psychological >>>>>>>>>>> and financial well being of her children is threatened. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Why does the Court continue to allow her father to be >>>>>>>>>>> part of the Conservatorship, given his questionable history with >>>>>>>>>>> her and >>>>>>>>>>> conflict of interest? There are objective, professional >>>>>>>>>>> Conservators who >>>>>>>>>>> could do this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 4. Is it really possible for a Conservator to require the >>>>>>>>>>> use of an IUD? I suspect this is a question that does not come up >>>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>>> often, as the large majority of people under PC are past child >>>>>>>>>>> bearing age, >>>>>>>>>>> or are men. I am trying to think of a justification for this >>>>>>>>>>> requirement. I >>>>>>>>>>> recently had a patient whose OB-GYN had documented in clear terms >>>>>>>>>>> that her >>>>>>>>>>> postpartum depression and psychosis was so bad, increasingly, with >>>>>>>>>>> first 4 >>>>>>>>>>> pregnancies that under no circumstances should she get pregnant >>>>>>>>>>> again (I >>>>>>>>>>> was seeing her because she was pregnant again). I guess if that pt >>>>>>>>>>> has been >>>>>>>>>>> conserved she could have been forced to have an IUD inserted, >>>>>>>>>>> though for an >>>>>>>>>>> outpatient it seems like a difficult requirement to enforce. It >>>>>>>>>>> seems more >>>>>>>>>>> likely to me that somehow her father was able to use some financial >>>>>>>>>>> leverage to get her to agree to not getting pregnant again (I can’t >>>>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>>>> believe that any conservator could make a decision specifically >>>>>>>>>>> about an >>>>>>>>>>> IUD – even very disturbed women would have the right to select >>>>>>>>>>> their own >>>>>>>>>>> contraceptive method, or at least have it made for them by their >>>>>>>>>>> physician). >>>>>>>>>>> The Rolling Stone story confirms that she has been on Lithium, >>>>>>>>>>> which almost certainly confirms that she has been diagnosed with >>>>>>>>>>> Bipolar >>>>>>>>>>> Disorder, which is consistent with my hypothesis about her. I have >>>>>>>>>>> treated >>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of pts with this disorder, and never seen one on PC - but >>>>>>>>>>> again, >>>>>>>>>>> none of them had $50 Million. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-jamie-conservatorship-hearing-1186966/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 11:15 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, I watched the “Framing Britney Spears” “documentary” on >>>>>>>>>>>> Hulu. Yikes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. How did the NYT let its name be attached to this? It looks >>>>>>>>>>>> and smells more like TMZ. It is little more than a summary of what >>>>>>>>>>>> has been >>>>>>>>>>>> said and reported by people on social media, with little or no >>>>>>>>>>>> actual >>>>>>>>>>>> independent reporting from the NYT. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. One of the most basic things missing is an explanation of >>>>>>>>>>>> what it means to be on conservatorship in CA (there are several >>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>> kinds) and what a judge had to have found to be true to put her on >>>>>>>>>>>> one. I >>>>>>>>>>>> am most familiar with LPS Conservators, who do have the power to >>>>>>>>>>>> commit >>>>>>>>>>>> people to psychiatric hospitalization. It appears that Spears has >>>>>>>>>>>> a Probate >>>>>>>>>>>> (not LPS) Conservatorship, for both Person and Estate. These >>>>>>>>>>>> conservators >>>>>>>>>>>> (even for Person) can not hospitalize the conservatee against >>>>>>>>>>>> their will. >>>>>>>>>>>> So, if Spears was hospitalized against her will, it would have had >>>>>>>>>>>> to have >>>>>>>>>>>> been because doctors found her to be a danger to herself or >>>>>>>>>>>> others, or >>>>>>>>>>>> (much less likely) gravely disabled. We know she was hospitalized >>>>>>>>>>>> on a 5150 >>>>>>>>>>>> back in the 2008 period, but I don’t think we know what the status >>>>>>>>>>>> was of >>>>>>>>>>>> the most recent hospitalization. Her father could have coerced her >>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>> accepting hospitalization, since he controls her finances and many >>>>>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>>>>> of her person, but again we don’t know (and again, the NYT offers >>>>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>>>> original reporting about this). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. There is always the possibility of gross corruption (the >>>>>>>>>>>> father pays off the judges and others to rule in his favor), but >>>>>>>>>>>> to assume >>>>>>>>>>>> this without evidence is the definition of a conspiracy theory. >>>>>>>>>>>> More likely >>>>>>>>>>>> is that, whatever else is going on, Spears suffers from a serious >>>>>>>>>>>> psychiatric disorder. I am surprised that for all the histrionic >>>>>>>>>>>> “Leave >>>>>>>>>>>> Brittany Alone!” Type Fan groups cited in the Doc, there seemed to >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> little recognition of or care about this basic fact by people who >>>>>>>>>>>> claim to >>>>>>>>>>>> love her. The court has to be primarily concerned with the mental >>>>>>>>>>>> health >>>>>>>>>>>> and well-being of Spears, and the fact she is still conserved >>>>>>>>>>>> suggests that >>>>>>>>>>>> the court has evidence that she continues to have significant >>>>>>>>>>>> problems. >>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever else is going on, she likely continues to be a very >>>>>>>>>>>> disordered and >>>>>>>>>>>> unhappy person. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. While I am not as familiar with probate Conservatorship, >>>>>>>>>>>> what I do know leaves me surprised and somewhat suspicious that it >>>>>>>>>>>> is being >>>>>>>>>>>> used in Spears case, at least for Person. What the documentary >>>>>>>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>>>>>> tell us is why the court settled on Conservatorship, when, as I >>>>>>>>>>>> understand >>>>>>>>>>>> it, to do so they have to first consider and reject several other >>>>>>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive arrangements. I have never treated anyone as wealthy >>>>>>>>>>>> as Spears, >>>>>>>>>>>> but it does smell like this entire scheme was designed with the >>>>>>>>>>>> well-being >>>>>>>>>>>> of her estate (and perhaps the financial interests of record and >>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>> corporations) in mind, rather than of Spears herself. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. My guess is that at the heart of all this is the judgement >>>>>>>>>>>> that Spears was found to be pathologically vulnerable to influence >>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>> suspicious people, like Sam Lutfi. This is alluded to in the >>>>>>>>>>>> documentary, >>>>>>>>>>>> but with very little actual reporting. As suspicious as I am of >>>>>>>>>>>> her father, >>>>>>>>>>>> by relying on tabloid and social media memes the documentary is >>>>>>>>>>>> probably >>>>>>>>>>>> unfair to him. More likely the courts have repeatedly found that >>>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>> the Conservatorship, Spears would fall under the control of Lutfi >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> people like him who would be more harmful to her than her father. >>>>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>>>> something like this is true, I can see why the courts would be >>>>>>>>>>>> reluctant to >>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate the Conservatorship, or even to name someone as >>>>>>>>>>>> Conservator of >>>>>>>>>>>> Spears own choosing. It is actually possible that the current >>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement >>>>>>>>>>>> gives Spears as much freedom as is consistent with her own >>>>>>>>>>>> well-being, and >>>>>>>>>>>> that of her children, by limiting the ability of unsavory >>>>>>>>>>>> influencers to >>>>>>>>>>>> manipulate her to drain her resources and harm others. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The reason we know so little about this is that most of it is >>>>>>>>>>>> not properly our business. The Courts are there to review the case >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> protect her interests, not Instagrammers. Still, with so much >>>>>>>>>>>> money at >>>>>>>>>>>> stake, it may be appropriate for the press to ensure that the >>>>>>>>>>>> courts are >>>>>>>>>>>> acting properly. I just wish the press in this case was doing a >>>>>>>>>>>> better job. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 2:48 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, sounds like maybe I will check out the doc. My take on her >>>>>>>>>>>>> around that time was that she needed a conservator, but it should >>>>>>>>>>>>> not have >>>>>>>>>>>>> been her father, or anyone who stood to profit from commodifying >>>>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 1:00 PM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM Kevin M. < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, yesterday Diane Sawyer trended because people suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided her interview of Spears from nearly two decades ago was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a bit like people only just now realizing Geraldo is really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad at his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I miss Ferguson on late night. I understand why he got out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when he did, but I still wish he’d have stayed through Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to watch the Britney doc on Hulu before responding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I could avoid hot takes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken to watching documentaries about bands from when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I grew up, usually on YouTube. There are two types: movie length >>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made for fans where the band is awesome, all their music is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> awesome, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they'll be beloved until the end of time. And then there are more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflective documentaries, made a couple of decades after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> band broke up, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the musicians, managers, record company executives, etc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rise of the band, what life was like at the top, and why it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fell apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are the documentaries I watch. I'll even watch if it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about a band >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or an artist who was very popular but I didn't follow at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. I figure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can put my biases aside and see if I missed out on any good >>>>>>>>>>>>>> music. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Britney documentary was not about her music. The frame is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a legal battle over conservatorship, a status she entered into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first half of the doc is about her life up to 2008 and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> second half is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the conservatorship, the legal situation, and a movement >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from her >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans to end the conservatorship. The first half is tough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> watch even >>>>>>>>>>>>>> though it happened in recent enough memory. The tabloids saw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar signs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in covering her and they had no conscience about any damage they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing to her and certainly no restraint. And the attitude >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infiltrated into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mainstream celebrity coverage like the Diane Sawyer interview. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least as much of a relief for me to know that she gives up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether and goes to live a quiet life somewhere raising her >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's no sign of that happening) as hearing she is recording a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new album. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for Craig Ferguson he brought his own vulnerability into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his monologues and the show and it was really refreshing to see >>>>>>>>>>>>>> him so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fearless talking about his past. He had an empathy for his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> guests and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss that, too. In the late stages of his show he burned out and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stopped >>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting any effort into it. I really liked the show during his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm glad he got out of it in time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPxfhnQdzWqgGNtb6Yqp5Qb29rFt%3DMnQzwQJw4eZ%3D-n3Fw%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPxfhnQdzWqgGNtb6Yqp5Qb29rFt%3DMnQzwQJw4eZ%3D-n3Fw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2Bvj8811_mhr88mAqfaBcpHEkvX02hBA4OyUkCUOzAwWA%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2Bvj8811_mhr88mAqfaBcpHEkvX02hBA4OyUkCUOzAwWA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> Kevin M. (RPCV) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4DO4LKAC-n6%3DcDD%3DoQa3EOvcAm33qenxUJgjH6_gBXi8w%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4DO4LKAC-n6%3DcDD%3DoQa3EOvcAm33qenxUJgjH6_gBXi8w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYL2p31NDXnAxtsfM%2BTQg_iDXTUHGG%2BDeoiA0v%2ByyCtZVQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYL2p31NDXnAxtsfM%2BTQg_iDXTUHGG%2BDeoiA0v%2ByyCtZVQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yytZC9pnXkNN3K%2BsDYfz599yqP%2BEzg%2BLYdQ6imu3tQMww%40mail.gmail.com.
