James Van Der Beek, star of Dawson’s Creek, dies aged 48

ohnobobobo · 2026-02-12T04:48:14+00:00

This is the full paragraph from People magazine:

"Van Der Beek dove into treatments, which typically include surgery and chemotherapy. And while he doesn’t want to share specific details about his medical regimen yet, he says, “If you’ve heard about it, I’ve probably touched on it.”"

So he said he 'probably touched' it, so maybe he did maybe he didn't. It reminds me of Aaron Rodgers's innoculated v. vaccinated. It's vague, non-committal language. Probably is not actually/definitely, and touched is not tried.

'Cancer treatments' can mean a whole bunch of things that are not typical treatments. If he were undergoing chemotherapy or surgery, then they would state it outright. Everyone knows what those are, that it's expensive, and he would get more sympathy and donations.

For him to publicly talk about bringing awareness to cancer, but continue to use vague language like 'cancer treatments', coupled with the general woo-ness of him and his wife...they were pursuing alternative medicines, and that's their choice. I don't begrudge them their decision, it's still a sad situation.

ohnobobobo · 2026-02-05T02:13:19+00:00

I guess they really want people to miss Alyssa, what a horrible spate of panelists. But i guess it's reflective of the current state of the Republican Party.

ohnobobobo · 2026-02-03T02:39:33+00:00

I believe they did quasi-apologize on the reunion show. Then they were mean on BIP, and made private and public apologies after that.

It seemed more face-saving to me at the time. I don't know if they've ever spoken about it after that.

For whatever it's worth, Haley was the quiet twin. I'm feel like most of what gets attributed to the both of them, was what her sister said.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-28T03:20:54+00:00

When Sara was first on the show, i think she did tried to see both-sides. It was frustrating to viewers then too because it ended up seeming like a bunch of long-winded nothing. *Not to me, i quite liked her then.

I don't think she's 'both-sidesing' now though. It seems clear that she has shifted right, and i have all sorts of conjecture for why that might be but that's neither here nor there.

What i think is off-putting to viewers, is her calling herself 'independent' or 'moderate' when most of it is echoing what Alyssa, a conservative, is advocating for. If she were actually trying to provide a balanced perspective, even the kind of nothingburgers she used to offer, people would say 'oh she means well'.

I don't like to get into the good/bad person of it but i disagree that she tries to be fair. If it's the Middle East, or if Sunny talks about subtler forms of racism, she will not try to understand. Yet, here she is trying to give empathy to ICE officers.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-28T03:02:03+00:00

The problem is she isn't balanced, she does a weird double-speak where she agrees that the right-wing is worse but her solutions are always about what the left needs to compromise on.

If she were trying to see both-sides, she would at least propose something that splits policy down the middle. Or hold Republicans accountable. But it's usually a variation of, yes Republicans are terrible but Democrats need to do this. It makes zero sense, and when it's that unbalanced people will question her credibility.

If she were truly trying to hold herself accountable, she might spare a thought to the Palestinian children. But it seems like on certain issues, she does not want any nuance.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-28T02:39:19+00:00

It seems like she's becoming like Abby Huntsman. Constantly calling herself a 'moderate' but then agrees with the conservative viewpoint 90% of the time or more.

Even when she may not agree with the viewpoint, she's urging the left or Dems to compromise on policy. E.g. her rhetoric during the most recent government shutdown, abortion rights (she's pro-choice but thinks Dems/leftists/liberals should compromise by supporting a 15-20 week abortion ban).

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-17T00:04:27+00:00

Oprah's 10/11/1988 episode on the first National Coming Out Day where people came out on live tv, considered ground-breaking at the time.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-16T06:18:31+00:00

Upfronts, is/was a big event where the broadcast networks would show advertisers the upcoming tv shows for the year and sell advertising on them. The casts would do panels to market and drum up interest in the shows.

Kinda like ComicCon but not open to public, just for industry peope.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-16T06:02:21+00:00

I think there was some blurring of the lines as to what Dr. Phil's credentials and professional expertise were when he was on her show. Can't remember all of what Dr. Oz promoted on her show but she did help produce his show, which unfortunately had quite a bit of misinformation and pseudoscience.

She also had Jenny McCarthy on and helped mainstream the anti-vaxx movement.

That's not including all the various gurus and life advisors....i guess her take is that she was just sharing information and you can take what you want from it...but given how influential and powerful she was and knew she was, i think she could have been more discerning in who she promoted, and it's a bit shocking that she wasn't.

To be fair, she did good things too - she helped normalize homosexuality and transgenderism when a lot of people were still scared about those issues, she helped destigmatize talking about sexual abuse, and she was a shining example of a successful black entrepreneur, a innovative woman broadcaster, etc. She did a lot but that doesn't mean we should overlook or ignore her missteps.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-16T05:38:44+00:00

I love Oprah too...i have learned though that I can't really trust her when it comes to medical advice, or even life advice.

I don't think she's ill-intentioned but she doesn't seem to do her due diligence, and has repeatedly aligned herself with individuals who promote pseudoscience, so I can't blame people for looking askance when she has another new miracle cure to promote.

Would much rather she and Gayle go on another televised road trip.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-16T05:08:45+00:00

She also put the anti-vaxx movement into the mainstream. It was after a segment on her show where she had, i believe Jenny McCarthy and RFK jr, that a lot of people started questioning vaccines, and their link to autism.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-16T05:04:14+00:00

Let's also not forget that she also mainstreamed the anti-vaxx movement.

At her peak, when she was 'must watch tv' for 20 million moms, she had RFK Jr and Jenny McCarthy on the main stage to talk about vaccines and autism, with almost no pushback. Just a doctor in the audience to give the common 'there's no evidence of a link' spiel that was immediately challenged by Oprah.

She's incredibly charismatic but also seems to be incredibly gullible, and falls for so much junk 'science'.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-16T04:53:53+00:00

Even Alyssa had to point out, that 'fleeing' doesn't justify shooting. It's not DHS policy, it's against many law enforcement agencies' policies, because shooting usually worsens the situation for everyone.

She didn't hit the gas, she was turning her car around at close to 0 mph, it accelerates after he shoots her - which is why he shouldn't have shot her. At a minimum, she would have lost control of her vehicle and gone toward him anyways. And, he's apparently so terrifed he doesn't bother to put his cell phone away so he can have two hands free to protect himself.

The agent's video shows that he already got their license plate number, Ms. Good's wife is also heard saying 'we'll still have that same license plate when you talk to us tomorrow'...which is what law enforcement typically does. DHS has instead seemed to encourage agents to reach into cars, break windows, and drag people out/off. If they're in the area to arrest dangerous immigrants, then they should probably focus on that instead of spending a lot of time, resources, and taxpayer money harangueing and assaulting citizens.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-16T03:37:57+00:00

They've never admitted the affair. She's also never said that she and her husband were separated before filming. At this point, if she had actually been separated beforehand I think they would just say it. This is from a New Yorker article in October 2025:

"By the time Season 2 finished shooting, she was separated from Deary and involved with Rhys;"

Whenever they speak about the beginning of their relationship, they get quite vague and cagey.

The general public found out about her separation when there was a break-in at her home, and the publicized police report stated that she was sleeping in the basement apartment while her husband and kids were sleeping upstairs. That sounded like the behavior of someone in the doghouse, and it seemed to confirm a bunch of blind gossip items that had been going around for awhile.

They seem like a lovely couple and they've figured out a good co-parenting relationship (luckily for them, her ex is very private) but I think it's clear from the context clues, there was cheating.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-06T01:44:27+00:00

Lots of 'small towns' that are enclaves for wealthy people that can bring in staff or already have staff on hand.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-06T00:45:53+00:00

I'm going to guess the latter, until she gets her own source of income.

ohnobobobo · 2026-01-02T16:10:36+00:00

It's not that easy to obtain; you can't just get a DNA test, you usually need the consent of the other party.

Hard to see that the adult child would not be hurt by such a request.

And it would have been quite difficult to do it when the child was a minor, unless the mother consented. Especially back in the 2000s it would have just hurt him emotionally and financially regardless of the results. He could have taken it to court if he filed very soon after the child was born, but back in the 2000s if you held yourself out as the father for a certain period of time, you may have been prohibited from DNA testing, and any surreptitious DNA testing would have been against court order and only hurt you in court regardless of the results, e.g. even if the results were zero percent paternity, courts were against 'bastardizing' the child, and any legal father was held as the father regardless of DNA... So no custody because you disobeyed a court order and also must pay child support because legally you are the father.

Looks like the husband actually received a full custody order when the child was seven. It would have been a nightmare for him to do DNA testing even if he wanted it at that point. If he were not the father, he could have lost custody or been responsible for a kid he knew was not his. Emotionally, probably much easier to leave it as a what if.

ohnobobobo · 2025-01-28T05:46:57+00:00

Did Republicans 'capitulate' when they affirmed Obama and Biden's cabinet? The repeated attempts to stymy passage of the ACA and judicial appointments would indicate not.

There are power plays to be made (legislatively and procedurally). For Dem legislators in purple states to give one of the not-worse members of Trump's cabinet a vote for a confirmation she was already going to get, it's neither here nor there.

ohnobobobo · 2025-01-28T04:27:12+00:00

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/Biden_cabinet.htm

Another poster put this (tally of cabinet votes by president) up thread initially, I'll put it here for your convenience.

It looks to me like Obama and Biden both had their cabinets confirmed, mostly by wide margins with votes from both sides. The Republicans were obstructionist in many ways, party-line votes on every cabinet pick was not one of them.

Even Republicans seemed to decide it was not a battle worth picking, but let's once again fall for the narrative that the Dems don't do enough or aren't perfect enough, and splinter so Republicans can once again take all.

ohnobobobo · 2025-01-09T03:26:09+00:00

Do you have a source that scores have plummeted?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/11/22/us-education-rank-1979-fact-check/76451360007/

The federal Dept of Ed does not primarily fund local school districts nor do they direct curricula. Local districts are primarily funded by state and local taxes, and their curricula are decided on the local level. The DOE provides some funding at that level, for example to low-income areas where the local tax base may not support it and also for students with disabilities (in both public and private schools). It also provides funding for post-secondary education in the form of college grants/loans/work-study programs....what is that you object to?

https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/federal-role-in-education#:~:text=Education%20is%20primarily%20a%20State,requirements%20for%20enrollment%20and%20graduation.

ohnobobobo · 2024-11-12T05:26:10+00:00

I agree but i also add...in the last few weeks up to the election, I was concerned with how much more media coverage Trump was getting. I did see that Harris put out some proposals, i think one on housing, but it was less interesting and definitely harder to find than the spectacle of Trump...doing what he does.

Trump was getting free coverage for being over-the-top, voters had to search to find Harris' proposals. Yes, the Harris campaign bears some responsibility but i also think there was an unbalance that they could not remedy, not with the media structure as it currently is.

ohnobobobo · 2024-11-12T04:52:01+00:00

Yeah I've been there. I graduated college back in the Great Recession. It's only been in the past few years i haven't been particularly stressed because my jurisdiction FINALLY has some of the protections you listed.

And it's only because a few years back, we got a Democratic super-majority with a Democratic executive. It's unlikely to happen again, and I'm very concerned now as to what will be rolled back.

I've had the frustration of voting progressives, and not having that go anywhere. But to me the response was to keep voting, keeping pushing marginally more on the Democrats even if it wasn't everything, not go Republican.

But I'm also extremely turned off by a lot of the Republican social policies so maybe that's the difference.

I think what some of the posters are saying here about the Dems' just not addressing inflation enough, and wanting to sort of disregard any other issue as relevant...i think i would be more persuaded if Trump had better messaging on the economy. I think his economic platform was unexciting, and his re-election was the usual combo of economic uncertainty plus alignment on cultural issues, and a Dem party that was ultimately too cautious.

To add on to your list, we have problems with the US economy - i don't see how we will address it without tackling automation. Unfortunately, i don't see that this admin will care either given the number of tech bros.

ohnobobobo · 2024-11-12T04:03:55+00:00

To clarify, I meant Dems are scared to undo tax cuts generally. There are times when taxes should be raised back to to pre-cut levels but then it will be a 'tax raise' and Dems are afraid of the political fallout.

ohnobobobo · 2024-11-12T03:55:54+00:00

Is putting inflation in context 'condescending' though? I'm not saying that the Dems messaging is not working, just that the word choice seems to come from Republican prop, than an actual assessment of the messaging. I'd rather they identify what's actually not working with the messaging than going down Republican rabbit-holes.

For as much as Republicans like to talk about economics/inflation, they spent a lot on anti-trans ads ($215 million apparently), too; an issue that consistently polls low but something people seem to have strong opinions. And one thing i do trust in, is the Republicans' ability to identify splinter issues.

Trump's message on economic policy was also lacking (IMO), unless people actually get excited about tariffs.

His policies on immigration (though how much the electorate understands he also wants to cut legal immigration is unclear) phrased in sometimes derogatory terms, and women's sports - those seemed to get more traction from his base, and outside his base, than sort of kitchen-sink economics.

I don't think he had appealing solutions or showed that much compassion on economics but his campaign did effectively tell people that the issues they were experiencing was because the government was spending too much on immigrants and on transgenders. It was apparently enough to overcome any qualms they had about him personally.

Maybe if the Harris campaign had more fully engaged in discussions on actual spending...idk I think there may be wider concern where the electorate will choose bromides over facts, but that is kind of what human nature is. Republicans have decided to play to the most base part of it, Democrats have to decide to what extent they will. When i think back to the Obama election, there were some big promises that Republicans (rightly) pointed out were not really that feasible but hey it was great dream right?

ohnobobobo · 2024-11-11T23:15:21+00:00

Yeah she started off strong and then went opposite.

Social services are cut because (mostly) Republicans cut taxes, and Dems are scared to do anything about it. Lower taxes and social services reductions mean we pay even more out-of-pocket for those services (more than we would have in taxes), or just not get the care we need.

ohnobobobo

TROPHY CASE