I am 64+ years old. Five foot one. 170 lbs.

I feel good, but uncertain how long that's going to last with the excess weight.

I visited my primary, who's a DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) and discussed a new strategy for weight loss with health benefits.

I've had a comprehensive blood panel with cholesterol, glucose, A1C, thyroid. We both agreed to send me to confer with an endocrinologist (gland specialist). To rule out Hashimoto's Syndrome (lazy thyroid) and metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance (pancreas). My A1C level has thankfully reduced 0.5 since 2019. But I need a more comprehensive study.

Two years ago, I was prediabetic, just a hair away from diabetes. I read that 50% of Americans have undiagnosed insulin resistance, so I want to be certain I don't have it and if I do, take measures to heal the pancreas.

Right now, with the blessing of my primary, this is my first week of intermittent fasting. Essentially, it's reducing three meals to two and having an eight-hour window of eating per day. The other 16 hours allow the pancreas to rest. This is my fourth day and I'm fine. It just requires a little scheduling. Of course you don't eat indiscriminately during those eight hours. Low carbs, protein. Fruit instead of fruit juice.

I'll check in and let you know if I've lost any weight and/or my belly flattens.

It's happened before in history.

William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States, was shot on the grounds of the Pan-American Exposition at the Temple of Music in Buffalo, New York, on September 6, 1901, six months into his second term. He was shaking hands with the public when anarchist Leon Czolgosz shot him twice in the abdomen. McKinley died on September 14 of gangrene caused by the wounds.

-snip-

Czolgosz had lost his job during the economic Panic of 1893 and turned to anarchism, a political philosophy adhered to by recent assassins of foreign leaders. He regarded McKinley as a symbol of oppression and was convinced that it was his duty as an anarchist to kill him. He was unable to get near the president during an earlier visit, but he shot him twice as McKinley reached to shake his hand in the reception line at the temple. One bullet grazed McKinley; the other entered his abdomen and was never found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McKinley

After the shocking assassination of President McKinley, the gunman Leon Czolgosz confesses his actions to be inspired by violent anarchist Emma Goldman’s claim that “all rulers should be exterminated.”
https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-emma-goldman

Four months after hearing Emma Goldman speak, Czolgosz assassinated William McKinley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz

My point: Goldman spoke and Czolgosz had four months to calm down. He didn't. On January 6, Donald Trump went beyond rally rhetoric and the crowd was flush with anger, malice, passion and headed for Congress in a deluded belief they were taking back their country. Trump deserves to be held in account for inciting a riot and for treason.

He'd never done that before. He never hit the other legal assistant before.

It's irrelevant what precipitated that attack; we'll just say I didn't follow his directions to a Tee.

I immediately told his law partner, who barged into my boss's office and screamed at him. I'm pretty sure the topic was workplace litigation.

The next day, my boss came to me at my desk and tried to obfuscate, telling me that I misinterpreted what happened. That was the moment I knew that I couldn't continue working at my job.

I wanted to, but couldn't, press charges for assault, etc., because my boss (unfortunately) was the former municipal prosecutor where the incident happened. My claim would be dead in the water. I just chose to move on.

My point: Having my boss hit me was bad enough. Having my boss do gaslighting made it much worse.

I've never forgotten what happened and never minimalized my memories. I'm just as outraged today as I was 19 years ago.

I had a law client, a certified registered nurse, who was accused by one of her charges in a long-term care facility. The "victim" was 73 and in a wheelchair. She claimed my client abused her 15 different ways (emotional, psychological, mentally, and physically) during a shift (8 hours). She claimed neglect of her basic needs. More damning was her son claimed he saw his mother's leg being crushed like a vise when she was being lifted from wheelchair to bed. Even more damning, the "victim's" roommate testified that she heard the situation from behind her curtain.

Doesn't look good, does it?

We had three hearings. I cross examined all witnesses, including the "victim".

We came up with 14 inconsistencies in the evidence/testimony for the "victim". She also confided to my client that she wished she had money to buy her son (the witness) a house and a new car. Investigation into the "victim's" financial status found she had a reverse mortgage on her home, in an amount higher than its value. Stuff like that. Now, all of a sudden it didn't LOOK good for the "victim."

As for the son and the roommate, I cross examined them and found decided inconsistencies in their stories.

I was left with one last question to be addressed: Why would an old woman in a wheelchair, who otherwise had a good working relationship with my client, make all this up? Because the evidence indicated that this particular woman only got really upset when she missed a medical appointment or test. She missed a DEXA Scan twice and blamed my client for having to make yet a third appointment.

So, long story short, yes, on its face, my client looked damnable. But I gleaned poignant facts to exonerate her.

I'm holding off judgment on Gov. Andrew Cuomo. I'd like to have these women testify under oath.

I don't remember the anger. Anger about things that hadn't bothered people before. All of a sudden, Archie Bunkers were all over the place, simmering in their anger. Ready for a fight. Refusal to argue, to debate, to hear the other side. Unable to defend their anger. Pontificating. They loved being angry. The Dittoheads.

I don't care whether it was an act and Rush did it for ratings. He was toxic, a megalomaniac, and a demagogue.

I'm glad he's gone. Not that his influence will fade away that easily, but I'm glad he's gone.

I'm saddened and concerned about a close friend. We're both attorneys and have worked on several cases together. Almost a symbiotic relationship where one of us will see something the other has missed, whether it's law, fact, and/or analysis. We just work so well together. When she gets excited or passionate, I can wait for her to calm down and we continue.

Today, I got a phonecall from her and she was almost beside herself about Trump, voting fraud, and the Election. She doesn't believe it was a fair election (e.g., Pennsylvania and Michigan). She cited Giuliani, Powell, and Trump talking points. I asked where she got her information and she immediately decried Mainstream Media, CNN, MSNBC, NPR. She watches FOX News, Newsmax and reads them online. And believes it all. Well, not so much says they're factual, but she totally believes that the issues are unsettled and that Trump may be robbed of a majority vote.

As an aside, she is troubled by "undocumented people" getting Medicare, Social Security, student loans/grants, etc. And the thing is that she is an excellent adult school teacher of ESL (English as a Second Language). I mean, her students must be part of the demographic that she's criticizing. (By this time, she's nearly shouting into the phone.)

I am the polar opposite. I've watched/listened to ALL of the news since 1998. I decide whom to consider and whom to discard. I also confirm stuff from several news sources.

In short, I just can't talk to her anymore. I'm sighing. An attorney (with bachelors and masters degrees as well as law school) in a New York State county close to the City and she's literally drunk the Kool Aid. She won't listen or consider the other positions.

Show all your cards at trial or risk losing any chance of presenting evidence in the future.

You can hope that the Appellate Court will allow "new evidence," but it better be REALLY NEW, i.e., it didn't exist or it wasn't discovered at the time of trial.

I've tried for a Reconsideration (of evidence presented at trial) with a return to trial. That's even harder.

Once you're in Appellate Court, all you can essentially debate is the law and procedure. Facts are essentially recorded in stone.

There is the possibility that your case could have prevailed with the additional evidence at trial, but you failed to make it available for consideration. And you could be looking at a friendly new case of legal malpractice by your client.

was to make my brother and my sister turn against me. Specifically, he hoped they would blame me for their disinheritance. (If I hadn't been such a terrible daughter to Dad, then he wouldn't have to punish all of us. This was a theme during our childhoods)

Fortunately it didn't play out that way. My siblings and I have never been closer.

Sorry, I don't know who said it.

I'm referencing Donald Trump at this stage of his presidency.

I don't regret that we voted him (legally) out of office.

Am I apprehensive of what he could possibly do because of the shame, embarrassment, and fate that awaits him? Sure.

But he was a dangerous animal while in Office and he made no bones about staying there indefinitely.

So, that's essentially a dilemma where both options suck. At least with him leaving, the bleeding will eventually stop.

When our abusive father was still alive, my sister would warn me that if I "got Dad mad," I'd be disinherited. I figured, no matter what I said or did, I'd still be disinherited. While I didn't tell Dad what I really thought of him, I didn't hold back my opinions. Punchline: Dad died. His Will was read. He disinherited me and my sister and my brother. They didn't have my courage and still got caught up in Dad's desire to punish us from the grave. While I didn't get the money, I have the satisfaction that I fought back when I had the chance.

Our father wanted a dog. Our mother didn't. Dad wanted an Alaskan Malamute. Mom didn't.

Dad bought a Malamute puppy. And he wouldn't train her, period. How to eat, how to be housebroken. Mom refused to let the dog live in our house.

So Dad had an enclosure built outside. It had a cement floor, a dog house, wooden stakes with wire across, and a door for access.

Why am I telling you this? Because though I was eight, I recognized animal abuse and was helpless to do anything. The dog was fed dog food from a can, more or less thrown into the cage. The dog lived outside despite low, low temperatures, snow, rain, heat. Never brushed or groomed. Not even walked. Like a zoo animal.

Mom was fine with it; the dog wasn't living indoors with her or us. Dad had the satisfaction of owning a (neglected) dog.

The dog would occasionally howl, an unearthly howl. I knew she was miserable.

My siblings and I couldn't play with her as she instinctively turned wild under confinement. She could be vicious.

Fortunately, about four years later, either someone made Dad an offer to sell the dog or he was convinced to find another home. In either case, I quietly celebrated that the dog would no longer be living in misery during the winter. (Dad never believed she was in misery. After all, she was an Alaskan Malamute and bred to live outdoors during extreme winter weather.)

The video in the OP brought back a lot of sad memories. That dog suffered. Not that Dad was abusive as much as he was extremely negligent, perhaps reckless -- and he never should have been allowed to have a dog -- EVER.