stellatex

[stellatex]

Transcript of President John F. Kennedy’s address at Medical Care for the Aged rally, New York, 20 May 1962

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen.. My old colleague in the House of Representatives and friend, Aime Forand, this community, ladies and gentlemen, and fellow Americans, I am very proud to be here today at one of over 33 meetings which are being held across the United States, and it is a source of regret to me that the head of the most significant organization here today, Mr. Hale, aged 77, working on this meeting, had a heart attack and was taken to the hospital. I think we should pass this legislation as soon as possible!

I come to New York because I believe the epic in which we're engaged is worth the time and effort of all of us. I come from Boston, Massachusetts, near Faneuil Hall, where for a whole period of years, meetings were held by interested citizens in order to lay the groundwork for American independence. And while there may be some who say that the business of government is so important that it should be confined to those who govern, in this free society of ours the consent--and may I say the support--of the citizens of this country is essential if this or any other piece of progressive legislation is going to be passed--make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it!

Now why are we here? What is the issue which divides and arouses so much concern? I will take a case which may be typical, a family which may be found in any part of the United States. The husband has worked hard for his life, and he is retired. He might've been a clerk, or a salesman, or on the road, or worked in a factory, stores, whatever. He's always wanted to pay his own way, and he does not ask anyone to care for him. He wants to care for himself. He has raised his own family. He has educated them. His children are now on their own. He and his wife are drawing Social Security. It may run $75, $100, $125 in the higher brackets. Let's say it's a hundred. And he has a pension, from where he worked--the results of years of effort. Now, therefore, his basic needs are taken care of: he owns his house, he has $2500 or $3000 in the bank. And then his wife gets sick--and we're all going to be in the hospital at some point, nine out of ten of us, before we finally... pass away. And particularly when we're over 65. Now she is sick--not just for a week, but for a long time. First goes the $2500--that's gone. Next he mortgages his house, even though he may have some difficulty making the payments out of his Social Security. Then he goes to his children, who themselves are heavily burdened because they're paying for their house, and they're paying for their sicknesses, and they want to educate their children, and their savings begin to go.

This is not a rare case--I talked to a member of the Congress, from my own state a week ago, who told me he was going to send his daughter away to school, but because his father had been sick for two years, he could not do it--and Congressmen are paid $22,500 a year--and that's more than most people get.

So, therefore now, what is he going to do? His savings are gone, his children's savings, they're contributing though they have responsibilities of their own--and he finally goes in and signs a petition saying he's broke and needs assistance. Now, what do we say? We say that during his working years, he will contribute to Social Security as he has to his retirement--$12 or $13 a month. When he becomes ill, or she becomes ill, over a long period of time, he first pays $90, so that people will not abuse it. But then let's say he has a bill of $1500. This bill that we're talking about, Mr. Anderson's bill and Mr. King's bill, does not solve everything--but let's say it's $1500, of which a thousand dollars are hospital bills. This bill will pay that thousand dollars in hospital bills. And then, I believe, that he and his family can meet his other responsibilities.

Now, that does not seem such an extraordinary piece of legislation, 25 years after Franklin Roosevelt passed the Social Security Act!

Well, let's hear what some people say. First, we read that the AMA is against it. And they're entitled to be against it. Though I do question how many of those who speak so violently about it have read it. But they are against it, and they're entitled to be against it if they wish. In the first place, there isn't one person here who isn't indebted to the doctors of this country. Children are not born in an eight-hour day. All of us have been the beneficiaries of their help. This is not a campaign against doctors, because doctors have joined with us--this is a campaign to help people meet their responsibilities.

There are doctors in New Jersey who say they will not treat any patient who receives it--of course they will! They are engaged in an effort to stop the bill. It is if--as if I took out somebody's appendix. Look, the point of the matter is, that the AMA is doing very well in its efforts to stop this bill. And the doctors of New Jersey and every other state may be opposed to it, but I know that not a single doctor, if this bill is passed, is going to refuse to treat any patient. No one would become a doctor--just as a business enterprise, it's a long, laborious discipline--we need more of them, we want their help, and gradually, we're getting it. The problem, however, is more complicated, because they do not comprehend what we're trying to do. We do not cover doctor's bills here. We do not affect the freedom of choice--you can go to any doctor you want, you work out your arrangements with him--what we're talking about here is hospital bills--and that's an entirely different matter. And I hope that, one by one, the doctors of the United States will take the extraordinary step of not merely reading the journals and the publications of the AMA--because I do not recognize the bill when I hear those descriptions--but, instead,... instead to write to Secretary Renikoff in Washington, or to me--and you know where I live--or to Senator Anderson, or to Congressman King if you are a doctor or opposed to this bill and get a concise explanation and the bill, and read it. All these arguments were made against Social Security at the time of Franklin Roosevelt--they're made today--the mail pours in. And at least half the mail which I receive in the White House on this issue and others is wholly misinformed. Last week, I got 1500 letters on a revenue measure; 1494 opposed, and six for. And at least half of those letters were completely misinformed about the details of what they wrote. And why is that so? Because there are so many busy men in Washington who write--some organizations have six, seven, and eight hundred people, spreading mail across the country, asking doctors and others to write in and tell your Congressmen you're opposed to it. The mail pours in to the White House, in to the Congress and Senators' offices. Congressmen and Senators feel people are opposed to it. Then they read a Gallup poll which says 75% of the people are in favor of it--and they say, 'What has happened to my mail?' The point of the matter is, that this meeting and the others indicate that the people of the United States recognize, one by one, thousand by thousand, million by million, that this is a problem... which is... solution is long overdue. And this year, I believe--or certainly as inevitably as the tide comes in, next year--this bill is going to pass.

And then other people say, 'Why doesn't the government mind its own business?' What is the government's business is the question. After Harry Truman said that 14 million Americans has enough resources so that they could hire people in Washington to protect their interests--and the rest of them depended upon the President of the United States and others.

This bill serves the public interest. It involves the government because it involves the public welfare. The Constitution of the United States did not make the President or the Congress powerless. It gave them definite responsibilities--to advance the general welfare. And that is what we're attempting to do. And then I read that this bill will sap the individual self-reliance of Americans. I can't imagine anything worse--or anything better to sap someone's self-reliance than to be sick, alone, broke, or to have saved for a lifetime and put it out in a week, two weeks, a month, two months... I've visited twice today--yesterday, and once today, a hospital, with doctors [unintelligible] for a long time--to visit my father. It isn't easy. It isn't easy. He can pay his bills! But, otherwise, I would be--and I'm not as well off as he is. But, uh... what happens to him and to others when they put their life savings in in a short time? So I must say that I believe we stand about in good company today, in halls such as this, where your predecessors, where Dave Devinsky himself actually stood, where another former President stood and fought this issue out of Social Security against the same charges.

This argument that the government should stay out, that is saps our pioneer stock--I used to hear that argument when we were talking about raising the minimum wage to a dollar and a quarter. I remember one day being asked to step out into the hall, and up the corridor came four distinguished looking men with straw hats on and canes. They told me they had just flown in from a state in their private plane, and they wanted me to know that if we passed a bill for time and a half for service station attendants--who were then working about 55 or 60 hours of straight time--it would sap their self-reliance. The fact of the matter is, what saps anyone's self-reliance is working 60 hours of straight time, or working at 85 or 95 or a dollar an hour!

All depending upon filling out a pauper's oath and going, uh, and then getting it free. Nobody in this hall is asking for it for nothing. They are willing to contribute during their productive years. That is the important principle which has been lost sight of! I understand that there's going to be a program against this bill in which an English physician is going to come and talk about how bad their plans are. May be! But he oughta talk about it in England! Because his plan--his plan and what they do in England is entirely different. In England the entire cost of medicine for people of all ages, all of it--doctors, choice of doctors, hospitals, from the time you're born till the time you die--are included in a government program. But what we're talking about is entirely different. And I hope that while he's here, he and Dr. Spock and others who have joined us will come to see what we're trying to do. The fact of the matter is, what we are now talking about doing, most of the countries of Europe did years ago--the British did it 30 years ago. We are behind every country nearly in Europe in this matter of medical care for our citizens. And then those who say that this should be left to private effort. In those hospitals in New Jersey where the doctors said they wouldn't treat anyone who paid their hospital bills through Social Security--those hospitals and every other new hospital, the American people, all of us, contribute one half, or two thirds for every new hospital, the national government. We pay 55% of all new research done. We help young men become doctors. We are concerned with the progress of this country, and those who say that what we are now talking about spoils our great pioneer heritage should remember that the West was settled with two great actions by the national government: one, in President Lincoln's administration, when he gave a homestead to everyone who went West, and in 1862 he set aside government property to build our land grant colleges. This cooperation--between and alert and progressive citizenry and a progressive government, is what has made this country great--and we shall continue as long as we have the opportunity to do so.

This matter should not be left to a mail campaign where Senators are inundated, or Congressmen, 25 and 30,000 letters; the instructions go out, 'Write it in your own hand, don't use the same words,' the letters pour in in two or three weeks, half of them misinformed... This meeting today, on a hot, good day, when everyone could be doing something else, and the 32 other meetings--this indicates that the American people are determined to put to an end to meeting a challenge with [unintelligible] when they're least able to meet it.

And then, finally, I had a letter last week that said you're going to take care of all the millionaires and they don't need it. I do not know how many millionaires we are talking about, but they won't mind contributing $12 a month to Social Security, and they may be among those who will apply for it when they go to the hospital, but what I will say is that the national government, through the tax laws, already takes care of them, because over 65 they can deduct all their medical expenses. What are are concerned about is the person not who has not got a cent, but those who have saved and worked and then get hit. And then there are those who say, well, what if you die before you're 65? Well, then you really don't care--we have no guarantees. But what we are talking about is, our people are living a long time, their housing in inadequate, in many cases their rehabilitation is inadequate. We've got great unfinished business in this country. And while this bill does not solve our problems in this area, I do not believe it is a valid argument to say, 'This bill isn't going to do the job.' It will not--but--it will do part of it. Our housing bill last year for the elderly--that won't do the job, but it will begin. When we retain workers, that won't take care of unemployment chronically in some areas--but it's a start. We aren't able overnight to solve all the problems this country faces--but is that any reason to say, let's not even try? That's what we're going to do today--we are trying. We are trying.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKPOF/038/JFKPOF-038-023

[stellatex]

Nine Questions I Need Teresa Giudice to Answer: Updated

Originally published February 15, 2016 I actually gave up Bravo for Lent, but I've already floundered on day one by continuing to watch, think about, and write about this bullshit. Sunk costs and all that.

So, here is my updated scorecard on the nine questions I needed Teresa to answer if she expected the viewing public to continue watching and supporting her.

1. You said in your statement to the judge during sentencing that you “fully take responsibility” for your actions. You said, “It’s time for me to wake up… I will make this right no matter what it takes.” Why, immediately afterward, in your interview on Watch What Happens Live, did you backtrack and try to deflect blame to your husband while insisting things were just put before you to sign?

In my opinion, she's doing this because she's being coached, either by her lawyer or a new PR team, or both, probably because they mistakenly believe that painting Teresa as some kind of innocent bedazzled Madonna will allow her to keep the Bravo Sunday gravy train chugging along. It's also possible that Teresa's advisors, friends, and various hangers-on, whoever they may be, are telling her how faaaaabulous she is--that's it's obvious she's the wronged party, and that she's so very strong and inspiring, etc., etc.--because they know who butters their bread, and, if history is any guide, Teresa has a habit of cutting out anyone who questions her lies and self deception (as we've seen both on the show and in the news reports about how she fired her publicist, her lawyers, and her co-writer). It's obvious that there are still a few small-time Jersey famewhores buzzing around Teresa in the mistaken belief that she is a queen bee. Typical celebrity yes-men and con-men. We've seen this over and over with celebrities, and it never turns out well, though a lot of people may make a lot of money in the short-term, and get some of that reflected spotlight that they so obviously crave. Regardless, like I said in my original post, if Teresa thinks she can just skate out of federal prison as a sinewy, chilled-out felon and continue to stonewall and deny and refuse to acknowledge any criminal culpability whatsoever, she has severely misjudged the nature of her dubious fame. But more on that in a moment.

Regardless, all of the interviewers asked her a fairly direct version of the question above; shockingly, Andy Cohen pushed it the hardest, asking point-blank, "What did you do? Can you tell us what you did?" And still she played dumb, owning up to merely "signing some papers." Girlfriend, we can all read the indictment. If you're so innocent, why didn't you take your case to trial? You admitted in the process of accepting a plea deal that you were guilty. Accepting a plea deal necessitates that you not only agree to pleading guilty, but that you are fully cognizant of what you are pleading to and that you understand the consequences. We all know what you did, Teresa.

2. You claim to be “business savvy,” telling your husband on an episode of RHONJ, “Like, you know, that’s what I do now. I’m a businesswoman, so I’m thinking business.” You’ve touted your online businesses, your Fabellini drink line, your Milania hair care line, your success as a “New York Time [sic] best-selling author.” So how is it that you are also simultaneously claiming to be a clueless housewife who knows nothing of her own finances, including the assets from said businesses that you tried to hide during both your fraudulent bankruptcy and your sentencing?

See above. This is bullshit.

3. If you are blaming your husband Joe for your ten-plus-years of financial fraud and the year you spent unjustly incarcerated in a federal prison, why are you still with him?

"Because I know he would never do anything to hurt me. He didn't mean to."

Uh, okay. That is also bullshit. Just transparently, obviously, self evidently, undeniably, total bullshit.

4. What would you say to the creditors, banks, and, most importantly, small business owners of New Jersey whom you and your husband fleeced to the tune of millions of dollars? Do you feel any obligation to repay these debts?

Still waiting on someone, anyone, to ask her this obvious follow-up question.

Furthermore, Teresa: I don't want to hear anything else about how this is all Joe's fault, or your brother Joe Gorga's fault, or your sister-in-law Melissa's fault, or your cousin Kathy's fault, or your accountants' fault, or your bankers' fault, or your attorneys' fault. It's not. It's 100% your fault. You're the one who committed the crimes. You're the one who went on national television flaunting thousands of dollars of cash purchases despite the fact that neither you nor your uneducated, clueless husband could possibly ever earn that much money legitimately. And, most importantly, you're the one who cravenly filed for bankruptcy to the tune of $13+ million dollars when you could no longer prop up your charade of nouveau riche consumerism for America's most satanic cable network. You're the one who stole from banks and fleeced businesses. You're a thief, a liar, and, now, a felon.

5. Explain this.

Everybody asked her about this, but instead of answering, she just blamed Joe, who leased it for her (another obvious lie; how did the bankrupt, apparently unemployed felon, who currently has a lien on his house to the tune of half a million dollars, get a lease?). She even blamed Lexus for putting a big red bow on top--which she claims they did because they knew it would be good publicity for Lexus! Uh, okay. I'm sure Lexus wants their brand to be associated with tacky low-life Jersey felons. Sure. Yep. Nobody asked her, "Why not a cheaper car, though?"

6. Why are you and your husband suing your bankruptcy attorney? Furthermore, do you not realize that, in doing so, you will be giving up your attorney-client privilege and opening yourselves up to a new investigation of your finances during the discovery process?

Nobody has asked her this. I am sure she's just say she can't talk about it. But I wonder if these questions have even occurred to her tiny, pisello brain.

7. What are you going to do when Joe is deported?

She demurs on this one, too, probably because--as Vicki Hyman points out--she doesn't want to jeopardize the incredibly small chance Joe has of not being deported per federal guidelines by admitting that she would move to Italy with him.

8. You talk constantly about your love, love, love for your four beautiful dorters. Why did you put them in this position?

I don't think anyone has really asked her this recently, but she is still selling the story that none of the dorters but Gia know what's going on. Which is obviously ridiculous.

And remember how she previously whined on-camera about how haaaaard all of this financial mess (i.e. her multiple felonies) has been on her four beautiful dorters, who don't even have a college fund!

So, you were busy stealing $13+ million dollars, and earning tens of thousands per episode appearing on Bravo, and earning more selling tabloid stories and writing multiple "New York Time bestseller [sic]" books, and buying all those designer clothes and bags and luxury cars, and creating that hideous redone home, and yet you didn't put any of the money aside for your kids? Honey, that's not on anyone but you. And you've made it abundantly clear from your actions that you do not give a single shit about the well-being of your girls. So shut the fuck up with the martyred mother pity party. America ain't buying it.

9. Why should viewers overlook your felonious criminal past and continue to support you by watching RHONJ or buying your books or products?

??????

This is the question.

I, for one, am not.It was clear from five minutes into Teresa's comeback tour that she hasn't changed one whit.

As a fan of the show from the first notes of the opening credits of the first episode, I was shocked when Teresa was sentenced. I had followed the news all day, waiting... waiting... waiting... for the verdicts to come down. And, much like her famewhore family members who allowed their reaction to be filmed (or recreated...) for RHONJ, I was utterly gobsmacked. This zany, silly, thoroughly unserious woman, whom we had all watched for years, was in fact "going away" to prison--and for a not-insignificant amount of time. In that moment, everything changed. This was really real. And I couldn't help thinking about the shock Teresa herself must've felt. She was clearly still in shock when she and Joe sat down for a WWHL special with Andy less than 24 hours after their sentencing.

But it was also kind of cathartic. It was obvious to everyone that the Giudices were Up To Something--from the first episode with the wads of cash and carefree spending. Having followed the case closely and read the indictments, I was not surprised--not really. Even as someone who had a love/hate relationship with the Bravo character called "Tre," it was an awful thing to witness--but it seemed just. And there was a sliver of hope there... that maybe Teresa would, finally, be forced to her own personal reckoning. Maybe, just maybe, all that time away from her children and the onyx manse and the cameras might give Teresa's limited mind the space it needed to feel a small glimmer of shame. That maybe the dawning light of that shame would lead to some actual introspection. She even used the vanity vehicle of "Teresa Checks In" (which I maintain should've been called "Teresa Goes Away") to brag about how much praying she was doing in there. I think many of us more savvy viewers were really hoping she was experiencing genuine remorse.

But nope.

The truly staggering thing to me about all of this is that even eleven months in federal prison wasn't enough to lead to any moral progress at all for this self-obsessed, brain-dead, glitter-bombed Portrait of Dorian Gray.

She will never change.

She is irredeemable.

Her story is over.

There is nothing new to see here. Watching the continuing cautionary tale that is Teresa Giudice is not only a waste of time and potentially personally morally corrosive, but--even worse--it's boring.

And the cherry top? Her blithe, casual endorsement of the candidacy of Donald Trump. I wasn't expecting that--though I probably should've--and it is so much more perfect than either of them could ever realize.

Both of them think they're famous; but, in reality, they're only infamous.

[stellatex]

Nine Questions I Need Teresa Giudice to Answer

Originally published February 9, 2016.

Today’s the day. Christmas all over again for Real Housewives of New Jersey fans. Teresa Giudice, who has mostly been laying low since her release from federal prison on December 23, is set to make the media rounds to promote her new book, starting tonight with what is undoubtedly a contractually-obligated appearance on Watch What Happens Live with Bravo’s resident trash-TV obsessed Machiavellian puppet master Andy Cohen. Tomorrow morning, she will appear on Good Morning America with actual journalist Amy Robach.

The Housewives conceit–catty women posing as wealthy, fighting over petty drama, a trope from the heady days of 80s prime time soaps that quite obviously influences Cohen’s work, and one which Gloria Steinem recently called “a minstrel show for women”–may be of waning interest now, ten years on from the premiere of the Real Housewives of Orange County. Certainly, RHONJ has taken a dark turn, first with the introduction of Teresa’s family members (without her prior knowledge), then with the failed Giudice bankruptcy and subsequent criminal investigation, trial, and conviction. It feels like the Housewives have run their course. Certainly, the newest installment, Real Housewives of Potomac, feels like a Potemkin village of a Potemkin village, complete with early 90s fiberboard kitchen cabinets.

I’ve been watching the Real Housewives of New Jersey since it premiered on May 12, 2009. I have seen every episode multiple times. I have watched every web exclusive available on Hulu and every behind-the-scenes video on the Bravo web site. I’ve watched every RHONJ cast appearance on Watch What Happens live. I’ve read all of Richard Lawson’s uhmazeing recaps on Gawker. I’ve followed Vicki Hyman’s meticulous reporting on the Giudices’ legal woes (she is truly doing God’s work covering this shitshow; reward her by giving a listen to her TV Hangover podcast). I’ve read all the forums (here’s one) and all the shady gossip blogs (but I’m not linking to them; you’re on your own). I have all of Teresa’s books, and even Melissa’s. I have corresponded privately with one of Teresa’s ghostwriters. I follow all of the RHONJ cast members, former cast members, friends of Housewives, and tangential friends and family on social media. I have a RHONJ Twitter list [now defunct, sorry]. I started and am admin for a Real Housewives Feminist Discussion Group on Facebook (invitation only, sorry).

I’m in deep.

I know as much about RHONJ as any viewer could possibly know. Sadly, I am somehow an expert on this show. The reasons I am obsessed with this show are personal and academic; cultural and escapist. That’s a whole other post. Or dissertation.

Point is, despite my better judgment, I love this show. I love it. I can’t fully explain it. I even love Teresa. I think she was the one who was “set up” in previous seasons, with producers and other cast members acting in unison to take advantage of her as a narcissistic simpleton, to amp up the drama. But that’s all for another post, too, and in the past at this point. The fact is Teresa–along with her four beautiful dorters–is and always has been the star of this show. People watched because she was good TV. She and Joe exhibited character flaws on the scale of a Greek tragedy, sure; but they were also hilarious. Hilariously inept, if caricaturishly stereotypical. Somehow strangely lovable, even though they were also criminally delusional. From the first episode, Teresa was flashing those hundred dollar bills, buying that gaudy furniture in cash, and we, the viewers, knew Something Was Up. It’s been a long, unspooling tale from then to now. In hindsight, viewers know that Joe and Teresa had already been living on fraudulently obtained money for years. Their crimes, according to court records, date back to at least 2004, five years before they appeared on America’s television screens.

To date, Teresa’s line has been that she was misled into “signing some papers” that she either didn’t read or didn’t understand (her story varies), either by Joe or by her accountants (!) or her lawyers (!). She’s played the role of innocent, “old school” Italian wife–the same role she’s played on RHONJ. Joe tried to take the fall for her in court and failed. Due to the Giudices’ decision to continue hiding assets right up until the sentencing, Judge Esther Salas rethought her original impulse of possibly giving Teresa only house arrest or probation, and instead sentenced her to 15 months in prison.

Teresa’s complicity in the crimes is not a matter of debate, though the extent of her participation is. Teresa pled guilty. She expressed remorse in court, presumably in an attempt to receive a lesser–or no–prison sentence. It is my opinion that she really believed the judge would take pity on her as a traditional mother of four beautiful dorters. The Giudices’ financial scams had been working for years, after all. She was famous. People loved her. She deserved and was well accustomed to her McMansion lifestyle. She was obviously not very financially astute. She was a good Italian wife who deferred to her husband. She was a good girl.

She thought wrong.

We can all read the indictment and draw our own conclusions. Now, Teresa is trying to make a comeback. According to Teresa [link lost], the Giudices have paid their court-ordered restitution and their mortgage is current. No mention is made of the $551,563 still owed to the IRS for unpaid taxes, nor the the creditors listed in their 2010 bankruptcy filing, totaling $13.4 million.

Based on the teaser clips already released by GMA, Teresa is continuing, in her obviously memorized, stilted, eye-blinking way, to hold on tight to her claims that she had no idea what she was doing, or signing. It has been my contention all along that this is probably what we would see from post-prison Teresa. I almost admire her dedication. The sheer hubris. The chutzpah. Too bad she hasn’t yet channeled all that white-knuckle stubbornness into anything more productive than unflinching denial of her multiple felonies, holding grudges against her own family members, and a devotion to flawless 24/7 drag queen makeup.

But I think she’s placed her bets on the wrong horse and fundamentally misunderstands her fame.

Despite everything, there are still viewers–myself included–who love watching Teresa. Who want her to come good. Who want to see some Goddamn Character Development. It seems like she’s going to keep pretending everything is okay, even though it very obviously is not, and that she will continue to deny her culpability in obtaining the millions of dollars of fraudulent loans that financed her over-the-top leopard-print lifestyle, the craven bankruptcy filing intended to wipe the slate clean, and the way she and her husband have financially ruined the many local business and small contractors whom they stiffed in the process.

So far, there has been zero accountability.

What Teresa doesn’t get here–and Teresa, as we know, doesn’t get a lot of things–is that the only remaining way to endear herself to the viewing, cookbook-buying public is through showing genuine remorse. She is being presented with yet another golden opportunity that she doesn’t really deserve in the form of this press tour for her perfectly timed, hastily-released biography. I don’t think she realizes that, without performing–convincingly–this type of epiphany for her ever-dwindling audience, her “career” as a Bravolebrity is over after this final fifteen minutes. It seems that I’m not the only one who thinks so; even her former co-writer, Heather MacLean, tried to explain this to her, to no avail.

Teresa needs chart a course that will keep her on TV and thus allow her to continue making the type of money she needs support herself and her children, especially in light of the fact that her husband is about to “go away” for at least three and a half years. Unlike others, I don’t blame her for capitalizing on her moment in the spotlight, and the prurient interest of the public, to hawk an autobiography and book a bunch of paid appearances. It’s the only legitimate way she has to earn an income, and certainly the only way to earn the type of money she needs to continue paying down those back taxes and massive debt (and I expect some lawsuits will be forthcoming from her many creditors).

But to make good, she needs to provide some real answers to some hard questions. No doubt Cohen will only lob only softball questions and make schoolboy jokes at her expense. He may ask a few tough questions tonight in the guise of “viewer Marge in Omaha on Twitter,” but his interest is in coddling his “star” and presenting a coherent narrative for RHONJ. In another timely moved that surprised no one (who was paying attention), Bravo announced yesterday that a seventh season of RHONJ will be on our screens “later this year.” Perhaps GMA’s Amy Robach will ask her some tougher questions. We’ll have to wait and see.

To my mind, there are certain things Teresa must address if she expects to return from federal prison and jump back into her role as Housewife.

So, in the spirit of Brian Moylan’s 98 Questions I Had During Last Night’s Interview With Joe and Teresa Giudice, here are the questions that I need Teresa Giudice to answer, presented in advance:

1. You said in your statement to the judge during sentencing that you “fully take responsibility” for your actions. You said, “It’s time for me to wake up… I will make this right no matter what it takes.” Why, immediately afterward, in your interview on Watch What Happens Live, did you backtrack and try to deflect blame to your husband while insisting things were just put before you to sign?

2. You claim to be “business savvy,” telling your husband on an episode of RHONJ, “Like, you know, that’s what I do now. I’m a businesswoman, so I’m thinking business.” You’ve touted your online businesses, your Fabellini drink line, your Milania hair care line, your success as a “New York Time [sic] best-selling author.” So how is it that you are also simultaneously claiming to be a clueless housewife who knows nothing of her own finances, including the assets from said businesses that you tried to hide during both your fraudulent bankruptcy and your sentencing?

3. If you are blaming your husband Joe for your ten-plus-years of financial fraud and the year you spent unjustly incarcerated in a federal prison, why are you still with him?

4. What would you say to the creditors, banks, and, most importantly, small business owners of New Jersey whom you and your husband fleeced to the tune of millions of dollars? Do you feel any obligation to repay these debts?

5. Explain this.

6. Why are you and your husband suing your bankruptcy attorney? Furthermore, do you not realize that, in doing so, you will be giving up your attorney-client privilege and opening yourselves up to a new investigation of your finances during the discovery process?

7. What are you going to do when Joe is deported?

8. You talk constantly about your love, love, love for your four beautiful dorters. Why did you put them in this position?

9. Why should viewers overlook your felonious criminal past and continue to support you by watching RHONJ or buying your books or products?

She’s taken to calling herself Teresa 2.0, and insisting that her time in the slammer transformed her into a zen-like superwoman who has her priorities straight. But we, the viewers, will be the judge and jury. Based on what we have seen to date, it appears that Teresa hasn’t learned a damn thing. I wish she would prove me wrong, but I don’t think she has it in her.

All images from the amazing T-Kyle.

[stellatex]

#DealWithIt #Tim

[stellatex]