Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

BabyVegas

Member
  • Content Count

    415
  • Joined

Community Reputation

1.5k Excellent
  1. BabyVegas

    S06.E21: Bias in Medicine

    To answer that one guy's question: it's called a pumpkin spice latte despite not having any pumpkin in it because the flavoring in the latte is the same flavoring as the spices used in pumpkin pie. Also, Starbucks has the stuff for a pumpkin spice latte all year round. People just like to make fun of pumpkin spice lattes because they are a thing traditionally associated with young women. Speaking of women...YEESH that main segment. Everything about that was upsetting. It wasn't my first exposure to the gender/race bias that occurs in medicine, but it still made me sick. Pesky hormones?! I mean, first of all, men have hormones too, so the idea that women are men+hormones is insane on a base level. But also one does not even need to be a doctor to know that those "pesky hormones" serve functions other than fucking with your mood. So if women have different hormones then of fucking course you need to account for that! Insanity. And the information about health issues that primarily affect women not being well researched is sadly so common. As far as I can tell, if you have an issue that affects or involves your uterus, the general medical solution is "have you tried birth control."
  2. BabyVegas

    All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

    I follow Craig Mazin (the writer of Chernobyl and also Ted Cruz's college roommate who LOATHES him) on Twitter, which was actually the first place I heard about this Russian explosion. He's been talking about this since the day it happened and, as Rachel was talking about various events last night, it sounded exactly like the Chernobyl PR playbook. The news has gotten to the point where I have to watch Rachel on stop and start because it's too horrifying to watch it all in one go. I am forever grateful that she doesn't traffic in scare tactics (the actual news is scary enough) and she tries to give things real context. To me, that's what makes Rachel's show so vital.
  3. BabyVegas

    S06.E04: An Inside Glob

    I'm not a lawyer, but I am studying to be one, so I decided to go look this up in my bar outline. I would certainly defer to anyone who actually practices in this area, but here's what my bar outline for Corporations says: "A director is elected by shareholders, responsible for major corporate decisions, and appoint officers." "An officer runs the corporation on a daily basis." "Directors and officers cannot receive unfair benefits to the detriment of the corporation unless they effectively disclose and obtain ratification of those benefits." "A director or officer usurps a corporate opportunity when that director or officer prevents money from coming into the corporation." So, I'm guessing it would come down to whether Charles is considered a director? I'm not sure of the exact structure of Millennial, but since he's supposedly "Chairman of the Board" I'm guessing he would probably be considered a director.
  4. BabyVegas

    All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

    I agree that Rachel's interviews haven't been as good as some other interviews and I think some of it comes down to Rachel being more of a commentator than a reporter. Rachel's strongest area seems to be contextualizing the news rather than breaking it. When there's breaking news, she has reporters on the show to walk through the news, but she seems to serve more as a vehicle for their story - eliciting what happened and asking clarifying questions. But when she has interviewees on who could stand a little more of a face-to-face challenge because they're selling a particular viewpoint, that interview strategy doesn't work as well. From what I remember, she used to be better at this stuff. In particular, I'm remembering her having on more people who vehemently disagreed with her and she'd go to town really debating them. In particular I'm thinking that one guy from maybe 6-7 years back who wrote a book about how gay people are bad and she interviewed him and lit into him. (Sorry, I realize that is not a very specific description.) So maybe the problem is that she has a hard time finding her hook when she isn't dealing with someone who is neutral and she isn't dealing with someone with an opposing point of view?
  5. BabyVegas

    S06.E04: An Inside Glob

    Most likely. And it doesn't matter that he resigned from the board. He violated his duty of loyalty before his resignation and in the real world he'd probably be looking down the barrel of a lawsuit. It really is a bummer that they've made Charles suck so much. Especially him calling that author "matron lit." Good for Liza for telling the author what he said. I was looking forward to him and Liza being together and it has just been cringefest after cringefest. He was being awful putting Liza in the middle of his bullshit. And as heated as Kelsey was being, I honestly kind of can't blame her. She was thrown into the deep end by people who should have known she wasn't ready but did it anyway because it suited their purposes. I see now why they couldn't make Diana publisher. She's too competent and all this nonsense wouldn't be happening. Quinn is clearly no help. Charles is actively working against her. It's unreasonable to expect a late twenty-something who hasn't shown any particular business acumen to be a turnaround artist for a company that has been circling the drain while handling bad actors within the company. Hell, my hair would be falling out too. ETA: While I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure that even leaving would allow him to work at Mercury right away. (If he's meeting with authors and trying to woo them over, that's more than just pure financing.) If this were the real world, I'd imagine that there was a non-compete clause in Charles' contract. If there was an actual board, that would mean it wasn't just Charles running the whole show and I can't believe they wouldn't insist on at least some kind of non-compete. For me, the only way this storyline can end up anywhere believable is if Charles gets sued by Millenial/Empirical.
  6. I heard that line and immediately flashed to an episode of Better off Ted where an employee died and the company tried to turn it into motivation for people to work even harder. For a show that was supposed to be an absurdist comedy about a relentlessly evil corporation...apparently it wasn't very absurd. The only people I know who do this don't have a car so to them it's no different from using Instacart. And they consider it more convenient than spending the time busing or catching an Uber/Lyft to the grocery store.
  7. BabyVegas

    AM Joy

    Elie Mystal's rant this morning was a thing of beauty. "We don't have quiche!" I always look forward to an AM Joy when he's a guest.
  8. BabyVegas

    S06.E15: Impeachment

    It's less common to have a dedicated civics class these days. In our school it got combined with history and then we had the option of taking a class in "government" for one year. We had to take a science class, an English class, a math class, a history/social studies class, and then we had two electives (usually a language and music/drama/similar). Civics classes have largely fallen by the wayside in favor of classes that teach standardized test subjects. Which kind of ties back to the LWT episode from a few years ago about the problems with standardized testing. If it's not on the tests, it doesn't get taught with any real rigor. Impeachment is mentioned in the AP US Government curriculum, but it doesn't look like it's covered in any great depth. It looks like it's covered as a subtopic under constitutional checks and balances. I'm glad John covers these types of topics. He does such a great job using humor to break the barrier so that people want to learn. I sent his net neutrality piece to a few of my older relatives to explain the importance of it and I imagine I'll probably end up sending this piece to a few people I know who don't really understand impeachment.
  9. BabyVegas

    S06.E15: Impeachment

    This is the sort of thing that should be taught in history classes in school, but I honestly wonder how many schools actually touch on that nowadays. My guess is very few. It's been about ten years since I was in high school, but I don't think we went much past WWII, even in my AP classes. I don't think we had a separate social studies/civics class past middle school and what we did learn was incredibly simplistic. We might have learned a general understanding of what Watergate was. Maybe. And we most certainly never touched on Johnson's impeachment. The closest thing to an education on impeachment that I remember getting was watching All The President's Men with my parents. I think one of the reasons that people don't really get impeachment is because it's not well-taught in schools and the media kind of slurs it together into one thing. Frankly, an explainer on the mechanics of impeachment is not feasible within the structure of most news programs. LWT is built for the kind of in-depth explanation it requires, but most news is geared towards much shorter segments. Plus, where LWT takes a lot of time to define terms and make sure its viewers are working from an accurate vocabulary, a lot of news shows aren't rigid about terminology. They'll talk about Nixon but they rarely make a point of emphasizing that impeachment inquires were opened but Nixon was never formally impeached. And when they talk about Clinton's impeachment in one breath and then Nixon's resignation in the next, it probably confuses a lot of people because it's a distinction that requires some time to make.
  10. BabyVegas

    All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

    Is it wrong that I laughed and rewound that moment of her sighing/facepalming? I was maybe 8ish when the Good Friday Agreement was struck, and the second that she played that clip of him talking about a wall my immediate reaction was "wait, wasn't that the big issue with Ireland/Northern Ireland?" I know several of us have commented on her snarkiness, but sometimes I think it's a "laugh so you don't cry" situation.
  11. BabyVegas

    All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

    I think it also matters that they're on her platform and not vice versa. If the NYT had Rachel on their platform and she stated an opinion, I would assume that they approved of it, at least enough to publish it. If a reporter is on Rachel's platform, it's not reasonable to assume that the NYT holds that opinion because the show is under Rachel's control. And frankly the description of Rachel as "mega-ideological" is baffling. I would certainly concede that she has a point of view, but the idea that any political/news show is without a POV seems insane.
  12. BabyVegas

    All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

    But the problem is that this is a slippery slope argument. And that was my problem with the segment. If she had invited on a lawyer who could have laid out the legal principles and rationale, then she could have talked about how and why this was concerning. That would have been exactly the kind of thing I trust Rachel's show to do. I've seen several journalists who are saying "I encourage sources to get more information all the time." We don't want to inhibit that, but the problem occurs when a journalist (or "journalist," in Assange's case) goes beyond general encouragement and into specifically how to commit a crime to get more information. And that's where the segment could have used more air. I think "why would the DOJ charge Assange like this?" and "how are these charges different from the original charges?" are very good questions that should be answered. And, frankly, I think answering those questions would give us a lot more information with which to accurately discuss the very real First Amendment concerns. But "this will be used to go after legitimate journalists" is a take that I don't think is quite yet supported by the facts.
  13. BabyVegas

    All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

    I was surprised at Rachel's take on the Assange stuff. She seemed to be talking about Assange like he was a mere publisher and that's why the First Amendment stuff is so unprecedented. But the reason I watch Rachel is she really gets into the nuances of things and I thought she entirely missed the nuance in the Assange issue. The problem is that Assange actively encouraged Manning to commit a crime and participated in the commission of that crime. Assange/WikiLeaks is not like the New York Times or WaPo specifically because he was actively encouraging the crime and because he was disseminating the information not as a publisher but as an intelligence cutout. I really wish that she had invited on a lawyer for that segment because it's such a technical legal issue. I was also annoyed that she brought up Trump and how he would love to be able to argue that the press was committing espionage. If he wants to argue that, he's going to argue it anyway. He argues in bad faith. There's no reason to worry about giving him material. If he doesn't have it, he'll just make it up. Rachel is so good at the details that this segment was so frustrating to me. I should clarify, I'm not saying whether I agree with the filing of the charges or anything, I'm just saying that from an analysis point of view, it bothered me that she didn't explain the specifics that make this a closer call than it might otherwise be.
  14. BabyVegas

    S06.E21: Fingers Guns and a Beef Bourguignon

    Funny enough, the inverse of Christy's situation happened to me. I'm a law student and I got a paid job my 1L summer and I assumed I'd just be doing the most idiot-proof of stuff, but I ended up being asked to do a bunch of different stuff and sit in on pretty much every meeting where the client was okay with it. A lot of bigger firms will have clerks who are in charge of copying/filing/etc. I was actually surprised that Christy was doing clerical stuff and not writing memos. Also as someone with ADHD, Bonnie's productive procrastination was the most relatable thing to me. My apartment is never cleaner than during finals.
  15. BabyVegas

    The Bold Type

    Ugh, Patrick is the worst. And he's not even a smooth manipulator. That or Richard is the pushover to end all pushovers. I sincerely hope that the actor who plays Patrick is the nicest person on the planet because that character is so punchable. Even when he was doing his "poor little boss" routine, I was fresh out of pity. If he doesn't have the skillset to be in charge, then he doesn't have the skillset to be in charge. Stop whining and go learn it. As villains go, he's about two seconds from twirling a moustache. I know subtlety has never been this show's forte, but I'm starting to find it too hard to watch. Also that was wildly inappropriate of Tia. There's focused on your work and then there's no concept of context. Why on EARTH would she think it was a good idea to go to a small dinner party thrown by someone else to get money? Even if she didn't realize that Kat had romantic motivations, it still could have just been a friends thing and still inappropriate to ask for money. I'm enjoying Sutton's storyline. I'm enjoying seeing her blossom career-wise. I don't even mind her storyline with Richard. His friends were a bit condescending, but it's definitely a very real thing that people with a 14 year age difference would be at different stages in their lives. And she was right that he should have been talking to her about the idea of moving. With their age differences, it would have been more unrealistic if these sorts of things weren't an issue.
×