Snarklepuss

Well, speaking as someone who's half Sicilian and has had DNA tests done, I don't think it's possible for John Turturro not to have a very interesting DNA profile. My Sicilian side has DNA from almost all racial groups except for American Indian and other New World natives. I have East Indian, Sub-Saharan African, Middle Eastern, North African, and even East Asian represented in my DNA in small percentages. I wasn't that surprised to find this out since my mother always told me this could be the case because Sicily was conquered and visited by many people over the generations plus it's not that far from the African continent. ETA: BTW, I LOVED this episode because it touched on my own heritage in many ways, including my Jewish side as I had relatives that settled in England from Warsaw during the late 19th century, but they got out before any anti-semitism took hold and came to the U.S. in 1909. So often on these shows it is brought home to me how smart and fortunate my Jewish ancestors were to leave Warsaw and then England when they did! Also, I knew and have liked all of these people, having first discovered John Turturro in "The Big Lebowski", one of my all time favorite movies! I too had no idea Paul Rudd was Jewish and always found him attractive!

Thank you for giving your opinion. I understand the issue but when I look at my family tree I try to rise above any of the potentially seedy parts of it. Who knows who some of my ancestors were and if among them there were rapists that lead to me being here or murderers, etc? My link to the Mayflower is with a man that came to the new world only seeking to escape debtor's prison in England and was later put to death for murdering a man over the theft of a cow (John Billington). Shall I be any less proud of my ancestry on that side because of him? My 2nd GGF on my father's French side ran medical supplies to the confederate army during the Civil War, over which my Yankee/abolishionist 2nd GGM divorced him. It is what it is. It is not because the man was French that he did this. It is because he was human. So I am proud of my French heritage no matter what my 2nd GGF did. Slavery itself is by no means limited to the US or any racial or ethnic group. And rape, well, we might as well hate a significant portion of the male sex throughout history if we're going to get particular about it. I think most if not all of us on this earth are probably descended from slave owners and rapists somewhere along the line even if it was thousands of years ago in a very distant place. We have to get over it sometime, that's all I say, and it didn't feel to me as if Ava was seeing it from that perspective. I understand that this is her family history and she's seeing it in the context of the suffering they lived though, but I think it's possible to do that without coming off as if we have a "yay" or "boo" attitude toward their racial composition because of it. I guess I took it personally, like she's happy she isn't more white because she just doesn't like being identified as white. Well, huh, like she's making being white "uncool". I don't like it when it seems to me that someone is preferring to be anything over anything else. To me, that is racism. Even if some of my ancestors owned slaves I would try to see it in the context of history and attempt to forgive and understand them in their time and place. I think it requires being a special kind of person to be able to do this, and I don't expect everyone to be like me, but it's something I think we need to see more of in society if we are ever to get past the past and concentrate on the more universal things that make us human. I have spent a lifetime trying to understand how people from other times, places, cultures and even MEN in those times and places could think so differently than we think here in this country today, and I long ago concluded that it makes no sense to expect them to be on our contemporary level about anything. Even men before a couple of decades ago in the US were quite different about women but to dwell on that would serve me no purpose. To keep beating that drum is IMO to beat a dead horse. Things are much different now. And BTW, I don't agree with the "less suffering" argument - I don't believe that anyone alive today can accurately know the level of suffering that any slaves felt whether or not they were raped. There were probably many other equally as horrible ways to suffer as a slave. OK, again, I've said my piece.

I'm going to have a hard time with this one myself. A close friend of my Dad's lives in PR and of course is still without power. We've only heard from her a handful of times on someone else's cell phone. She says she's OK but I can't imagine what she's going through.

It depends on whose religion you're talking about. Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. etc. come in many different flavors. There are liberals and conservatives within each of them. You wouldn't say all Americans are judgmental would you? Neither are all Christians or Christian faiths. Perhaps you were referring to what @Kohola3 referred to above - right wing, conservative "televangelist" Christians. I belong to a very liberal Christian faith myself. We have openly gay bishops and we're one of the oldest mainstream Christian denominations in the U.S. To those not in the know it may surprise them to know that about us liberal Episcopalians.

Wings, I love you but I think that is a very broad and unfair generalization. A lot of Christians (myself included) and people of other faiths are not judgmental like that at all, only they don't seek or get all the attention. As with most everything these days (it seems) the loudest mouths make everyone think they're the majority when they really represent a much smaller group at the extreme.

Norwalk is the kind of place people move to to get away from being dissed, so it really hurts all the more. I can even slough off the dissing at the Bronx because, well, it's the Bronx, but Norwalk is different. I've never liked the dissing of the South either, BTW.

I don't know why I should just "let it go" when the main character on this show herself can't let it go. This show was based on something real and continues to hammer that point home in its plots. IMHO it's really not that hard to empathize with someone not being able to slough it off as some kind of alternate universe especially when they keep relating things to real life places and situations in the real area. P.S. I would not have such a problem with this if it were made clear that the snobbery was coming from the rich women in the town but when even the Ottos themselves start making disparaging jokes about Norwalk, that's where I draw the line. P.P.S. This "joke" could even be taken as implied racism because the statistics show that the overwhelming majority of teenage mothers in Norwalk are not white judging from statistics I saw online and what I know about the place, which to be honest is another reason I found it offensive.

I think it's different when you actually have been on the snobbed end of some REAL Westport women. It hits a little too close to home. I identify with the Katy character, just not the way they've chosen to play her.

Maybe it's easy for you, but I lived there. It's kind of hard not to expect it to be a little closer to reality when it's your world. If they were going to go so far off reality why did they bother to name it after a real town? This is one reason I always appreciated "The Middle", because the town of Orson is fictional so no one can compare it to any place in the real world. Just think if a show took your home town and the one joke they thought they'd make about the place is a pregnant prom girl. Gee thanks, now the town I thought was heaven on earth is what is essentially being made to look like a trash hole on the other side of the tracks. Hey, I grew up in the Bronx, I'm kind of tired of having some of my favorite places trashed by TV shows, especially ones I had to save all my money in order to finally be able to live in and which by anyone's standards are expensive. Good for anyone else if that's not their reality, but it is mine.

I'd have seen it that way if it came from one of the richer kids in Westport, but not Taylor. The Ottos themselves would fit right in in Norwalk. There is an "in town" area of Norwalk that might drag down the average income level of the town by comparison to Westport but it's really a very small part of the town. Most of the town (and certainly the part that borders Westport) is very nice and it's expensive to live there! The average income in Norwalk (and that's including the "poorer" area) is $131,000 a year! The average house is around $430,000.

I didn't love this episode primarily because of the low-blow dig at Norwalk with the pregnant prom dress. Norwalk is a beautiful town and not at all deserving of a dig in such poor taste. Now if they had said Bridgeport, maybe but IMO it would still be in poor taste. I suppose I should lighten up and realize it's just a joke, but they've dissed Norwalk a few times already on this show and I took it in good humor but now I just think they're going too far. I lived in Norwalk for 5 years and it's anything but a town you would poke fun at by spoofing pregnant high school students. I think they should have left out a specific town's name. All that said, I did laugh in spite of myself at the "toilet baby" suggestion! No kidding? I watched that show as a kid in reruns. Certainly the interior is not the same nor is there any comparison whatsoever between the Ottos and the Cleavers, LOL! In fact just attempting that is funny because it's so ridiculous! Yeah I didn't find this realistic at all. I thought Katy and Greg would be worrying about their liability in all of this knowing how much that woman hates Katy and how expensive all those things would be. I know it's just a sitcom but their lack of concern was really too hard to swallow for me.

Here's more ATK news. Dan Sousa has been named editor in chief of Cook's Illustrated magazine. I guess I was on the right track all along when I suspected that he was Chris' replacement. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dan-souza-named-editor-in-chief-of-cooks-illustrated-300519722.html

That's sad that they're going to leave the house in Vermont. I always wanted to go there as it's only a couple of hours away from me. :( ETA: I wonder if Chris owned or had partial ownership in the house. I also wonder how much sense it makes to have a show entitled "Cook's Country" broadcasting from an office building in downtown Boston.

Great, now every time I go into the bathroom to brush my teeth my husband is going to wonder if I'm using a vibrator!

I know!!! Her fans are always posting about how much weight she's lost. What are they smoking? LOL It must be wishful thinking! At least this time she was honest about it!

I emphatically disagree with that but I think you understand where I'm coming from. People of all races can be prejudiced, it's just that white people tend to be curiously sheltered from it and blind to it, and they are told it doesn't exist by people that in my opinion either don't know any better or do but just want to heap guilt on them. My experience has taught me it does exist, and how. I grew up in the Bronx so I know allllll about being at the receiving end of prejudice. It's one reason I moved out. I got tired of being vilified for something neither I nor any of my ancestors were responsible for and being seen as having privilege I never had (in fact I'm still waiting to reap the benefits of my so-called privilege). My parents did not have money. We did not live in an "all white" society. I grew up and went to school with people of all races at a time when that was not so common. My mother had to work full time at a time when women with kids generally didn't work. I'm a mix of ethnicities and I was always being looked down on by everyone because I didn't fit into anyone's ethnic group at a time and place where most people were one thing. I was never Italian or Jewish enough for the Italians or the Jews I knew. I don't expect people with no experience of this kind of prejudice to even acknowledge its existence but I know it exists because I experienced it first hand and it was unrelenting and very hurtful. It's something only my hometown friends can really understand. So that's why I think I can recognize and be sensitive to prejudice when I see it coming from people on TV. People don't have to be white to be prejudiced towards people of other races. JMHO. Sorry I got on a soapbox but it's something very emotional for me to talk about. I wasn't even directing it at you personally, I guess I just had to get that off my chest.

Yeah but at least in the past he was funny or at least contributed to the comedy in that role, and I watch reruns all the time for contrast*. Now, not so much. Being "the straight man" shouldn't mean sucking all the comedy out of a room. Now he's like a big lump with no purpose except to stand there. Just my opinion! *(Yes the "straight man" can be hilarious even in that role but I don't have the time to go through comedic history for examples).

IMO, Ava DuVerney went way OTT with her glee at finding out she's slightly more black than white, to the point that even Gates asked her "What difference does it make?" I get it that it's her thing to be focused in on black issues and history so her heritage is important to her, but why should it be that important to her to be more black than white? I don't love it when people can't get beyond stuff like that, and I have to say that as a white person I kind of felt a little reverse prejudice going on there. If she had been 57% white and acted that way over being more white than black all hell would come down on her for acting that way. People would not see it as just someone being "proud" of their white heritage. When white people are proud of being white they're called racist. I don't think there should be a double standard about stuff like this. OK, I've said my piece.

I don't have much to say about this episode except that I did laugh a few times, especially over the "Sheldon as a child" bits. And of course I loved the Howard/Amy friendship despite the Neil Sedaka WTF. What I can't get over this season is Leonard. He just seems more serious and boring. I'm sure it's the role and the writing since they haven't really been giving him any good plots, but I also feel like he's just as uninspired to play the role anymore as the role itself has become uninspiring to play.

Hah, good for you! I said it somewhere way up thread myself but I'm not going to go back to find it. I said that TLC keeps their renewals a big secret until the last minute. They've done it with "Sister Wives" too, and that cast has had to know they were filming before they uttered a word about it only a few weeks before the new season. Some of the stuff Twit was posting felt (to me) like clues that she was filming. I'll bet she gave into that premise just to get the show on the air, then she figured if it was popular enough she could abandon that and the network would have to renew her anyway with the new premise about "loving herself at any weight" and "no body shame". And it turned out she was right about that. I don't doubt for a minute that she never intended to follow through on that and misrepresented her original motives to the producers and the network just to get on the air.

I didn't care if she realized it was wrong, it just seemed like unnecessarily nasty, abusive behavior for a mother to do to a child and certainly not funny to me, anyway, and I usually give sitcoms (and people in general) a lot of leeway.

And to think I wanted him to win on "Top Chef Masters" and "Next Iron Chef".

She didn't act like she's ever set foot in a kitchen before. I'd be surprised if she'd ever eaten before too judging from how painfully thin she is.

I didn't expect her to be honest about the filming - I suspected it was going on anyway. Maybe they told her she had to be quiet about it until they were sure they were renewing her.

Well, that's the thing. He wanted to bail on Rebecca and subconsciously latched onto the priest thing to reconfirm for himself that he's still a good guy. To him, the priest excuse means he doesn't have to face or take responsibility for not being as good as he wants to believe he is. It's all an attempt to hold on to his image of himself as the good guy. The only problem is it isn't going to work and he's eventually going to have to face that what he did was wrong, especially if Rebecca and his friends keep reminding him of it. Leaving anyone at the altar is never justified no matter the circumstances (as in what they did to you, how crazy you think they are, etc.).