SinInTheCamp

Well, it wouldn't be right now. Season 4 is at least a couple of years down the road. Yes, it could be considering the law-breaking (lying under oath) that led to impeachment, or the entire Ken Star investigation as a "crime" (a travesty), or both.

I give a shit too about the male perspective. It's important to view this dystopia from every possible angle. As a lifelong loud-and-proud feminist, I've known an awful lot of misogynists and sexist a-holes...but I also know many men who are true feminists and allies. Is Luke a perfect representation of this? No, but none of us are. We always strive to do better, to BE better, and I think the trajectory of this episode led Luke to that place as well. I was actually shocked at how hard this episode hit me. I must have been a refugee and/or dealt with a missing loved one in a past life. I was physically shaking throughout the episode, and I broke down crying in three scenes (and I'm so not a crier): when June and Luke could see the flashing police lights while in the car trunk, when Zoey takes Luke to see the bodies hanging in the church, and when Luke walks down the hallway papered in hundreds of missing person flyers. I end every episode with a shudder of revulsion (as I feel the very real possibility of the U.S. going down the Gilead road of horrors), but not since episode two has this all personally felt so real to me. It managed to be suspenseful despite us knowing what happens with the failed escape, and then there was that glimmer of hope on Luke's face at the end. I loved, loved, loved Zoey and her crew; their fate was devastating, but they were true heroes. Their brief presence emphasized the importance of retaining our humanity in such an inhuman situation. Also, I got such a Walter-White-hiding-out-in-New-Hampshire-in-"Granite State" vibe when I saw June, Luke, and Hannah's arrival at their snowy, isolated cabin. I was initially as frightened as they were by the appearance of the guy at the lake (burly white guy in camo? Not taking a single chance with that one) but was gratified when I saw that he had good advice for them. Sucks about their guide, though. Another life snuffed out for trying to help others obtain freedom. I really loved this one, and it will continue to haunt me. I didn't have any problems with Luke either. That said, I adored Tara's recap; I laughed aloud. #notallmen

The Handmaid's-jive's Tale.

No, the boy in "The Talking Machine" episode is Jason, the aspiring Thomas Edison science geek; Laura's crush on him prompts her to think about becoming a "lady" scientist. Ironically, Bart's crush in that episode of The Simpsons was voiced by Sara Gilbert, Melissa's (Laura's) real-life sister!

I was actually thinking much closer to home: America, 2017. The timing of this show is impeccable.

The scene where Offred and Ofglen are talking about how professors were all sent away to "the colonies," and Ofglen escaped that fate because they overlooked her "sinful" past of being a college lecturer hit a little too close to home in our current national climate. I actually shivered. I've been close to tears at many points so far because of the realism in scenes that I wouldn't have been able to legitimately contemplate even a year ago. It's very moving, and everyone involved with this project has done a magnificent job.

I've always regarded Mommie Dearest as the campiest of fun cult classics, but it irritates me to think of Christina being so thoroughly dismissed based on factors like her mother having defenders or her being on friendly terms with Joan just prior to her death. I was abused (for a relatively brief period of time) by my own mother when I was young. I mostly blamed myself for years, indicting myself for things Christina has been accused of (being abrasive, strong-willed, self-centered, and on and on), and it has been only recently that I've been vocal about the extreme emotional pain I've kept inside me. All this time, I've continued to love my mom and have attempted to cultivate a good relationship with her, so I can't see Joan and Christina's alleged good terms at the end of the former's life as evidence that Christina is a liar. Most of us seek our parents' acceptance and approval--especially those of us who have felt rejected and demeaned by them in the past. To my utter amazement, I found that none of my siblings believed my detailed memories of physical and emotional abuse. As with Christina/Christopher and the twins, there's an age difference between my siblings and me, and they have fond memories of my mother, who was in a much different place emotionally when she raised them--indeed, she's near sainthood in their eyes. Both age gaps and gender can really affect perceptions. Because I was too ashamed to speak up for all of those years and because I didn't want to rock the boat, they now accuse me of lying since I never spoke of these events earlier. Speaking about my experiences now that I'm no longer ashamed and afraid has strengthened me and improved my self-esteem, but it's also destroyed my reputation with my family. Like Joan, my mom's always been an attractive, vivacious woman with lots of friends ("fans!"), while I've always been rather reserved and "different." She denies that any abuse ever took place; whether she's too ashamed to admit it or has just erased it from her memory in her old age, I don't know. In any case, it's much easier for my family to believe that I'm a horrible person who's trying to make my mother look back (for what purpose or gain, I have no idea). What I'm trying to say is that families can be extremely complicated and full of secrets. It's disturbing how often society seeks to discount and berate victim accounts, especially if the victim is a woman; also if the woman is pitted against a more beautiful or famous or well-loved person. And if the victim is adopted, how dare she speak up! Another factor that magnifies this way of thinking, I believe, is the adulation and martyr factor that we automatically ascribe to parents, especially mothers, and especially white mothers. They usually get the benefit of the doubt and are further martyred by the eventual courage of "ungrateful" children who are really just seeking some kind of closure and maybe an apology that will likely never arrive.

Mike drained the battery of the tracker the unknown person placed on the car parked outside his house so that he'd come and retrieve it, thinking it's no longer working. In the meantime, he's bought another identical tracker that he's switched out the original for in the gas cap. So after this guy takes it with him, thinking it's the one HE planted, Mike is now able to track him. And no, he probably wouldn't suspect anything.

You do know that people can be racist or prejudiced without hating every single person from that race, right? When I was in law enforcement, I knew a number of racist cops. I used to study the way they acted toward POC in the department. They were totally cool with them--treated them like "brothers"--because, in their minds, they were completely different from "those people." They were exceptions. They played by the rules of the mostly-white department, so they were "good guys." A different type of example is the way my mom regards Mexicans. She thinks that, as a whole, we're lazy, dirty, unattractive, and "illegal"--even those of us who were born here (I'm half Latina myself). And yet she once loved my father. Furthermore, she has several Latinx friends who she's known for decades, and I know for a fact she loves them deeply. Again, those are exceptions to her overall prejudice against Latinxs. Doesn't mean she's not racist. You can be a racist and still defend a particular person from that group to the death. And if you're not seeing all the nuances present in such situations, I strongly suggest you bone up on some critical race theory.

Oh geez, and I make that gesture all the time to colleagues after they've successfully presented a project. I didn't realize that instead of conveying, "Yes, you've made it through!" I was actually telling them that if they ever decide to kill two people, I will ensure that they get off scot-free despite being overwhelmingly convinced of their guilt. I feel terrible.

Having working in law enforcement for nearly a decade, I know that prosecutors LURVE to say that trials are about justice, because it makes them feel like noble superhero crusaders, but it's simply not true. Criminal trials are all about determining the guilt of the defendant/s. And I'm always gobsmacked when Ito is accused of acting in the interest of public opinion, as if that's a bad thing. He should be deferring to the public. After all, it was the People of the State of California v. O.J. Simpson, not Fred Goldman & The Browns et al. v. Simpson or even the District Attorney's Office of Los Angeles v. Simpson. The prosecution was only our representatives (not the ones I would have personally chosen, but I digress...). I think it's an oft-forgotten fact that the justice system is supposed to be paying attention to public sentiment. This is often overlooked because law enforcement views themselves as an exclusive club and doesn't want the public involved. But it's our right to make our voices heard, and we should be doing so much more often--and not just in high-profile cases. Ito actually didn't have the ego that many think he did--because unlike judges with legitimately huge egos, he was willing to listen the public. That's the opposite of someone with an ego problem.

Yes, all of this. Especially within a police department, where there's even more of an impetus to keep your mouths shut. There's lots of secrets inside PDs. I worked in law enforcement for near a decade, so I have a great deal of firsthand knowledge about this. People tend to be the best at keeping secrets when they know that leaked info could harm them or their careers (or the careers/reputations of their fellow officers, which ALWAYS reflects badly upon the entire department). One incident that particularly bothered me was a cop who brutalized an elderly man, causing him physical injury. It was kept hush-hush within the department until the citizen actually took it straight to the DAs office and made a complaint. Forced to acknowledge the incident, the DA "investigated" it and cleared the cop of any criminal wrongdoing. Even within our department, news of the incident didn't get around much. Only a handful of people knew, those who had been directly involved with the paperwork from the DA. But it burned me up inside whenever I saw that cop, who I would previously never have suspected of being capable of such violence. I think I quit shortly thereafter, acknowledging that I wanted no part of such a system that so blithely covered for its own. That wall of silence really does exist in police departments.

No, I totally agree about Farrah (she was terrific in that role, although I didn't think she resembled Diane at all--much like Cuba didn't resemble OJ), and Rule's book was a fascinating read. But I think a show like AHS that has proven storytelling abilities could draw out other aspects of her crime story, such as her relationship with the children prior to the shootings, her relationship with "Lew," her prison romance/correspondence with the I-5 Killer, and her initially successful prison break. All of these aspects of her life have long piqued my interest. I will say, though, that she's definitely got those dead eyes too, like Ramirez.EDITED TO ADD: Not to mention the killer '80s soundtrack that the music director could put together for a Downs season, with "Hungry Like the Wolf" kicking off the first episode, naturally.

I'd love a season on Diane Downs, the woman who shot her three kids because she thought it would entice her lover (who didn't want children) to commit to her. That woman is a fascinating psychological study. Farrah Fawcett played her in the TV film Small Sacrifices, but I can see ACS giving the story a much better treatment. I'd also be on board for Fatty Arbuckle, Richard Ramirez (I was a pre-teen in Los Angeles when he was on the loose, and it was a nightmarish time), and Casey Anthony.