stillshimpy

Demonstrably not. She didn't say, "Tell them that Arya Stark forever closed all of their eyes" she said, "Tell them The North Remembered, tell them Winter Came for them" she did not stand up there with a bullhorn and a calling card. She did something that proved she was a Faceless Man (universal sense, not gender-specific) and then proclaimed herself winter. She didn't tell Frey's widow anything else. That's why Cersei doesn't know what killed all the Freys. That's why she doesn't know she's next on "Winter"'s list.

Fun thing that I noticed on a rewatch: When Arya declares that she's on her way to King's Landing to murder the Queen, she's not doing it for a big "Ha ha!" moment. She's doing it to see if they will give her reason to kill them all because of course they aren't going to assume that a young teen girl is capable of taking them all out. So if they had an ugly side, there was the invitation to show it. And for a second, they all just look at her in astonishment and apprehension, possibly with a threat because it has to be a joke from their perspective as she's a teen girl and sure, that's a badass blade an all but she's wicked levels of outnumbered so she'd be slaughtered in any "Totally have the aura of magicks on my side" other scenario. That was practically an engraved note saying, "So if you are the type who are actually waiting for a reason to do horrific shit, which wouldn't in the least surprise me because I've seen some wedding receptions in my time...here you go: I just declared myself your enemy." By the laws of that land, they'd have been justified in engaging all manner of "you...suck" behavior. She's declared herself an enemy combatant. Pretty much no matter what (capable of it, or not) if she's telling the truth and then, by the law of war, it is ON. And they all register that with a big ol' ..."The hell you just say?" look and instead of turning out to be waiting for a reason to gang rape her or kill her or eat her or all of the above: they laughed it off as a joke but not before considering the "....uh...that's the same as declaring yourself our enemy and only a crazy person would do that in these circumstances....so....either you're crazy or that's a joke. Let's err on the side of funny and see who laughs?" But watching Arya's reaction, she's taking note of that part too. She's waiting to see what they will say or do. Waiting to see if they will give her the reason to go apeshit assassin on the lot of them. They decline to even take up the "therefore, we can do with you what we like" and continue to share a meager dinner with her. Arya has seen and done things in Black and White after being in the house thereof and after, again, being an incredibly traumatized child who saw her brother's body with a wolf's head sewed to it while men laughed, drank and jeered at him. It's sort of understandable that her social skills have been running towards "kill-kill-kill-veins-in-my-teeth-weapons-of-mass-destruction" rather than someone who understands there are all kinds of ways to be a victim of the schemes of others. But watching that again carefully, she wasn't doing it thinking they would laugh. I think she was doing it to test their "we're decent men, pulled into the wars of others" ways....and they passed in ways she didn't expect but needed to see.

I liked the scene with the Hound and company which is not something I thought I would ever say, as I've never been a big Hound fan. I thought it actually did a better job than the book of showing what could account for any kind of epiphany on the Hound's part. In the books, he's just kind of there, being a giant monk after being presumed dead (by me) for a long time. One area where the series condensed some source material in a way that carried weight, again with me, because staring into flames even after that log sparked actually made me at least glance at the bench on the side of the Hound's team if I'm far from parking on it. I think there's always room for subtext, even though the show can be a bit of a blunt instrument. To my mind, neither Jon or Sansa was completely in the right or completely in the wrong. If Jon is going to respect that Sansa has a right to have a voice in all of this, if for no other reason that she is technically the reason that he lived to get there (which he acknowledged) then he has to give her that opportunity. If he doesn't, again for good reasons I think, want her speaking up in front of rooms full of people then maybe talk to her before making a final decision. Jon was not under tremendous pressure to make that call right then and there. I liked that Sansa's advice was at least a little bit right and a little bit fucked-up-and-showing-her-own-trauma. The answer to defeating their enemies will never be to become like them, it will be to understand and outwit them while retaining who they are as a family, otherwise, they lose to the Lannisters either way. My favorite saying is that more than one thing can be true, at once. Jon was both right and wrong. Sansa was both right and wrong, I thought. The way she called him out and then doggedly pursued it instead of saying, "May we speak about the matter before you decide?" was ...Jon is right, she can't do that if he's the King. On the other hand, he's putting the betrayal of the Umbers and the Karstarks solidly at the feet of the two men who have already died, whereas Sansa gets to remember the people who didn't help her when she was Ramsay's prisoner, being violated and we get to remember the role of the same families in the death of Rickon in the show's environment. The betrayal went deeper and cost the Starks more than one heir than Jon knows, but we were there to see who delivered Rickon to fucking Ramsay Bolton so he could be hunted to actual death in front of his family because they were going to the Umbers. Sure, those kids are innocent, but send a loyal envoy to oversee their keeps until such time as they reach the age of majority, to make sure they have help in guiding their men at their disposal. So I was a little bit "Fuck no, the Umbers do not get to keep their hold..." and for once I'm not just having a meltdown about how a direwolf died. Osha and Rickon were on my mind. Rickon chiefly. Does Jon even know that? Maybe talk to a few people who aren't named Sansa in addition to considering her advice. You're new to this, Risen Dead Jon.

In an almost completely unrelated vein: Jeez, at least none of the Finally Freed from Endless Tedium in Mereen actors had to get eye strain learning their lines for the premiere. You have to know that about half of those players got scripts with zero dialogue and like, five call sheets, spent some time thinking "Yeah, this isn't a good sign. I'm totally going to die, aren't I...and it's apparently going to be a really long, silent death?!?"

They murdered a King under false pretenses, they were all guilty of treason from Arya's standpoint and she's the daughter of the (equally murdered) Warden of the North. There's ground between hailing someone as a hero and finding their actions justifiable. It's a war torn land. The least trustworthy family in that land murdered her family, but also a King. The damned land is practically littered with murdered Kings, as it happens, so the authorities are being a bit lax in their duties as it is. Anyone who would show up to the "Let's all celebrate under the Frey's roof" rather than send their regrets was pretty much okay with that action. It doesn't make what Arya did right in any classic sense of the word, but it is actually justifiable if also terribly sad evidence that she's a little too committed to vengeance. She then got to see a Lannister soldier hope his baby was girl because son's grow up "to fight other men's wars" she clearly took note. Arya murdered all the seed of the family that pretty much caused her psychotic break in the first place. Then on the road to try and get some more (justifiable) homicide behind her, she ran into a timely reminder that not everyone was like the soldiers she personally saw singing, laughing and drinking as they pushed forth the defiled corpse of her brother with the head of an animal they murdered in an equally cowardly act. Also, huge props to the actor who played Walder Frey. What a delight his Arya-as-Walder turn was because of course he played Walder as being ever-so-slightly-not-Walder and with a slightly higher (but not distractingly so) voice. Man, actors who have the chops are such a source of delight. Circling back for a second: Arya is an incredibly traumatized child, who had a psychotic break, the only friends she found in that terrifying world taught her how to assassinate because they are the Faceless Men: the only source of justice for those who have none left to them. She might not have the authority of the crown but something has given her that power, so I submit that she may even have divine authority, in this tale. As well as a rather swift reminder to keep in mind, that someone's little girl would be at home, learning how her father was poisoned for his crimes, and to that little girl, she'll just have lost her dad. So, I found there was kind of a good attempt at narrative balance and that the story did go out of its way to rather swiftly have her wondering who she had murdered who might just have been there, fighting another man's war.

I'm going to out myself as the one person who liked the cameo and here's why: Great Gods of Olympus, I get so damned tired of the complete dearth of decency of characters on this show. In the books, it turns out it isn't quite the "good luck finding that stash of powdered unicorn horn, it will solve all your problems!" substance that it typically is in the series and I find it fucking wearing that the only good people in this series end up dying hideously or constantly being abused specifically because people use that goodness to fuck with them. So aside from the fact that I only vaguely recognized Ed Sheeran, although I did keep saying to my husband, "God, that kid is a dead ringer for that guy....what is his name...sings some song about loving someone until he's old..." and yes, I absolutely took all the way until the end of the episode to combine all available evidence "Huh, he really had a beautiful voice too and I was so damned relieved that it was just a group of guys, sitting around, singing songs and sharing some wine who weren't suddenly 'or we could all turn into gang rapists and maybe cannibals after that before the second set' posse of every base, nasty, horrible thing a human can contain...that was like a palate cleanser for the brain, a scene that apparently existed just to give us a reason to give two full damns about what happens to this entire world..." before I finally realized, "Oh, it was that guy and the reason they didn't all turn into "woo hoo, hit her in the head with heavy things and whatnot..." because it was Ed Sheeran. Well, I will take it. I will take pretty much any uplifting scene that seemingly also existed to help Arya recall that a lot of good people end up being pawns of the bad. I get that it reeked of stunt casting to others but as a for instance, my husband had no idea who Ed Sheeran is even after I sang him part of the love-you-until-decrepitude song, played part of for him too and his reaction? "Yeah, I have no idea who that guy is but he has a good voice" ...and there are going to be people in the audience for whom that will be the case. Frankly, I'm all for stunt casting if it gives the narrative a few people worth caring about outside of the main cast. We paid for it though. Thanks for the shit tsunami, HBO. Jeebus.

I think you may be primarily applying what I said to artistic pursuits and needing that edge, that sting, to keep a person going and that's not what I personally meant by it. I was applying that to a personal and an emotional level, which I understand all creation of art comes from a part of that, but I was solely talking about contrasts in happiness vs. the loss of an artistic goal. I don't think that artists need to fail, or have that feeling of rejection for contrast, I was talking about the contrast of "I had one type of happiness, it didn't work out for a variety of reasons..." and how that can actually make you appreciate the kinds of happiness that come afterward in way that gives them more focus, or clarity. Yeah, I think clarity is actually the right word for that. The contrast provides emotional clarity. That the contrast of a loss, unhappiness, missed opportunity, hell, even grief can make returning happiness better by contrast. Or if not better, somehow a tiny bit more precious. I am officially into cheesy 70s song lyric territory in trying to do the whole "you don't know what you've got until it's gone" deal but that's not actually what I mean. I mean "the next time you have something, sometimes when detailing how happy you are with it, one of the ways it comes into better focus is to have that contrast to loss....of anything that was emotionally important to you..." . All very emo stuff, and all that but truly, since I'm really struggling with finding the right words here, I'll circle back to the narrative (how refreshing, right?) to make my point: When Sebastian sees Mia, clearly there is a sting, the what-might-have-been chorus sings/plays/dances across screen as he thinks back to their time together. She stops and gives him that look before turning to give him something I don't think either really fully achieved before that moment: closure. Mia knows that Sebastian really was the person who encouraged her to believe in herself, to write a play instead of showing up to be the central-casting-sent-me redhead, that the life she has now was brought to her chiefly through her own talents but also, by that crucial, "when I gave up on myself, you didn't". There's a movie poster for a movie called Eleanor Rigby (okey dokey) with Mia's face on it, on the corner of the building right next to Seb's club, the camera pans past it. Chances are good that Seb has been seeing her face there, other places too if there's a marketing campaign for something she's in. Unlike Mia, who forged ahead after a swift kick to the backside at a key time, Sebastian can't have been unaware of her progress. Her life, her success, where that "I sat in front of a NV suburb blaring my gas-guzzlers horn and risking suburban police arrest" gesture helped get her: he has to know that all. He might not know it to the "and she married Standard Issue Charisma Good Guy and had a cute little baby" extent but the camera pans past her face on the building by his jazz club for a reason and it isn't just to show us "she's successful" Warner Brothers Barista Worship has already conveyed that. It's got to be a visual reminder of the fact that he's known all along what became of her because the world did too. He knows what driving (gas-guzzling) convertibles through the desert eventually yielded. You mentioned how mulish Sebastian could be with his "I will achieve my jazz vision" but I'm -- and again, I'm deep into assumption territory so I'm going by visual clues and implication -- assuming that Mia Poster was there because the club name, the cocktails, and jazz instead of "Chicken on a Stick" (only Piles and Puddles of Goo would be a worse club name) all imply that doing that for her, just hanging his ass out and encouraging her to do so too, is probably what helped get him there. Poster on the building: she's really been with him on the journey too because that had to be inspiring for him. He had to have known what happened with her life, her face is on the darned building. And he knows that she is the person primarily responsible for that because she is talented but so are a lot of people, he just saved her from giving up...and that is probably what also saved him from giving up. Back to my car dealer guy and why I brought him up: It struck me as funny that they were planning to see a U2 cover band. I'm not saying that the band sucked, I've no idea, but that's like choosing to stand around in an elevator in one of the cooler office buildings in town listening to the closer-to-cool(ish) muzak. We're a half an hour, at most, from nearly constant performance opportunities of people trying to really sell their incredibly marketable talent in an area stuffed silly with it. He was choosing to go see and never making it because apparently, my assessment of their allure is approximately correct, or those flowers really were something, a band that had more or less tattooed "we give up, imitation is the sincerest form of...paying the rent in this case: 1-2-3 Sunday, Bloody Sunday!" on their efforts. I thought that was a pretty clear indication that whereas he's obviously happy -- and apparently discovered the efficacy of multiple romantic gestures at the 9-year-mark -- it also said something about how much losing that contract really did hurt him. He apparently just doesn't even go and see the people who are still trying to make it, he was going to see the people who had also made their bargains in life with practicality. Reminded me Seb's objections to Legend's vision (one of the more memorable songs in the movie and actually a lot of fun, I thought) of jazz. I'm assuming Infiniti Finance Guy 482 wanted to see performances of the stuff that also helped him dream. It was, and I apologize if I'm boring the crap out of people with this story, I was clearly kind of fascinated by the concept, such an intriguing thing to me. This guy, all things considered, told us so little and yet kind of a lot about where he's at with his lost dreams and showed us the ways that might sting. It was mostly the power of the concept art as a lost love that got to me there, even if I'm conveying it poorly. Then, also, he clearly really was very happy, even if he also kind of unconsciously showed a bit of a scar from an old wound. In terms of the story: Mia's face on the building. The name of the club. The design of the concept. The location. He didn't just help Mia take the chance again, she helped him right back. I thought that's what the "Wow, he has to see her face pretty much every day right now and then, also, that would imply that since he's in LA he has seen her on billboards, etc. for most of that time. Boy, I'm not even under-caffeinated and I'm having a ton of trouble bringing this into focus: Yeah, they lost each other romantically and that's kind of fitting because they had basic differences and disparate goals that required a ton of personal focus. They also didn't lose each other entirely, as witnessed by the details of the life knowing each other made possible for both of them. On the great Zootopia debated of '17 (I'm terrified to try and insert another text box, it seldom goes well for me) : I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think the word "tiny" is likely missing from the dictionary behind me now, having joined the word protection program ;-) ETA: Risking the wrath of the edit gods because the thing I completely forgot to mention that I thought was a nice bit of emotionally deft writing: Mia ends up at Sebastian's club with her husband because they both decide it's okay to miss a friend's play. "We can just see it in New York" said a lot about where they all are in life (friend won't be upset because he/she is in something that/wrote something successful enough to be on a national tour) but also...missing plays has been a big catalyst for both characters. It was a very softly played call back that I enjoyed.

@paramitch. It's Boulder City, NV. It's driving distance from LA but it's also important to listen to what he is saying to the person calling before he finds out "Wait, this has nothing to do with a social call this is....FUCK. All arguments and bones of contention aside, I have to step up and do the selfless thing because freaking FATE is on the line." When asked when he's going to talk to her again, he initially says he won't be. Their paths are going to diverge from that point forward. The way that he tries to peel out from the curb (in one of the better laughs in the movie) he doesn't go and get her because he thinks they are going to repair their relationship, he goes and gets her because she'll never know how close she came to getting her chance if he doesn't. She'll live a life in which she dutifully goes back to school, gets a job, etc. I liked that. I liked that there was an end to their relationship that felt like it made sense: these were not actually compatible people in a lot of ways. We have this notion that any love that is truly worthy of being called a great love, or the love of someone's life must be permanent for it to be acknowledged as such but if falling in love really is a little bit about being able to see yourself hopefully through the eyes of another, then a great love can also be about the love you had that made it possible for you to be that version of yourself and move forward as such, even separately. Permanence and longevity as not actually the only worthy markers for the depth of love or the importance of a relationship. They were each other's catalysts and then at the end, he plays her the song he knows will be like an apology note to her. Not because they've been sitting around pining for each other as they clearly have not. Mia seems very happy in a relationship that might have had fewer thrills but actually has the kind of affection to go along with love that is the stuff that makes for longevity. Thrills are overrated as a way of life because they have a counterbalancing "Yes, they are a close relative to jarring and unpleasant" in a lot of instances, if not all, but we saw some of the ways that were the case in Mia and Seb's relationship. So it felt earned to me because these people did not strike me as being right for each other in the "together we will face the challenges of years, nay decades, together and we will be the teammates, as well as mates." But particularly in Mia's case, part of the look that she turns and gives him, and since she's the playwright I'm assuming she was actually the one filling in the movie version of the notes he was playing, she looks back not because "Oh, the great love of my life!" but because even though he could be a sweetheart or a jackass depending on the moment and his frustration level, he's also the reason she got her dream. He kept believing in her after she no longer could and it changed her entire life. Even if you're perfectly happy with your spouse, and Mia appears to be truly, peacefully happy as opposed to "I settled but at least the picture looks good" ...they know what they owe to one another and it is momentarily sad, if not life definingly tragic, that they didn't get to share those dreams together. There's a line at the end of I think it's the Sun Also Rises, but I can't swear to it (Wordy McGee over here never really cottoned to Hemingway much, I'm sure you'll all die of shock to learn) that is something like, "We would have been so happy together" which clearly didn't stick in my head because I don't think that's even close to right, but I'm fairly certain the answer that stuck with me is "Isn't it pretty to think so?" Things are always prettier and easier in the scenarios we imagine. I loved the movie specifically because it's such a happy, lovely movie that celebrates the kind of bravery it takes to face the likelihood of crushing rejection with optimism and verve but that's the love story of the film. That's actually a big part of what they love in each other, the other understands what it is like to passionately love something that isn't a person, but a dream and a form of art. It's absolutely a love story but Seb looks not merely pleased with his outcome until he catches a glimpse of Mia and realizes how close he came to a different might-have-been and thinks about it, a little older, a little wiser and then he does this thing that is incredibly generous. She recognizes it as such. Seb's not a character I think I'd like to meet but his best trait is that he can be as generous as he can be ungracious (because we saw that part too) and that he can be generous to such an extent that it completely eclipses the part of him that can be kind of a jerk. Maybe by the time we see him again, he's overcome that (we all have lesser parts of our natures) because he looked happy, hell, downright merry up until that moment. That passion that he has brought him to happiness by whatever means. paramitch, you know I just bought a car the other day, what I didn't mention was the finance guy at the dealership was a guy from Australia whose wedding anniversary was that night. Nine years, no kids, she's cooking dinner, he's planning on taking her to a U2 cover band concert in a park later, my husband and I both kind of more than gently hint (I believe my exact words were, "Dude, you know you have to at least bring flowers, right?" ) that it's a good occasion for a cliched romantic gesture even if she's said, "No fuss" etc. He assured us that he had chocolates and had that covered. Well, when I picked up the car (it was shipped in from Fresno) he made a point of finding us to say thanks for the suggestion of the flowers, "That went over a treat" and apparently he told my husband the other part, they never made it to the concert, so apparently they really did. But I'm bringing him up because he originally came here from Australia with a record contract, he was a guitarist (presumably still is in some capacity) but it fell through, and all things considered, it all worked out wonderfully because "I met my wife, it all turned out to be for a reason, most things do." He was clearly a happy dude who loves his wife. Who also makes kind of a point of telling people that he also kind of lost a dream and that's why he's working there. Maybe all happiness plays best with just the occasional reminding pang or sting of the things that might have been, even in life. One of the ways we know we're happy is by being able to contrast it to when we weren't. Otherwise it would just be our neutral setting and expected. So Mia and Seb are happy and the reason that end scene played well with me is that it exhibited Seb's best trait, the big gesture of generosity in which he tells Mia, in a way she really can't miss entirely, that she was and remains important to him. Emma Stone has such an expressive face. In the car when she's telling her husband (played by stock issue good guy who also has always had his own appealing charisma), "Hey, do you want to pull over here and just grab dinner?" She looks radiantly happy and it looks like that's often the setting of their emotional dial together. She was happy and miserable with Sebastian and the same could be said of him but everyone occasionally thinks about their lost dreams whether they are people, places, or entire screenplays we had written around how we thought things would turn out.

Okay, joining here because I was specifically linked to the conversation (*waves @paramitch). I loved La La Land without reservation, qualifier or any need to feel that there's any reason to justify simply loving something. Moonlight deserved the win more than La La Land did for best film, I think, but then Moonlight actually won. I liked the songs, even if I don't think they were particularly brilliant, the movie was consciously reviving a genre, in the specific setting that it would make sense to revive a genre of films that is seldom seen or done successfully: Musicals accompanied by dancing. I'm not the biggest musical fan, to be completely honest about it, sure I love some of the great ones but something has to be pretty legendary before I'm at the "Yes, I like that too" level. But I love La La Land for a different reason and I'm tired of trying to pass off perfection as the only way to communicate the beauty of something. All of the incredibly bland "yes, we stamp this person with the 'you are perfectly symmetrical, therefore beautiful' actors and actresses are often just uninteresting to look at for any length of time. I loved that the voices of both Stone and Reynolds reflected something else: neither of them has the "stamped in the symmetrical factory, inspected as perfect" look either. Reynolds' eyes are a bit close-set, his jaw, forehead, etc. when you break down his facial features he's not a technically beautiful man, but he's fascinating to watch and becomes this kind of transcendent form of beautiful. I think when someone is capable of being rather ordinary, or even odd looking and they have that moment of "WHOA! You're stunningly beautiful!" it actually carries more value, for me personally. Absolutely everything I just said I also apply to Emma Stone. She is not an actress who has a typical type of beauty. She can be very striking, she can be so lovely that she's honestly a little breathtaking and then she can also just be sort of odd looking. It's AWESOME that she's a big star. I love that. That's how I felt about their singing and dancing. There were moments, mostly early on, where I'd notice "that wasn't the best note..." "that doesn't look as effortless as I've seen it done by the pros..." but that's what made the moments in which they were so perfect together dazzling for me. It had worth to me, as a viewer, that they were not technically perfect. Plus, this movie made me happy. I needed something that made me happy. There are no villains here. The "dream" is how the story would have run in a Hollywood movie. It's not an alt-universe, it's the perfect alt-universe in which neither compromised too much but both got exactly what they were dreaming of having....and got to have one another. I didn't see Legend as a villain at all, just a dreamer with a different vision. That was the only way in which he conflicted with Seb's view of how Jazz would be brought back. Working for Legend is something Sebastian does because he feels like he has a responsibility to make money, to be someone his girlfriend can talk about with pride to her family that clearly questions her own life choices. He's not absent from the dream-alt-get-what-we-want-vision, he's there and Sebastian just turns down the offer and gets his dreams anyway. I don't think the movie presented Legend as a villain either, but the legend of Hollywood is that you can have the most beautiful artistic impulses in the world and the business will fuck it up, pervert it, change it until you can't even recognize it all while telling you it is for your own good, greatness really, to compromise on those artistic visions. And ultimately, I love that the love story in this movie is not really about a romance. It's a love story that has to do with multiple levels of love, including romance, including art, including beauty. I can be a really critical viewer of things. paramitch, in particular, has encountered that when we've both watched things and talked them over. The lords of mercy all flinched as one that time I talked about Zootopia with her and shredded that poor movie like it had personally insulted a relative, stolen money from my person and told me my dog was funny looking. That was how harsh my reaction was to that film. So I'm not exactly a soft sell. I just happened to love this movie because -- and this may be key -- I watched it at a time when I just wanted a feel-good, low-stakes movie and was delighted that this made me so happy, but also had just the right level of poignancy. It was okay with me that they didn't end up together, they were the reason neither actually gave up on their dreams. They were facilitators. When Sebastian takes his lucrative job, from Legend who is making a perfectly logical pitch that nonetheless is in conflict with Seb's emotional vision and dream, it's Stone's character who puts him back on track. When she almost misses the moment that will take her from a failed dream to a star? It's Sebastian showing up and honking to get her butt in gear. They weren't the loves of each other's lives. The movie worked for me because they were the facilitators of each others' dreams but both apparently went on to love other people, quite happily (there was more than one chicken breast in the pan when Sebastian was cooking, so I assumed). I don't know. There isn't a right or a wrong way to watch something, you know? I watched this expecting to have a critical reaction, as I'm not fond of musicals on a regular basis, had already heard the stuff about Reynolds looking at his feet (didn't care, still don't) and since it was a movie about a musician and an actor respectively trying to make their dreams come true, I thought it fitting that they were not perfect singers or dancers. I will admit, I didn't love the extended scene at the planetarium on my second watch but I also didn't hate it. I'm neutral on that scene in the long run. But overall, I just loved this movie. The first time I saw it was as a free in-flight movie flying overseas. I liked it so much, I watched it again, on my return trip and had my husband watch it with me. It was like getting an entertainment hug. It was a kindhearted movie, set not far from where I live and now drive regularly (help). So maybe just my personal stage was set for it to have a great debut with me personally. For a frame of reference, I'm kind of iffy, at best on Wonder Woman and would merrily shred much of that but La La Land I came home and bought.

I actually didn't comment one way or another, @ganesh . Some of the regional attitudes like, "I just want to do the same job my granddaddy did" (which is a quote from a miner interviewed back during the campaign) impede progress. Change in some areas of the country, and the world at large, is viewed dimly. It is, however, the only chance these regions stand of an economic recovery of any meaningful variety. I genuinely don't know what would help the anthracite regions of the world with embracing a path forward. They are so busy rereading the former chapters of their history, they are highly resistant to writing the next. Cuts and damage to the quality of public education offered in these areas will be devastating. I hope someone, very soon, will find the way to talk to the people of the anthracite regions in a way they are willing to absorb and act upon. Just on a personal note, the people of NEPA were (overall) among the most decent human beings I've ever encountered. I've lived in a lot of places since then and actually went directly from that area of the world to an Ivy League college town that was positively lousy with incredibly rich people. It's not that they were less decent overall, but the people of NEPA and Western PA deserve much better fates than they currently have in front of them. I genuinely wish that I knew the manner of address that would get those regions to embrace the need for change, but they are deeply traditional in their mindsets. There are options available for improvement, absolutely, but in my personal experience and still being in touch with people from NEPA, resistance to change poses one of the biggest obstacles, IMO.

That was tried with Three Mile Island, @ganesh, an event that rightly or wrongly, shaped the regional attitude toward Nuclear Power Plants.

I have sort of a weird background, in that on my paternal side I'm from sort of a long ling of New England blue bloods with a very light dash of the late entrants: Southern Liberal Activists. All very white collar, ivy league educated, etc. etc. Then my maternal grandfather was a Scottish coal miner who started in the pits at 13 and eventually became the mine manager. Then for part of my childhood I lived in North-Eastern Pennsylvania, an area of the country that has never gotten over the death of the coal mining industry. So having presented what sort of, kind of, maybe helps me with an informed opinion: A big part of the problem for the true coal mining areas is that they simply don't get a lot of sunshine. NEPA is overcast a great deal, sure there's some sun but it's nothing like Colorado (another place I lived) where you get 300 days a year of sunshine. Then also wind energy can be a bit difficult to come by because where there are coal mines, there are hills and small mountains. That is one of the barriers that stands between effective use of solar energy and some of the coal mining regions. It may also be why there are areas that outlaw solar panels on roofs. Don't get me wrong, my sympathy for regions so resistant to change is pretty low. One of the worst parts of our society is a deep-seated, oft-repeated resistance to change. I was so glad to see the coal miner who was learning to code, in multiple coding languages. That's what will save their lives, their ability to make money on which to live. Their health. Their futures. I always love John but never more than when he does something like this: openly inviting someone like that odious cross between a reptile and every condensed evil in the world, Bob Murray, to sue the deep pockets of HBO because he can't win, that odious barnacle on a ship held aloft on the back-breaking, lung-searing, life-crushing work of others he's exploited, used and mistreated to become wealthy, has used the wealth gleaned from the gross mistreatment of people who are otherwise helpless, Murray can't win. John didn't fabricate anything, just used what Murray has done and then bludgeoned others into silence with by using his money. One of the worst parts about watching people from coal mining areas wring their hands and say they want their jobs back is that the people who did those jobs before them wanted nothing more than for their children to be out from under the thumb of the cruel entities running those mines. My grandfather was sent to the pits at 13. He was incredibly bright and eventually became the manager of the mine, but he had one rule fro my mother, his only child when it came to dating: She was not allowed to date a miner, period. He saved every pound note he could get his hands on, doing extra jobs outside of the mines to make that money, to send her to an English boarding school, to try and change the course of her life. It worked. The "I just want the job my grandfather had" set are up in the night dreaming if they think that is what their grandfathers wanted for them. They are talking about a generation that embraced the GI Bill as a way of paving a path out of those fucking mines. As for the failing health of the frog-faced Murray: There is a theory that the only hell that exists is that we will feel all the pain, suffering and torment we have visited upon others as we die. That's it. That's hell. By that measure, John Oliver's fully justified expose of his complete dearth of human decency is the very least of his problems.

I think what I just felt stir in my heart was hope. It's a terribly unfamiliar sensation at this juncture but I'm fairly certain that's what it was. I was, of course, both startled and frightened at first because it had been just that long. Where is this and how might I find it? Is it airing on something in the U.S.?

In fairness to the UK: terrorism isn't exactly new stuff and as recently as the 1970s and early 80s the IRA (technically that was the Provisional Irish Republican Army because there were several versions of the IRA that are all pretty much called the IRA) was blowing crap up on a regular basis, including assassinating Lord Louis Mountbatten. That version of the IRA didn't declare a ceasefire until the late 90s. They aren't already desensitized, they just aren't treating it as a something solely related to one thing, since terrorism is actually really quite an old tactic far predating this current round. It's not their shiny object, basically. It's actually a tactic that interviewers are taught in order to get things on the record. I briefly flirted with the idea of being a journalist many years ago, until my mortal enemy Brevity turned out to be part and parcel of that endeavor. Anyway, it is a technique and it works, try it in real life and it actually works, when you ask someone any kind of clarifying question in conversation: "When I was married to Zeus, he cheated on me with every mortal available" "When you were married to Zeus?" "Yes, when I was married to Zeus." It's a pretty reliable technique, as proven, it's just when the clips are connected like that it really stands out. They are just trying to get the quotable soundbite. Good show, heavy on depressing as hell, light on many active giggles. But hey, at least I can quit sweating what it might be like to be 90-years-old at any point because no way are we making it that long if 45's current trajectory continues. It's freeing, really, in its own way. In that really, really crappy way. I enjoyed the segment on the histrionic press coverage (NPR had a similar one that was really quite good) of anything that might be related to present day terrorism. Our coverage tends to behave like a toddler given a giant Snickers to consume, followed by a shot of espresso complete with eventual pants pooping.

Thank you, @Lantern7, DVR setting altered accordingly. I feel like I should offer the box a shot of B12 beforehand because one thing is for sure, it hasn't been an uneventful news cycle. They won't lack for material, so there's that. Now watch, tonight's topic will be about the gross national product of some place I've never even glimpsed on a map, but whose fate is tied closely to mine somehow. I think I'm starting to become nervous on behalf of the LWT writer's room. They have to have some topic at hand each week, some carefully prepared deep dive on some pressing issue, knowing each time that they are but a refresh button away from breaking news that can't be ignored entirely. I'm sure it's always that way, I just hadn't ever really considered it much before I only got to see a moment or two of planned penguin puppets I might have known. Now I'll always be playing the what-might-have-been game at the end of every episode. The penguin possibility is out there now and it can't be withdrawn.

The problem with reporting someone else's bad behavior as a repeated offense is that NewOfglen would automatically come under suspicion anyway. Just like Offred/June was questioned when Ofglen/Emily was found to be having a romantic relationship with a Martha. Guilt by association and all that. I think NewOfglen would also have to be aware that if she throws Offred/June to the wolves, then there's a strong chance Offred would return the favor. Or even if she didn't, she knows what was done to OriginalOfglen/Emily. Despite her threatening words, I think she was warning her because ultimately, she understands what she'd be exposing Offred/June to and you'd have to be a monster vs. just a tough person, trying to cling to the only semblance of a decent life she's ever had. She's determined, not demented. Another way the very subtle sisterhood vibe was being shown, because I think NewOfglen was doing precisely that by warning June rather than going directly to her commander's wife, was the Commander's wife in Ofsteven's scene approaching her with her sympathetic "flu". That there are still women, even in positions of power, who hesitate to wield it as a weapon against other women. Steven's wife trying to put off the moment when Emily is very painfully raped was just a tiny moment of kindness in that incredibly brutal world. No witnesses except Emily, who knows that Steven's wife can only spare her for so long before she is inevitably horribly mistreated again, and the dog, was the perfect appetizer for the moment Emily takes her opportunity to thwart and punish, in her own right, the men who are complicit in this crime against all women. Fred is a monster, saying things like now women have respect while disregarding every common decency towards another person. He's risking her tortuous death and practically laughed about doing so in her face. Plus, he punishes Serena Joy for actually loving him, trying to make her notice his sexual enjoyment, knowing that he's denied her any at all. Strange source of humor in this show: the number of time Nick is captioned as "*scoffs*" is both amusing and thematic. In terms of seeing Luke and June's backstory, I thought the show did its level best to present the ways in which a relationship that started under really unsavory circumstances (get the divorce, then move forward, not the other way around, dude) it still contained emotional authenticity and romantic ideals for the two of them. I think that was supposed to be what we were being invited to see but Luke is a bit of a Cardboard Kenny: not a lot of dimension to him, they just have gone out of their way to illustrate that in a world where men were taking that self-same ickiness (implicit in the "things happen" grossness of his implication that clearly, any female friendships between a lesbian and a straight woman would have gone to "gratify my male gaze and male fantasies" land) and turning it in a direction where demeaning women went to a whole other "we've stopped objectifying women...now we just treat them as objects with holes that are of use" level; Luke was displaying patriarchal ickiness (women's sexuality as a commodity to feed his fantasties; "I'll protect you") but that he turned his own car in a completely different direction than that would suggest: allowing June to steer the course of his life for him. Kind of a neat contrast, even if Luke is not an interesting character. Also, super neat close-captioning note: As June ascends the stairs to Nick's apartment of her own volition, making a choice, trying to take charge of her fate the captions note a dog barking in the distance. Like she was traveling with Emily's ghost and Emily's playmate dog could tell. If the little girls in the red coats foreshadowing was a nice touch, I thought that having that dog barking as an undertone to the moment when June is also making a choice their entire world tells her she's not allowed to make on her own behalf was kind of brilliant. Warning or encouragement, friend of Emily?

I agree that scene and the scene when Fred shut her down with the Gilead version of "don't worry your pretty head about that" made me wonder what Serena Joy thought was happening in the world prior to this. Did she see a declining birth rate and turn to God and this is the bastard mutant thing that rose up around her? Was she a zealot, calling other women gendered slurs or was she caught in almost the same situation June was? She woke up one day without access to money, without a job, without a future as anything other than a woman dressed in a color to denote her purpose in life? Is she bitter because the world she helped bring about sucks for her, or is she bitter because this world sucks and she too was just doing what it takes to be alive in it? From the series so far we just don't know in this telling of the tale. All we can see is that she's horrible to those with even less power than she has but then, what power does she have? The power to dress in teal every day, right down to her shoes, to never have an intellectually stimulating conversation? She's not allowed to read books or have a profession or do anything other than nurture her resentment. Plus, I thought she was punishing June not for failing to be pregnant -- although that too -- but because she did think June was pregnant and that it was June's fault that the Eyes had reason to question her, shock her and then cause her to miscarry. The only reason I drew that conclusion was that her punishment was to be kept from interacting with the outside world at all. Serena Joy is participating in all of this but we don't know how gladly, we just know that she has said she has prayed. Maybe becoming incredibly religious was her reaction to not being able to become pregnant. There would be a lot of people who would reach for the "it's a judgment from God!" explanation if the world birth rates dropped like a stone. I'm not in anyway excusing her, what she's doing to June/Offred and the "Martha" living in her home is inexcusable. It's monstrous. I'm just trying to understand the monster she has become and how she got there. She has no power in her life, not any real power. She doesn't have the power to have an equal relationship with her husband or practice whatever media savvy craft she once did. That conversation revealed that she likely had a profession and it sounded like it was in some type of marketing or media, perhaps politics. So did she wake up one day and find that her husband and all the other "good men" had taken it from her or did she know that was coming? I've really been enjoying this series and one of the things I like about it is that it just keeps raising more questions at every turn. It made sense to me that all Moira had to do was don an Aunt outfit to be able to walk freely. We saw what happened to a man accused of rape and sex is apparently only supposed to be for procreation. It makes sense that the guards and soldiers would be incredibly careful around the Aunts. They are women with something that resembles authority in Gilead. Anyone with authority is dangerous to everyone around them who doesn't have more authority. Hell, Aunt Lydia was making great strides towards beating June into a bloody pulp on the floor of Serena Joy's sitting room and the only thing that made her stop was not "Hey, a commander's wife is telling me what to do!" it was "Stop! She's pregnant." All of that background, everything with Serena Joy just sadistically wielding the little bit of power her world provides for her, made that end scene in which these powerless women all risk whatever heinous punishments the Aunts would come up with to try and sneak food to June. In terms of the doctor, he was creepy in the book, I found him just as creepy here. He can't just have turkey basters worth of semen hanging around without risking some kind of (likely very specific) brutal death since clearly AI is against the Gilead laws and he was taking "no, thank you" for an answer but the thing that gave me an added case of the creeps (on top of every other "so close to rape, well beyond coercion, power imbalance beyond the telling of it" thing) is that I was I afraid he was an Eye. So there still exists a possibility that he is trying to help and why "they go through my trash" and presumably limit what equipment he can have access to. That doesn't change who may or may not be in the story, but that's why the turkey baster syringe-of-semen might not be an option. He'd have to have the darned things prepped. They've done so well with the atmosphere that I'm paranoid on behalf of Offred/June.

Oof. Something about watching Alexis Bledel as Ofglen, having to try and prostitute herself simply to try and save her own life before the trial, then having to know her lover was about to die and figure out some way to say goodbye without speaking, and then waking to her own mutilation after having to watch her love hang just slaughtered me specifically because Alexis Bledel isn't usually seen as a strong actor. I thought she was great during her brief stint in Mad Men but all of this was made all the more powerful because she's robbed of everything, even her voice. Since it's new material it was crushing and terrifying in ways I was never expecting. . I actually really love the strange music cues, forever reminding us: this is supposed to be our world. This is supposed to be what remains of the United States. The discordant Heart of Glass was perfect, I thought when June and Moira are showered by jagged glass as they attempt to hide in order to save their own lives. I never cared for the Natasha Richardson/Faye Dunaway/Robert Duvall movie. They made stylistic choices to try and soften some of the blows. For instance, the handmaid's dresses were shortened and a couple of other things that didn't fit with the source material. Dunaway and Duvall were both old enough that they wouldn't have been able to produce children naturally at that age anyway, so it took away one of the more subtle things from the book: The commander's wife is also a victim of this merciless, misogynistic society. Props to the actor playing Serena Joy who took out all of her rage at everything -- being forced to share her husband, as she's reminded that her body has betrayed her and she is viewed as lesser, having to be present (one of the most horrifying aspects of the book for me) while this woman is repeatedly and systematically raped on her marital bed -- Serena Joy is a villain but she's also a victim. It's just that she has the one tiny bit of power that she can then use to abuse the only people she can to act out her rage. She's not in the least sympathetic but she is believably human to me because of that, her rage made all the more horrible because she's risked being emotionally vulnerable with June or Offred, who must serve as a constant reminder to her that she is considered broken in the way she would most like to be functional. Serena Joy can't own property, or have money of her own either. Her cage is nicer, she's allowed food and flowers, status, the pretense of respect from those around her: all in a world where she has no rights either. I love that Elisabeth Moss is playing it all as if she has an inkling and understanding of what it all means in Serena's mind. Casting younger for both the Commander and his wife was really a brilliant thing to do, I thought. The Handmaid's Tale is one of my favorite books of all time because it always seemed so possible. Now more so than ever. On the only upside I can think of for that, Hulu must be doing a nonstop dance of joy for landing the most topical dystopian fiction of the time. I never really believed the dead can walk, or that we'd all turn into cannibals a la The Road but just looking around the globe and around the country, this feels prescient. There used to be an old word game of sorts "think of a white room, entirely white, no color, no windows, everything in it is white, how do you feel?" and people would then describe their feelings: "I feel peaceful" "I feel trapped" "I'm happy" "I'm cold" whatever....and it was all supposed to be how you viewed death. No clue as to the validity of it but the second they cut to Emily waking up, all in white, groaning. I knew what they'd done, they killed her in the only way they could without actually taking her life.

I agree despair plays a part in some addiction stories. Sometimes people want to try and dull an existential pain vs. a physical one. Those are usually the people who don't have the "a doctor prescribed this for me" origin stories. I'm insanely lucky, in that even though I had a serious car accident many years ago, I'm one of the members of the population that hurls almost nonstop if given any kind of opioid. I can take them if I'm given a fairly powerful antinauseant but they hold very little appeal for me because I'll still itch and become nauseated anyway, the antinauseant will just keep me from throwing up. It turned out to be a genetic trait and my son can't tolerate them either. Thank the universe for small mercies, I guess. So I was prescribed opioids years ago and hated them. He had some for a surgery a few years ago and I had to take him to the ER in the middle of the night where they had to administer an antinauseant typically used to treat people vomiting from the after effects of cancer drugs to get him to stop throwing up. My SIL, from a good family, an affluent family with involved parents, is a heroin addict in recovery for whatever that is worth. She's been through 8 rehabs and the 8th took, again if we're going to call it that, as she is on methadone. She became pregnant three months after that rehab and had a baby with a fellow recovering addict who had also been sober for less than a year. Her child is 6 months old now, I guess I should say that my niece is 6 months old now. By the time I met my SIL -- when she was 21 -- she'd already been to two rehabs. I kept seeing this documentary on the HBO docs list and I couldn't bring myself to watch it until today. Arianna's story was the one that hit me hardest, for obvious reasons. My SIL had a partner die, a guy who had -- quite frankly -- pimped her out. He was found dead by a dumpster, where he had been living for some time. He had a little makeshift bedside table of sorts next to his sleeping bag and on it was his sketch pad. He'd been a promising artist, as had Laurie (that's my SIL) and I'm glad his parents had that of him. I've no idea what quality the drawings were or weren't. I suppose I shouldn't think it a blessing that his parents got something back of their son that could help them remember fonder times. I don't think this epidemic is about entitled kids. Although, I know my MIL enabled by paying for all those rehabs which Laurie was using as dry outs when she couldn't get a hold of drugs. I'm sorry for the epic overshare here but watching this was incredibly painful. Just three days ago my husband told me he had to try and move past the point in which he had already grieved for Laurie. She's the youngest in a family of 7 and at some point, somewhere around the 4th rehab we thought that we know where this story ends. That she'd die. We were just coming around to the "Thank goodness we were obviously wrong!" Watching this, watching Arianna, in particular, interact so lovingly with her children and then the chyron that she relapsed within a month of that and overdosed, after three years of sobriety nearly did me in. I think I foolishly thought maybe Laurie was out of the woods, now she had someone to live for and be sober for, beyond any dumb guy. I'll answer that to the best of my ability. In my husband's case, as it pertains to my SIL, her father was a defense contractor with high-security clearance. Both of her parents were college educated. Whereas her father traveled a lot, her mother stayed home and her entire life was about raising her children and she would tell them over and over, "I just want you to be the best you, you can be". They were affluent without being spoiled, as in their college educations were paid for but they would do chores to be given access to the family car. There was no car for the teen kids as they grew up. Her parents were childhood sweethearts that would sit on a glider swing on a front porch when they were engaged, talking about the family they would have. They wanted lots of kids and they wanted them to have every advantage. There isn't a history of addiciton in that family, but there is a history of OCD, depression, anxiety and in one case, bi-polar disorder. I guess that's why self-medicating (which is a big factor in addicts who don't come from a family history of addiction or being prescribed their doom) is also so often a factor. I know that I sort of compulsively tell people that my husband came from a "good" family, an affluent family, an involved family. They went to church every weekend. If they had an academic interest it was indulged (lots of books, musical instruments, lessons, materials for painting, a coach for cross country running). I mention it because people assume that my husband came from something that resembles the face of poverty, since he has one sister who was a heroin addict and another who has abused drugs throughout her life. I think when people say that, it's just a request to be viewed not as some kind of fringe, or borderline family. They are asking people not to judge their families as having somehow brought it on themselves. Or as having been too indulgent of their children. Or not caring. It's sort of way of saying, "this could happen to anyone, in any family, fate is fickle". We want so much for there to be a cause, an easily identified cause because then we know the steps to take to prevent it. I don't think it works that way. I don't think there really is a way to ward it off. When I was growing up (I'll wheeze with antiquity as I type this, just to set the mood) we all got our wisdom teeth out. To the best of my knowledge that really didn't go too far south for anyone other than one troubled kid. Something is different. I think it's probably the availability of drugs and just hopelessness. I'm glad the documentary solely focused on the addicts. We are too prone to seeing them as something other than people. Marissa's story was also so painful. That was a self-aware young woman, but she couldn't save herself. People are more than the worst thing they've ever done or been. Sometimes those things are so awful we can't see past what they have done. We hear the experts talks, the healthcare professionals, the words of those standing on the outside who judge, even though many don't even mean to. I appreciated this look into the actual people who are heroin addicts. The most painful things my husband ever said to me about his sister, when we were just sure she would die was that I never felt like I knew Laurie as a person. I'd had precisely one conversation with her when she was sober. To me she was just this representation of chaos and damage, huritng people I love. I even thought maybe it would be easier if she was gone because she couldn't be saved from herself. I told my husband that I was sorry, I knew she was his baby sister always, that his mother would see Laurie and remember teaching her to walk but that all I ever think about, all I remember, is the agent of chaos. And he said to me: "I always think of her as a child piano prodigy. Her teacher was just convinced she'd be a great concert pianist. " When people say, "from a good family" it's just shorthand for "we had dreams for this person, we saw a good life, we saw all things any hopeful, loving family member would, we didn't think this story would be like this. We love this person." I'm pretty sure that's what it means.

Jeez, poor John and his poor staff. Yet another uplifting week to cover. Assignments in that writers' room must be a source of a fucked-no-matter-what-lottery. "Hey, the likelihood that we'll blow up as a world increases daily! Wooo! Look towards Turkey and weep for the future. Also, in the so-much-for-leading-the-free-world category, 45 called the next scary assed dictator of a continually destabilizing region to congratulate him on his win while simultaneously contradicting everything his press secretary just said that made everyone feel a teeny bit better for approximately 8 seconds. Hope you enjoyed that brief respite and that it sufficiently distracted you from the attempts to provoke a plump madman with bad genes. Also, Bill O'Reilly was finally fired...and he only got 7 million dollars more for his disgrace than his collective victims got for his gross mistreatment of them. Ah, justice, it's a thing of beauty. Or would be, if I could remember what it looks like. Who wants which story?!?" Cue the stampede to the liquor cart or possibly the medicine cabinet and that's before we get into the family drama of all things White House related that could, oh bonus, is yet another reason that it's probably time for all of us to really pursue our bucket lists. Add the creepy cherry to the grotesque sundae: We think Ivanka represents hope. Ha. Also? Oh shit.

I think the part that Brian never focused on but that made the most sense, is that Faye called the cousins first because they were family. I can't even imagine how traumatic it must have been for her and I'm assuming she really was in shock afterward. By the way, episode 7 was one of the most difficult things I've ever listened to. I'm going to spoiler tag the rest just in case anyone is still listening: This was one of the best podcasts I'd listened to in a while, all the way through episode 5. Episode 6 was probably a little too much time devoted to it but it did ultimately emphasize how lonely John really was in the world. Episode 7 is something I never want to sit through again. Not because it was bad, simply because it was incredibly difficult and uncomfortable.

I think part of the point of having this segment is that in all of the "Oh how the hell did that mutant, terrible, never-supposed-to-happen result happen?!?" things across the world at this point, that was precisely what was being counted upon. Brexit was not supposed to happen and this was talked about so much that people did things like cast protest votes while others stayed home in droves. In Australia, where voting is compulsory, they've got their own version of Le Pen and she's just as charming only without the attempts to be pleasant (in the Spock-has-a-beard sort of mirrorverse way). In the U.S. half of all eligible voters stayed home despite the fact that one of the candidates was endorsed by the KKK and the other one was not. Something that I think would have motivated people to bestir themselves to vote but again, apparently failed to provide sufficient motivation to participate. I could keep going down a list because there's kind of long list of "Well, that's a scary mofo, what the hell? Maybe don't elect that person?!?" So I really hope that the good people of France will be shaken and show up. There seems to be a pandemic of apathy when it comes to this sort of "Clearly, that person should be blocked from the highest office in the land" on a global scale. And part of how it happened, part of why John Oliver would do the piece, is because Brexit is happening precisely because voters in the U.K. couldn't bring themselves to believe, "We will not do this as a country" and ...behold. So, it seems like in recent history, using that as a predictor of what is likely to happen vs. the historically-this-has-happened might be prudent. I genuinely hope that France has not also come down with the Apathy-towards-hatred flu that seems to have the rest of the world on mental bedrest but I am pretty certain that believing it is a given that something would not occur is actually a good part of why it happened elsewhere. That was John's entire, "Oh don't make the same mistake that your neighbors across a very small body of water, all things considered, did. Your long time frenemies, the Brits thought they wouldn't do that no-good-for-anyone thing." Putin is in Le Pen's corner. What has happened across the globe has relied on the apathy of a general population that actually comes from a belief that nothing changes so it probably doesn't matter what we do, that sort of thing. I liked John's piece but seeing the response that "the people of France were shaken and turned out to vote" makes me a) hope that is dead right and if so? Vive la France! b) cringe a little because that belief, in recent history, has not been turning out so well globally at this point in time.

I'm in no way doubting your knowledge of France's elections or expected outcomes but cast thine eyes towards the American White House. That wasn't supposed to happen by every poll available and truly, electing someone without even a tiny bit of political experience to the highest political office in the land was something declared entirely impossible. That did not actually preclude it happening, as it turned out. I hope you are entirely right but there's been something of a global rise in really rather appalling individuals on both a personal and a professional level being elected anyway. I appreciate John's piece. Yeah, apparently we're now bully-positive. Don't worry, I have a plentiful supply of all manner of alcohol and am willing to share lest you feel the need to join me in a spot of despair drinking. Yeah, and it's apparently doubly important to dig deep on the truly horrifying gaffes being committed to the digital permanent record, no less. Maybe try admitting, "I misspoke, that was wrong, it was stupid and I'm sorry for any offense I've caused." Humility, it looks good on everyone. Very slimming, kind to the complexion. Someone should probably tweet that towards Pennsylvania avenue, 'tis the only way of reaching them and they clearly missed the memo. My husband hadn't seen any of that jaw-dropping Spicer material and kept saying in astonishment, "Is this real? This can't be real?!?" One would think, right? Cheers. *clinkclink*

Nicely put throughout, and I just wanted to add that this episode gives us an answer, a definitive one, on how real Perry's remorse was or wasn't: Perry in the car saying he wants to change, he will change, he will blah blah blah...blah...and Celeste asks, "Did you make an appointment?" and his answer gives the game entirely away, "Not yet, but I will". It's textual how seriously we are to take Perry's remorse, he might feel it to some shallow degree but it isn't even enough to make him schedule an appointment with someone that could help him change. He is within inches of killing or hospitalizing his wife on a regular basis by this point in the story but has he taken a meaningful step towards change that doesn't involve "couples" counseling? No, and if he hasn't by now, nothing will ever make him. Not his son's clearly knowing (and there's a disturbing implication for Max that I will get to in a moment). Not his wife constantly recovering from brutal assaults. No amount of tears or wall punching or self-recrimination can surmount that big, glaring bullhorn of a declaration: Not yet. Not yet is the realm of things that can be put off. Not yet is the tooth that's bothering you, but you fail to book the appointment because the pain isn't constant for you yet. Not yet is the hallmark of something a person does not actually want to do. Perry answered the question all by himself. What would make it "now's the time!"? Her dead body? He raped Jane seven years ago and who knows what he's been up to in the interim other than beating his wife bloody and bruised but "Not yet" is the answer to when he plans to change. He doesn't. He never planned to. People can and do change but they actually have to want to badly enough to change themselves and Perry did not. Not yet in these matters means not ever because if he hasn't noticed the "Holy shit, am I ever out of control" by now, he never, ever will and he was just manipulating her with his promises. On the Max thing, one of the implications is that he might have a crush on Amabella. That was the one that just made me nearly make an "oof" sound in my own turn. We never saw rage issues from either of the twins. If he was simply having meltdowns, unable to control his own behavior, it would have been obvious to the teacher. He was controlling Amabella and the terrifying implication beyond the other terrifying parts of that was that it might have been about having a crush on her. I both love and am heartbroken by the fact that that is what it took for Celeste to draw the line in the sand. Knowing that what Perry does is breaking his children. Not all abusers are beyond help but they have to want very actively to change. Perry's answer was "not yet" the evening after he beat his wife so badly she was unable to get up from the floor. For me, that put paid to invoice and closed the account for good. Maybe, maybe not. Ed seemed to know, I think he stopped Maddy from confessing in the last episode because he had an inkling of what it was she was about to say and he wanted that protective denial. When he took his drink and continued, I felt like he was deciding what to do going forward, now that he felt the knowledge was concrete. Maddy, watching him, knowing how much she had wounded someone who loved her without reservation finally had to confront that it wasn't just her marriage she was risking, she was risking Ed's ability to love and trust, not merely her but in going forward. I think Ed was meant to be envious of the passion that Bonnie and Nathan felt for one another and it is a weird thing that both Ed and Nathan were really the two guys (other than Tom but we barely know him) who emerged as worthwhile men while having flaws. Ed was trying to resolve his own feelings of inadequacy by having a posturing contest with Nathan, who had a beautiful, adoring young wife and Ed had to live with the knowledge that Maddy had never really gotten over being left by Nathan. Yet for all that Nathan could be his own brand of twerp when he said to Maddy, "I root for you" and then really warmly greeted Chloe in the backseat, I got it finally. I got his appeal. Nathan was a guy who really was trying and trying doesn't mean perfection. He'd have setbacks but he appeared to be making steady progress. When Ed had his back to the audience, I felt like he was checking in with his own commitment level going forward with this increasingly certain knowledge. And he turned around and sang the song anyway. I think he was emotionally injured in the extreme but it was because he does love Maddy and will continue to love Maddy. It just really, really hurt and Maddy saw that injury and finally freaking got what she had done to him. Joseph viciously lashing out in the face of a far less devastating emotional injury was such a giant contrast to Ed ordering a triple, contemplating his life and wearing his heart on his sleeve as he turned around to sing. There were some really lovely illustrations of love in this series. Also, I loved how wise Jane got to be on multiple occasions. Welcoming Maddy to the Fuck Up club we all inhabit to different degrees from time to time. I think if Perry hadn't been killed the talk she was going to have with Ed would no longer have been about unburdening her conscience but actually owning what she had done, its ramifications and the work she had to do going forward.

Dispensaries are heavily regulated and people can't actually consume products in them, just buy them. Plus, in a lot places in Colorado and California (can't speak to other places where it is legal in either a medical or recreational capacity) there are tons that simply don't allow dispensaries, at all. So even if they were able to open a coffee shop, the only thing patrons would be allowed to imbibe or ingest would be those coffee-related products. Jeff Sessions histrionic response to weed -- it doesn't get more melodramatic than invoking Lady Gaga as gospel, does it? -- is puzzling as hell. I can't honestly believe a grown man who hasn't led an entirely sheltered life, would truly believe the things he says.