Bastet

I watched a few repeats tonight, and found myself swinging from one extreme to another: In a key lime pie showdown, Bobby's win prompted one of my few "WTactualF?" reactions to such an outcome. They both had crust issues, Bobby's more visible as he was slower getting his done and thus when he removed the pies at least one started falling apart. Yet one of the judges specifically praised the texture of his crust. Huh? I felt affronted on the challenger's behalf. Then in a bulgogi challenge, I was rooting, heartily, for Bobby to win (he did) from the moment the challenger opened his mouth. I don't dislike Bobby, but in a (seemingly) close competition I generally root for him to lose just because he wins so often. But this time I didn't even care what food was presented, the challenger was such an arrogant dickhead I wanted him to go down in flames. There was also a white pizza with clams challenge that left me absolutely drooling - I would love to eat either pizza.

Yet you consistently minimize your husband's role in perpetuating this pattern, focusing instead on the abuse heaped upon you by the two women. Your mother was horrible and your mother-in-law is horrible, but your husband is a very important link, not just some coincidence. Your mother-in-law's role in your life is far less significant than your husband's in determining how healthy your life can be going forward. Being on the brink of having her physically removed from your daily life is a wonderful step, but probably not a magic wand for how your husband fails to properly respect you as an equal partner in this relationship. I hope having her out of the physical way, at least, provides some needed space for the two of you to address fundamental issues - here's hoping this is a key step in an ongoing change.

I don't watch the show (I saw a few episodes on an airplane, and rejected it for being sexist among other things), so I've just read this discussion from afar, but with a rather blanket statement I will now weigh in: So if a woman doesn't explicitly state she doesn't want kids, the default assumption is she does - because, as a woman, of course she does, and that's the norm from which she must specifically state her intention to deviate? So any later statement against wanting kids is inherently inconsistent not with prior statements in favor of parenting, but with the mere absence of statements against it?

The cat my mom had before I was born was like that - one of her paws was significantly injured and took some time to heal, but heal it did, completely. Yet long after that she would revert to a limp (and a more exaggerated one than she had at the time of injury) if she wanted something that was not forthcoming.

Well over 45. I hope this isn't unpopular, but you remind me how much I appreciated that about the casting -- I'm so tired of shows about characters who are the best of the best in their profession being populated by people in their late 20s. With Major Crimes, the squad was actually comprised of people who'd accumulated the experience and honed the skills necessary to be selected for the elite squad, and that was especially true of the leadership roles. When the show began, Mary McDonnell (who played the captain) was 60 years old. The second-in-command was played by G.W. Bailey at 68. The other lieutenants were played by actors in their early 60s (Tony Denison and Michael Paul Chan). Raymond Cruz, playing the detective who'd been with the squad since its inception, was about 50, and only the newcomer detective was played by a youngish actor, Kearran Giovanni, and I think she was early 30s. The Assistant Chief of Police was played by 58-year-old Robert Gossett. The DDA who prosecuted most of the major cases was played by Kathe Mazur, 51, and the Medical Examiner was played by Jonathan Del Arco, who was 46. Most of these characters had originated on The Closer, so subtract seven years for how old they were when first selected for the newly-formed priority homicide squad (or, in Sharon's case, heading up the Force Investigation Division), and they were still old enough to have made their mark -- it was believable off the bat that all these characters had reached the level of professional success they had. And you're right about the diversity in terms of race/ethnicity and sexual orientation, too. It was a great show all around, one of the few crime dramas I have ever liked, never mind loved.

Aw, yes it was, because it means we get to look at adorable pictures like that. I want to one-arm hug her!

Is that a light fixture at the upper right of the door? Whatever it is, it's not normally there. Even in the other condo scene in this very episode. It's not like it's a leftover Christmas decoration or something, so why is it randomly there? It's weird. Oh, wait - I think I see what you're saying; is that just a particularly weird angle on the overhead light in the foyer that is only visible when the camera is placed at certain positions? Not something new on the wall, just the usual light on the ceiling that we can't see most of the time? Ah, that would make sense! There's also a special master in the episode where Brenda, freaking out over her dad's cancer diagnosis, tries to get an oncologist whose clinic partner was murdered (by the drug rep peddling fake chemotherapy, who was going to be outed by the partner) to turn over their patient records; Sharon instigates the paperwork for a special master to not only get the info needed without violating patient privacy rights, but to keep the DAs office too busy to be involved with the early stages of the police investigation (this is near the end of the series, when Pope wants a DDA brought in from the beginning of cases [after Brenda provokes a mistrial due to her Stroh obsession] and Brenda is, of course, resistant). There's no relation between previous uses (or non-uses) of one in the series and what happens with Stroh and Judge Schaefer in the two-part Special Master, though; a special master is simply a role within the judicial system, used for a tremendous variety of tasks.

I can't stand the smell of that, but it does clump and definitely creates far less dust if you have a flinger, so I recommend you give it a try and see what you and Chelsea think (two friends use it for their cats, whom I take care of when they're gone, so I'm familiar with it even though I don't use it). If she's overweight, my primary recommendation is to stay away from the so-called diet foods and instead feed fewer calories of the most nutritional food she'll eat; the calories matter, of course, but where those calories come from is important too and the "diet food" is usually not the best on that front. The standard recommendation is 20 calories per pound of cat per day for weight maintenance, and 20% less than that for weight loss (and 20% more for weight gain). So, your average ten-pound cat should eat 200 calories per day to maintain her weight, but only 180 calories per day if she needs to lose weight. (That's why feed X cups/cans per day is a useless recommendation, as it depends on how many calories per ounce are in a given food, and it varies significantly.) So you calculate based off that general guideline and adjust from there, making sure to avoid drastic decreases in caloric intake; gradual is key. I'm glad she's back to normal <knocking on wood>!

Exactly. The coded conversation is completely keeping with the character, and Fritz - and we the audience - know what she's really saying. He determines it's not a deal-breaker for him; he'd like kids if she wanted to have them, but her not wanting them doesn't mean he can't be perfectly content with their life together. It's a great scene, and a refreshing relationship. If they'd left it there, it would unequivocally stand as a positive example. But they didn't commit. It's that they not only had Fritz raise the issue again, but didn't have Brenda at that point resort to spelling it out (like Amy does in Major Crimes, when she tells Cooper she is not having kids and if the baby thing is that important to him, find someone else; otherwise, stop talking about it). This character is a textbook example of someone who does not want kids, and also an example of someone who shouldn't have them. Her choice is a good thing for her and in general. Yet this notion of motherhood being a given for women is so ingrained that, even though they didn't script a pregnancy, the writers just couldn't contain themselves from revisiting it as a question, rather than a given.

Yes, it's a sad commentary on how women who don't want kids are presented on TV that the "big house/good school district" conversation qualifies as a positive example. It's characteristic for Brenda to speak in code, so I'll give them that. And, within that code, it's a very nice moment (one they should have had earlier, but whatever - again, I take what I can get). He asks if they should think about the home's size and school district. (Meaning we shouldn't buy this house if we're going to want to add a kid to the family.) She asks if he thinks it matters. He says that would have to be a joint decision. She says she doesn't think it's something they need to worry about. A financially comfortable dual-income couple in their early/mid forties buying their first home in Los Angeles (with a notoriously spotty public school system) with no regard to number of bedrooms (there are only two) or school district (not great). That means no kids. Especially since this was a significant shift towards "I've concluded no" from her "definitely not now, I'm not sure about ever" attitude during an earlier pregnancy scare. She does not want kids. Clear, boom, done. That makes absolute sense with her personality, priorities, and lifestyle. Thank you, and let's move on. But the writers - and Fritz by extension - never quite got that through their heads (although she, thankfully, never had a kid, they would, as you noted, occasionally bring the idea up in wishy-washy ways). So, despite it being oh-so-Brenda, given her overall nature and the southern indoctrination she sometimes struggled with her rejection of, to only be clear via coded language, the way they bungled it after that had me wishing she'd nevertheless just say it outright.

Nor did I imply you were, I simply clarified what was said about Alu's age and went on to talk about the value of her story being included.

Heh; I was thinking more of Major Crimes (which is my hand-down favorite of the two shows), but it works even with The Closer looking at the ensemble. And, even with Brenda specifically, I wouldn't classify her as dysfunctional. It's certainly not a label that would be placed upon a male character with the same set of characteristics (in fact, it's a dynamic we've seen time and again with male characters dedicated to their jobs whose wives/girlfriends adapt to that focus), and, regardless of the double standard, she's functional in her personal life. Not ideal, certainly, but functional. She was happy with who she was, had healthy (flawed, definitely, but loving and overall functional) relationships with her parents and husband despite her myopic tendencies, and - perhaps most importantly to the issue at hand - made some changes when it became clear they were necessary.

Both shows were so fantastic at weaving the heavy and light together (you know, like life), other writers should study and take notes. And it was wonderful seeing a group of realistically flawed yet fundamentally good people working together to do a job well. Not superheroes, not anti-heroes, just everyday people trying to do right. And not a group of people good at their jobs but utterly dysfunctional in their personal lives, just people with the typical array of existing and former relationships. It was truly comforting. (And, with Major Crimes, seeing a police squad led by someone who demands that law and policy be followed, that the ends never justify the means so there will be no going rogue because "but, he's a really bad bad guy who'll walk if we don't," was specifically important.) Of course, even though Major Crimes was TNT's number one show, and the second-highest-rated drama on cable altogether, when the new guy came in to head up the network, he hated the show because it wasn't the edgy, gritty fare he wanted to become known for. So he effectively stopped promoting it (no appearances at the upfronts, no Emmy submissions, a paltry number of ads on his own network), moved it around several times, and eventually demanded format changes. When the audience numbers stayed high through all that, he finally just canceled it because he was so focused on his "dark" type of entertainment.

I'll add to that main characters. It's long past time to start seeing some main female characters (and "normal" ones, not just dark and twisted anti-heroes) choose not to have children, stick to that choice, and remain happy with it. There can be judgment from some other characters, of course, because we get that in real life. But it needs to be presented as a good thing for her. And be a characteristic that kind of lives in the background, as a basic part of her life, but not some big deal plot point.

As has been said many times but must be repeated: I cannot with these idiotic choices from the Wayfair tent. A throw blanket?! (I missed what the other couple picked.) If something available is absolutely perfect for the room and an element the designer is known not to have included, I can see going with it no matter how small. But otherwise? Come on! Pick the most-valuable item that will work in the room or, if that’s still not that great a deal, pick the most-valuable item the friends would love to promptly move to another room in the house and enjoy. If all else fails, just pick the item they can quickly sell on Craigslist for $100. I didn't bother with the repeat of last week's "find Frank an assistant" episode and only sporadically watched the first, after I'm a few drinks in, repeat of this episode. One of my several glaring chunks of absence was the intro explaining the homeowners' desires and the theme, but I’ve stopped caring about missing anything because this show rather sucks. Frank’s room was boring as hell, but seeing the "before" footage in the reveal, it was still an improvement – although a completely different purpose, so I assume they wanted to reclaim it as a … Something Room (seriously, what was it supposed to be?) … from the ... I don't know, Toy Room? ... it had been. Carter’s bedroom was also an improvement (hard not to be) but boring, too. I keep saying that more and more as this revival chugs along. I think most participants are thrilled with the experience and content with the results, so good, but as television this show is simultaneously more anemic in terms of design while more overloaded with silly shenanigans than the original, the combination of which appeals en masse to some unknown (to me) demographic. This has definitely become merely something to watch if I happen to be home when it's on. Which, to be fair, is basically all it ever was, as I never recorded it, but I at least used to be a little bummed if I missed an episode's original airing and never happened upon a repeat. Now, whatever.

Yep; the owner was 22 and was five when her family got Alu. While a small dog, she's still near the end of her lifespan (I got a kick out of Dr. Jeff calling her "old-timer"), but getting those nasty teeth out will buy her some time with all other things being equal -- it helps her overall organ health by eliminating that source of bacteria circulating through the entire bloodstream, and by letting her eat more (and seemingly better) food. I thought it was a good PSA for oral health - it's not just about the teeth themselves, it's about the systemic effects of bad teeth. I like that they twice included Dr. Jeff saying it's better to have no teeth than bad teeth.

I love the opening scene in “Leap of Faith” as an illustration of the Provenza/Andy friendship; they’re bickering and goading each other as always, but they’re on the phone to begin with because Provenza called Andy for dating advice as he’s catching feelings he doesn’t know what to do with. That’s cute. It’s a good Andy episode overall; Tony Denison always does a nice job with the trait that Andy truly wants to help people. Yes, one of the main reasons he’s a cop is simply finding it fun to lock “dirtbags” up, he has a simplistic view of the world, and he’s prone to foot-in-mouth disease, but when someone innocent is in trouble, he jumps in with both compassion and skill. I also like the actor playing Bill; I’ve seen him in a few things and liked each performance. He’s particularly adept at bringing out the sympathetic aspects of a character that isn’t all that good, and here he perfectly expresses the near-fatal resignation that comes with Bill’s difficulties, as a sex offender registrant, securing housing and employment and enduring harassment from neighbors. Paula Marshall is even bearable in this one; I normally can’t stand her, and she bugs me here in her usual ways, but she does a great job with the character's realization of why her husband won’t participate in a line-up. My favorite thing is the way Bill’s girlfriend is presented; nine times out of ten, that character would be written as a desperate idiot, denying what’s right in front of her face and endangering her daughter in favor of keeping a man. But on this show, Bill hasn't done anything for her to ignore, and when Tori learns about his criminal history her reaction is shock but not denial, and pure concern for Kayla. I want to smack Chris, the killer stepfather. I freely grant him that life with Annie, and the knowledge it will never get any better, sounds utterly, miserably, unbearable. So leave! He’d rather kill a teenager he’s regarded as his own child and frame an innocent man for murder than, what, endure the scorn of being the second husband/father to say “I can’t handle this” and bounce?! Fuck that guy. The stuff about Rusty’s victim impact statement is just exposition for the upcoming escapades with Stroh in “Special Master,” but it’s necessary and decently spread out, and I love it for Sharon telling Rusty he was never the guy in the park; he was there because of circumstances not because of who he is, and what happened to him was by definition criminal because of his age. It’s so important that she reiterates that whenever it comes up, because even with her love and Dr. Joe’s help, while he knows that, he still only feels it as “mostly true.” Random note I used to fixate on: Provenza tells Dr. Joe that Patrice is “very close to my own age.” At the time this aired, G.W. Bailey was 70 and Dawnn Lewis was 53. Actors’ ages are only a guideline to characters’, but the season five episode with Mary Conrad – who was the same Academy class as Provenza – indicates that’s an accurate age for him, at least within a year or two (not to mention all the old fart jokes about Provenza). And there’s only so much older Lewis can realistically be assumed to be playing, so at the bounds of credulity the age gap is still at least a dozen years. After several viewings, I decided this doesn’t bother me, because to Provenza – who’d previously only dated women in their 30s (40 if he’s drinking) – that IS “very close” to his age. I love “Internal Affairs” for finally explicitly addressing Julio’s inappropriate behavior as a problem that cannot be tolerated, but I have to laugh at his reactions to his mom being evidence of his anger management problem. Ramona Sanchez would drive anyone to yell! Her nattering on and ordering him around at the end while he prays for patience is funny, though. I also giggle at Mrs. Sanchez’s listing of Tino’s many faults being immediately followed by “poor boy” when she finds out he’s dead. It’s a chilling lead-in to commercial break to see Sharon reading Julio his rights. Sharon, like Brenda before her, doesn’t often give the Miranda warning; she usually has one of her detectives do it. But of course she’d be the one to do it here, and it enhances the scene. It’s also a great character touch that Julio automatically gets up as a sign of respect when his captain and lieutenant enter the interview room, despite his disgruntlement at having been read his rights. In that same vein, I find it important that Mike is the one person other than Sharon who isn’t in Electronics when Provenza tells Buzz to turn off the camera, because I don’t think he’d have joined in on that (nor would he have agreed to leave the interview room if he knew what Provenza had done); he’s been just as adamant as Sharon from the beginning that they need to let procedure protect Julio, rather than trying to subvert it. It works with the many years of his character. Fundamentally, it was pointless for Provenza to do, because nothing he says to Julio would hurt his defense if it was recorded – in fact, it would be further evidence they did not give him special treatment – while a gap in the tape could. (Which is the tipping point in why I’m iffy on Amy – a former MP – encouraging it.) My favorite part is the Sharon and Jack stuff, though (of course). I laugh at her whacking him with a pillow and yelling at him to wake up, but it gets so touching from there. The bewildered look on her face when he says he came over to share his big winnings with her, and then that look when he asks, “Well, who would come here sober?” and grumbles about that “awful tone” she’s using on him – she’s simultaneously angry, hurt, and disappointed, and you just know she heard this so many times back in the day, that if she wasn’t always nagging him about his responsibilities, he’d spend more time at home than at a bar/card table. And then her guilt that Rusty is having to deal with this in the home that was supposed to take him away from this shit. She worked so hard to shield her other kids from the effects of Jack’s drinking, and she didn’t know she needed to shield this one, too. It’s of no comfort to her that with his other mom Rusty had to deal with far worse. It’s a great scene between them, with Rusty assuring her he can handle it and Sharon making him walk her through the specifics before she’ll agree (and as a continuation from him bursting into Electronics but then realizing he should not blurt this out in front of everyone; little by little, Rusty is growing up). And I love beyond measure the scene with Jack at the end, when he delivers a sincere apology and Sharon just talks about Ricky and Emily needing him to be sober, tears up a little, and walks away slowly shaking her head. She’s heard this before, too, and him meaning the apology has never stopped him - and, to her renewed distress, may never stop him - from repeating the behavior he needs to apologize for. Rusty was right; Jack had the jackpot, but he just had to go chasing after more. He loses the most, and he knows that (but rarely faces it), but the damage to the others is ongoing. Random note: I am highly entertained by the audio coming from the mic in Mendoza’s shoes and the video coming from a hidden camera in the parking garage meaning the footage they watch of uncle and nephew is out of sync like a badly-dubbed Kung-Fu movie. (I also like that using the shoe mic to get a confession was Andy’s idea – he’s not often the strategizer, so it’s a nice touch that with Julio’s career on the line Andy gets inspired.) VERY random note I just noticed: When Rusty comes home and finds Jack, there is something on the wall above and to the right of the condo’s front door (a few feet above the art that’s always there). I can’t figure out what it is, it has never been there before, and it’s never there again (even in the other condo scene in this same episode). What is it?!

Except that wasn't an issue on Moonlighting (I cannot speak to the other show, as I not only know nothing about what went on behind the scenes, I've never even seen it) -- while Cybill Shepherd and Bruce Willis drove each other nuts in many ways and outright battled, they also freely acknowledged their chemistry (on and off screen) from the beginning. There was no concern by writers/producers that putting the characters together would reveal a lack of chemistry between the actors, (because of all the backstage problems, chemistry was not one of them), and specifically no concern that having the actors play the romantic aspects of the characters' contentious relationship would provoke further off-screen strife; low-key squabbles resulting from different styles of working and reactions to the chaos Glenn Gordon Caron created with all his last-minute jazz were a recurring theme, but as for truly battling, they tended to fight when the characters were fighting, and get along when the characters were getting along.

If it had been a pit mix instead of a lab mix doing the biting, coverage would have been dramatically different. Aw, good for you! I know your building's prohibition against pets has been a disappointment to you, so I'm glad you got to get your animal fix in such a helpful way.

I don't drink anything other than water during the day. It has nothing to do with discipline, though; I don't drink coffee, the tea I sometimes drink is decaffeinated, and it would never occur to me to drink a soda in the morning (I hardly ever drink one, period, but when I did it was as a mixer or with a to-go lunch). I think my only source of caffeine is dark chocolate, and I don't eat that in the morning.

It is impossible to be in a bad mood watching Watson wheel around. Poor Sydney with the ruptured disc, but it's good to see she has improved. Even if she never regains any more mobility, she can have a good life. Alu's misadventure wound up being a great thing, because those teeth needed to be handled! I'm glad she was healthy enough to undergo anesthesia, because that kind of bacteria flowing through the bloodstream can cause real problems. My eyes bugged out of my head a bit at how many seized alligators there were in that neck of the woods! So many stupid people. I wish they'd given an update on Elsa. Right as I was wondering what it would be like to suture alligator skin, Dr. Jeff said it was like suturing the sole of your shoe, so now I know.

As someone who doesn't like coffee (like the smell, but hate the taste), that's the one that always sticks out at me: Seemingly everyone on TV drinks coffee. I understand that a large percentage of Americans start every day with coffee, but just among my close friends and family, there are three of us who don't drink it at all. We're not that rare, certainly not as rare as on TV. As for sit-down breakfast, my mom made me eat that before school when I was a kid. It was awful. When I was finally old enough for her to believe it wasn't simply because I hate mornings and wanted to maximize my sleep time, but also that I am nauseated by food for the first hour, at least, I'm awake, she started sending me off to school with something to eat during our morning "nutrition" break instead.

Exactly - they weren't being dressed that way to go to the mall, they were being dressed that way to get their photo taken, which happened to be in the mall (same with kids on their way to the Sears portrait studio). Many girls were dressed in those fluffy, frilly, velvety frocks (with stockings and Mary Janes) for holiday photos at the time that Family Ties episode aired; the first time the screencap was posted, I think someone said she had a portrait of herself in the same dress.

Back when I watched this show regularly, I complained about that all the time (on the TWoP forum). It assumes such a lack of attention and an "Oh, no, something foreign!" aversion in the audience, and there may be something to that, but I would think the average viewer wouldn't be confused, and might even find it interesting to learn a little something.

I was on the phone during the show, so just checked out the clues on the J! Archive. "Bad" being a TS surprised me; I didn't immediately recognize the lyrics on that one as I did the others in the category, but the content of those lyrics - about doing wrong and being locked up for it - made up for the fact I couldn't initially hear the melody in my head and quickly took me to the title. Once "Smooth Criminal" was ruled out, I'd have thought someone else would get it. Madam Secretary surprised me a bit; I've never seen it, but it has been on a while and the job description in the clue got this non-viewer there quickly, so I incorrectly predicted one of them would get it (either knowing it or figuring it out). Raising Cain a little bit, too. I initially said "waking the dead," but then realized the clue said the term referred to someone, so I briefly tried to think of a "waking [Person]" phrase before "raising Cain" popped into my head with a "duh." The "Trouble With Names" category was kind of a fun concept; you had to pay attention to the end. I thought that, other than the final clue, the "Differs By a Vowel" category would have been better placed in the first round.