Kromm

I think that disparity in expectations is a fair point, but applying it retroactively isn't necessarily so. Her parents would be much more rightfully criticized, even though she'd technically been an adult for a year. It's an excuse that's now (rightfully) disappeared. It might irk kids of the current generation, but their access to greater information invokes greater responsibilities. It probably especially hurts, because Boomers now, to the point of it becoming a stereotype, often seem to revel in disinformation and shallow understanding of things. I'd argue the older people have lost their excuses too, but mainly for the things they say and do NOW. The past isn't gone and dead, though. I just think the burden of proof for indicting people morally is a little higher when applied retroactively . Not absent. Just higher. That's why how she responds now is important. To help us figure out if it's the moderate crime of ignorance, or the greater crime of participating in something she knew was wrong.

His naval career was even worse, if you do some digging.

I don't disagree, but the better question is if that was an equally fair expectation in 1999. A time that arguably pretended to be socially enlightened, but often wasn't. The notion of gay marriage seemed impossible. The disparity in reprentation in media was only discussed in sociology journals and fringe publications. The notion of dismantling racist statues was barely a blip. Bill Cosby and Woody Allen were still heroes. It was a long time ago. I agree with you that the tools existed, even in those days, to find things out. But did the motive to do so exist? And I don't mean in any ultimate moral sense, I mean in a practical everyday sense that makes us think anyone else was doing it. It may suck that's the case if not, but this takes a realistic look at where people's minds and values were at in that time. Wishing it were better then means making sure it IS better now. That's not true for all racist acts, but when we are looking at (possible) total blind ignorance, I think it does. That's why we need to hear from her to see if that's actually the case (and see if we believe her).

I agree waiting too long is a danger to her image, but as I said previously, she's got a really complex tightrope to walk here between a genuine sounding apology, while not sounding either too defensive or too blasé. I'm not surprised it's taking this long. Heck, since I believe she publicly professes liberal political views, she might even be worried about how right wing media outlets are already using her/this situation to loft cancel culture accusations into the ether (because yes, if we're being honest, a lot of barbs are being thrown at her from the left). A careless response might seem to ally her with those right wing outlets.

Sure, it shouldn't be her abasing herself unduly for something that's presumably not really her fault, but she's got to be VERY careful about what she says. She's got to thread a tricky needle of sounding genuinely regretful, without either going over the top, or conversely sounding uncaring. It's got to acknowledge it's ugly, deny she knew it was, but somehow not sound like just an excuse.

The consensus I've seen is that it's not likely to do anything measurable to your cognition, but unlike a lot of snake oil, it's harmless. It's vitamins. I won't say she gets a full pass on it, but as questionable endorsements go, it's on the minor side. If she does the job here well, I won't care about her hawking vitamins. Unlike Dr. Oz, who was pushing weight loss pills, which are actually dangerous.

My point is that there was a period, I don't know for how long, where if you tried the Mega Wall, you couldn't go back to the other one (and so risked your finish). Mostly only people so fast they'd get through even without a buzzer did it during that period. Heck, it may have only been one season. I just remember it sharply, because it was so lame.

I know it probably happened a while ago and it blew by me, but when did they change the rule that once you picked the Mega Wall that you had to stay with it? It was clear last night they no longer had to stick with it.

You know that show where walls with weird shaped cutouts move and people have to get through them? That dumb show was solid gold genius compared to this.

I actually just verified, it's all available for free on Tubi as well. The main difference is that the season numbering seems to be different. Peacock presents all of the later TV movies as Season 10, and Tubi has them divided up to create a total of 16 seasons. Peacock also has "Prescription: Murder" totally separate from the series (if you search "Columbo" it comes up as a 2nd result). You may not have seen it if you just clicked on the series icon. Tubi has "Prescription: Murder" as Episode 1 in their sequence. Tubi also has the second pilot, "Ransom For A Dead Man", as Episode 2. Peacock doesn't have "Ransom For A Dead Man" at all, either as a separate entry, or as part of the series. Edit - Correction. Peacock DOES have "Ransom For A Dead Man" but it does not come up if you search using "Columbo". It ONLY comes up if you explicitly search "Ransom For A Dead Man". Peacock has a "29 days left" note on the series, implying it's disappearing off Peacock at the end of June.

She should, but I think she's going to face a lot of hysteria and accusations that don't take into account that as deeply racist as the origins of this thing are, that by 1999 those origins had been glossed over and generally forgotten about for so long that most of the participants apparently had no idea about them. At worst, in most cases, it was reduced to rich people (yes, always white) showing off their influence by buying their kid the equivalent of a beauty pageant win. Again, she does need to say something, but for her sake I hope she's very careful with whatever statement she makes, because I'm sure she's in a very precarious position based mostly on something that I bet was her father's doing. Then again, Missouri has a ton of barely under the surface racism. And always has. So I could be wrong.

Seems to be based on a similar UK show. Honestly, a few minutes in to Episode 1, I'm bored to tears. I hope they didn't pay too much money to license this idea.

Matt Murdoch makes a certain amount of sense, since he's a lawyer. It wouldn't even have to include Daredevil.

Did you enjoy Murder By The Book, directed by a little known director named Steven Spielberg (written by the equally obscure Steven Bochco)?

Seems like a really tough course this time. The 4th and 5th obstacles decimated people. Even the 2nd obstacle was tougher than usual for that position. Edit - Heck, even the balance obstacle, the 3rd, is brutal, because aside from how tough those always are, you can waste a ton of time just deciding between the two choices they gave. Edit 2 - Speaking of choices, I still hate the stupid Mega Wall thing.

Putting aside any dumb things she may have said or done outside the show, this level is what I expected of her. I mean her competition so far has been former contestants, sports stars, newsreaders (good at reading copy, but not necessarily as good as an actor), quack celebrity doctors (good at lying, I guess), etc. I mean, she really does have a good skillset for this.

Little known fact: Columbo actually originated in 1960, as a single episode of an Anthology mystery TV show ("The Chevy Mystery Show"). It didn't star Peter Falk, and I think all but photographs of it are lost to time. That script (originally called "Enough Rope") was adapted into a stage play called Prescription: Murder, in 1962. Years later, in 1968, Peter Falk was cast and that SAME plot was used in a TV movie called Prescription: Murder. That's the official start of what's considered official show continuity, even if it existed earlier in other forms. It's memorable though because as I mentioned elsewhere, he's a little different. He's less faux-bumbling, more aggressive and carries his raincoat around instead of constantly wearing it.

I get not liking Schumer, but I will add that I don't see bad motives in what she said. I think (similar to an equally bad joke she made about Emma Stone), she just made a lame, bad, misfire of a joke. I think a year of not working in front of an actual audience has likely corroded any real sense of what's actually funny off of her. Not that she hasn't always had a certain percentage of misfires, but the two equally bad jokes in a row show an even further reduced sense. She doesn't really think it. Like Emma Stone it was a joke of opportunity based on a movie release and a lame attempt to be topical. Edit - I know there's the wrong attribution on the second quote. The board did that, and it doesn't let you adjust it afterward. Once you mistakenly highlight text from the wrong place, you're stuck with how the board labels it.

The food delivery services are ripoffs. I think the market moves that several chains are making (besides Arthur Treacher's, Wendy's is doing a huge expansion of JUST ghost kitchens, and Mr. Beast Burger is ALL ghost kitchens) is going to backfire on these chains down the line. The delivery service traffic will remain higher than pre-Pandemic, but only barely. It won't be enough. A lot of these locations will be hurting for business soon enough.

For me, it's context, and the amount of care and evidence people provide. I'm not a big fan of the blanket "I just don't like" approach (although I'll admit I'm hardly immune from it and slip occasionally). Angelina is a tough sell as simply a victim of slanderous talk. She's got a lot of influence, and weilds it quite regularly. Her career control is admirable, but I can certainly see the Joan Crawford-like comparisons (or at least speculation about her being a control freak or manipulative). I mean a certain amount of her behavior is out in the open.

I don't get that. It may be shitty that her priority is going to a casino, but how's it hypocritical? She's been clear that stuff like this is her priority for months. She's hypocritical on tons of things, but not this. It's shallow and stupid, but consistent with her other statements.

Haha. Beat by a Facebook show. Pathetic. And hilarious.

Snubbed implies they deserve it. Frankly, of those shows only The View has EVER deserved nominations... and not recently.

Geez, just as a refresher I just looked at O'Connor's Wikipedia. I definitely remembered the Pope photo thing, and the period after she became Muslim and said that "all non-Muslims are disgusting", but there's other bits of lunacy I'd forgotten or never knew about. For example, this full fledged war she apparently had with Madonna. I knew Madonna had mocked the Pope photo tearing by tearing up a photo of Joey Buttafuoco, but apparently the two traded viscous barbs for years. Then there was some weird public letter she wrote to Miley Cyrus about being "too sexual". And apparently she's made all kinds of claims about Prince, detailed here. She's promoting the book mentioned in that linked article, so I imagine that's the purpose of the visit. I'm thinking it's likely he'll come up during the interview. The details DO vary somewhat from a 2014 interview, where she instead just suggested they got in a fistfight (which the new version of the story has replaced with some bizarre bit about Prince trying to engage her in a pillow fight, but she ran because his pillow had some hard object in it). Egad. Even typing that was weird.

I don't like BTS. I'm never going to like BTS. And I'm not dissing Korean culture as a whole. Just BTS. Edit - I'm counting this as a TV opinion, because they're on American TV constantly now. Hell, even in McDonald's commercials.