But was I the only one who thought she didn't actually seem drunk in that scene? A person who normally doesn't drink much  who goes on a tirade after drinking vodka straight from the bottle would be speaking much slower and less coherently than she was.

So after everything that's happened, we're supposed to buy, because of some flashbacks with Elizabeth and the general, that she and Phillip would actually let that CIA guy go because love.

Question, possibly stupid: How does Granny know that Phillip and Irina slept together?

The thing that tripped me up- either in this episode or the previous one, I can't remember- was one of the kids describing someone as "chill." It's bad enough that anyone uses "chill" as an adjective now, but I feel pretty confident no one was saying that in 1981/82.

I'm going to the recording of Greg Proops' podcast tomorrow night. Very excited.

Is it just a reflexive desire to play devil's advocate that leads people to try to negate the premise of articles like this? This article seems a bit simplistic (and obviously anecdotal and polemical), but I think the increased prevalence of irony in our culture is both undeniable and troubling.

Is it just a reflexive desire to play devil's advocate that leads people to try to negate the premise of articles like this? This article seems a bit simplistic (and obviously anecdotal and polemical), but I think the increased prevalence of irony in our culture is both undeniable and troubling.

#1 I began crying like a gay as soon as Ben got on one knee.

#1 I began crying like a gay as soon as Ben got on one knee.

I guess she really does need a chaperone.

I guess she really does need a chaperone.

The phrase "annoying, clamorous ditty" was used in one of the articles (about Irving Berlin) in The Onion's book Our Dumb Century.

The phrase "annoying, clamorous ditty" was used in one of the articles (about Irving Berlin) in The Onion's book Our Dumb Century.

That's an interesting theory, but don't you think it stretches credulity a bit? What are the chances that she would make an inscription so similar to what Gale wrote in his journal?

That's an interesting theory, but don't you think it stretches credulity a bit? What are the chances that she would make an inscription so similar to what Gale wrote in his journal?

Well, shit. I tried to find that part but couldn't… Huh.

Well, shit. I tried to find that part but couldn't… Huh.

Anyway, my overall point is: I think the payoff of Hank finding the book would have been much greater if we had been shown in season three that Gale gave Walt this gift, but that Walt never bothered to open it, perhaps because he had already decided to have Gale killed. That would also explain Walt keeping the book as…

Anyway, my overall point is: I think the payoff of Hank finding the book would have been much greater if we had been shown in season three that Gale gave Walt this gift, but that Walt never bothered to open it, perhaps because he had already decided to have Gale killed. That would also explain Walt keeping the book as…

But within one day of meeting Walt?