Yes, I can start from there.  That's when the show actually committed to them as a couple, something they had refused to do before; indeed, at the end of season 2, it looked to most people like they were planning to drop the idea altogether.  The writers were continually and publicly ambivalent about them as an actual…

Yes, I can start from there.  That's when the show actually committed to them as a couple, something they had refused to do before; indeed, at the end of season 2, it looked to most people like they were planning to drop the idea altogether.  The writers were continually and publicly ambivalent about them as an actual…

Though strictly speaking, they'd wouldn't have had to do that if they'd waited a few months, when all the new Republican representatives elected in 1864 were sworn in.

Though strictly speaking, they'd wouldn't have had to do that if they'd waited a few months, when all the new Republican representatives elected in 1864 were sworn in.

Republicans will like it because the heroes are Republicans.  Democrats will like it because the heroes are aggressive proponents of the federal government who sweep aside cries of "states' rights [to oppress]" to enforce civil rights for minorities, i.e., people who would be Democrats now.

Republicans will like it because the heroes are Republicans.  Democrats will like it because the heroes are aggressive proponents of the federal government who sweep aside cries of "states' rights [to oppress]" to enforce civil rights for minorities, i.e., people who would be Democrats now.

I see that my post's phrasing was confusing; it should be "the issue isn't that Brittany shouldn't date boys".  I didn't mean to suggest she was a lesbian, as she clearly isn't.

I see that my post's phrasing was confusing; it should be "the issue isn't that Brittany shouldn't date boys".  I didn't mean to suggest she was a lesbian, as she clearly isn't.

She isn't.  I see that my post's phrasing was confusing; it should be "the issue isn't that Brittany shouldn't date boys".

She isn't.  I see that my post's phrasing was confusing; it should be "the issue isn't that Brittany shouldn't date boys".

Santana's relationship was not a "huge focus" of previous seasons.  After formally becoming a couple in episode 3.4, they didn't have another conversation until 3.12 (having last traded any lines of dialogue at all since 3.6), then again until 3.16.  They were the only couple not to speak to each other at prom.  And…

Santana's relationship was not a "huge focus" of previous seasons.  After formally becoming a couple in episode 3.4, they didn't have another conversation until 3.12 (having last traded any lines of dialogue at all since 3.6), then again until 3.16.  They were the only couple not to speak to each other at prom.  And…

The show actually managed to top I Kissed A Girl for outright misogyny last night, remarkably.  Slow clap to them for coopting the gay marriage equality movement's "love is love" motto to explain why angry lesbians (and all of Brittany and Santana's fans are lesbians, something Ryan Murphy has implied over and over)…

The show actually managed to top I Kissed A Girl for outright misogyny last night, remarkably.  Slow clap to them for coopting the gay marriage equality movement's "love is love" motto to explain why angry lesbians (and all of Brittany and Santana's fans are lesbians, something Ryan Murphy has implied over and over)…

You never know.

You never know.

My family is also planning to see Les Miserables on Christmas Day.

My family is also planning to see Les Miserables on Christmas Day.

Strathairn was excellent as Seward, but I think he's destined to be overshadowed by Jones.  His part was a lot more low-key, and didn't have the same kind of "big" scenes.

Strathairn was excellent as Seward, but I think he's destined to be overshadowed by Jones.  His part was a lot more low-key, and didn't have the same kind of "big" scenes.