Yeah, I think the show pretty well already dealt with that butterfly effect. Bringing in the guy who had one scene three seasons ago would have probably only confused the issue.

Also, I would say that "a gratuitous indulgence in often inaccurate and preposterous methods, routines and procedures" VERY accurately describes some of those classic shows, even ones I quite enjoy.

While many procedurals are definitely bullshit, I don't think that's the sin qua non of the genre; rather, it's the case-of-the-week format. The point is simply to tell a reasonably entertaining yarn in an hour, with all the continuing elements returned to the starting position at the end of that hour. As such, the…

I would argue that a lot of those were procedurals, though. There was very little of the office politics or procedural nerdery that really marks the genre in modern terms.

I dunno, it's pretty much the one advantage Ford had over Reagan.

When you note the talent disparity between Reagan and Ford as politicians (hell, as Presidents, too, though I think both ultimately sucked), any win looks pretty amazing. And you have to chalk that one up almost exclusively to incumbency.

And even when you did, it was usually the early, unchallenging Beatles. Love Love Me Do and all that.

The second case in particular is weird- John Wells insisted that they *didn't* do a time jump, that that's exactly where the show should be given where it started. That's kinda nonsense, but it doesn't really get in the way of anything, either.

That's my opinion. RDM has said he just thinks it's amusing that some songs are like species memories, and I guess that might be, but it felt really out of place.

That's okay.

That was so terrible, I'm completely turning around on the "malleability of language" thing. I'm not even going to complain about "irregardless" anymore.

I'm not sure I disagree with you, but y'know, Iannucci wasn't afraid of major format changes before. But The Thick of It was a more flexible premise, starting right with the title.

I would watch the shit out of a Ben-centered spin off, even though I have no fucking clue how you'd make a show work with such specific non-energy at the center.

Yeah, but some of those movies- not Hostel necessarily, but it walked right up to the line once or twice- have a certain giddiness to depicting the torture that seems to elide the "we're not meant to like it" canard.

I never thought that was that strong of an argument; "I didn't stand up for my beliefs in the way you're standing up for yours, so you shouldn't do it," really doesn't logically follow. Plus, I can't remember the specifics of ADD and SK's acts, but there's a distinct "punching up vs. punching down" problem there.

I think I'd emphasize the "cautiously" part of that, but I don't disagree; frankly, if Republican leaders were just a little bit as sell-out-y as the Tea Party claims, we probably would have had a new assault weapons ban/magazine limits after Sandy Hook (I'll pass on how effective those would be, just counting the…

Okay, I guess that's fair, but between government saber-rattling and Soviet desperation (that they were in decline doesn't really preclude stupid attacks), we weren't exactly far away from a nuclear war, either. Some of the historians I've read said it's basically a foot race between Able Archer 83 and the Cuban…

Gotcha. At any rate, your point about who serves that constituency is sound.

I think a lot of those reputations for leadership have been pretty hurt in the last two years (Rubio and Jindal both seem to be past their sell-by date, and Sandoval is too liberal to move up in his party), but yeah, that's more accurate.

"Ironically, Democrats have far fewer prominent minority party members"