Even though it mentions season 2?

It's not overacting if the script calls for exaggerated acting, as, for example, Tennessee Williams scripts do. So I say take that one back, too. :)

You're mostly right, but this sketch shows that they're still capable of what made the first couple of seasons great. They just relegate it to the end of the night. You have to sit through all the painfully obvious topical stuff to get there.

I wish all of SNL was like this. Ditch the inane political and celebrity impressions, and concentrate on weird, original, creative stuff like this. It's really funny and interesting, which most of the show isn't.

It looks like he's holding a fork of spaghetti.

I saw him play in Austin in 2004. His interview a couple of years ago with NPR was great, but left little doubt that he'd probably recorded his last album and given his last tour.

So it would appear. But in that case, the wording of the article is wrong.

I get that the fans were celebrating a win, but the article makes it sound like they won the first game of the series and then lost the rest of them, therefore losing the series. Am I reading it wrong?: "In 1985, the Tigers reached the Japan Championship Series for the first time. Upon winning the first game, fans…

According to Wikipedia, the Tigers won the 1985 Japan Series. So I'm perplexed… https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

That's certainly how I saw it.

Why? I'm not sure optimism is justified at this particular juncture (or, over the long run, at any juncture.)

But resigned and miserable and self-righteous is exactly how I feel. It's definitely the tone I gravitate toward in a commentator, and I think it's missing from the media landscape right now.

Because that isn't what we've been doing, or what you've been doing. Let's always be snarky about celebrities who dare to have opinions, guys!

Well, without any evidence to the contrary, it's just not damning. That's my point.

Because it's a magazine article about him. He's reading what the press are saying about him, and the article just happens to contain a photo of his ex-wife. It's the page he was on when he went on to some other task.

The way this story turned out - with a logical explanation - is a great illustration of the Trump campaign so far. It's been *incredibly* hard to really nail him on something bizarre. He's got a Teflon quality to him, and not just because his supporters actually like his outrageousness; it's just hard to trap the guy.…

That would be a lot more accurate, though I'd still eliminate the word "distressingly."

The words he chose to describe his wife's life can be interpreted that way by the cynical, yes. He also described her as someone with her own interests and ambitions. That isn't a "distressingly clueless" "view on marriage."

The article, though, claims that we should be distressed about his views on marriage, not his views on adoption.

A great episode(s). :)