Maybe I'm drunk (I am drunk), but that's giving you some credit, because that is a block of text that amounts to nonsense.

To your point, I really got a lot out of the idea that Terry decided to be a cop because he believed cops to be superheroes, and his experience in this episode really didn't necessarily shatter that belief, it inspired him to try to live up to the ideal.

Yeah, but try explaining why someone automatically doesn't like you because of your skin colour or gender to a child who's done nothing wrong.

Great point, and that sort of reinforces what I'm getting at — it would be easy for the characters to immediately identify, the fact that they have personalities/relationships that might prevent that speaks volumes about how much the writers and actors care about the characters as human beings versus easy stereotypes.

Part of me kind of likes that, prior to this episode, Holt and Jeffords haven't really addressed the fact they're both black cops. I say that insofar as I appreciate that they respect each other as peers and, outside of this incident, let that respect speak for itself.

Are you referring to the review or another commenter? I don't really understand why Ferguson gave the episode a B (it's certainly not explained in the review). That said, Brooklyn has never really been a show that takes real-life issues head-on, so I guess I understand the position that the show is primarily a silly…

Performances are also submitted separately…here's hoping Crews and Braugher get some love

I appreciated the way that Jake and Amy have such a difficult time explaining race and gender to Cagney and Lacey. Those are topics that rational adults have a hard time discussing (welcome to the AV Club) in the first place — I liked that the show tried to offer the perspective of a person who doesn't understand why…

Careful! Spoilers for a movie that's almost 60 years old and has been either ripped off or paid homage to since then!

Welcome to the AV Club.

Perfectly rational! It's basically a direct parallel to all the other has-been TV stars who have ended up being President!

Again, please explain. You're going to have to do some pretty impressive logical gymnastics to convince me it's "almost definitively true" that the writer's strike had anything to do with an anthropomorphized vegetable becoming President. (Before you tell me you don't care if I think it's true, how about you provide…

That's a bit of a stretch.

Please explain.

They agree with the sentiment, they just don't do anything about it. They'll argue that they're helping people save their children by "creating jobs" or whatever, but they don't necessarily understand how misguided that thought process is. Every villain believes they're the hero…

I think that's probably what's going to matter in the plot, but it REALLY bothered me when she basically forced Jimmy to apologize to Chuck. There is NO WAY an actual arbitrator (which implies lawyer, in this case) would ever do that.

What about this episode results in an "A-" rating? There is nothing in the review to suggest anything besides the "A" it deserves.

To expand on what @evanwaters has already said, a big issue with this potential strike is the fact that writers are generally paid on a per-episode basis. Now that peak TV tends to be comprised of shows that intentionally last 8-13 episodes (versus 22-24, as is used to be), and have indeterminate commitments from…

It kinda fits with Letterman's whole approach — as in "screw you guys, we're going to do what we want" — but I'd have to imagine that his writers have had a difficult time finding work since then. I can't find anything to prove myself wrong, so if anyone has some, please let me know!

It basically is, yes. Other writers may be credited for specific episodes, but they're following a plan laid out by Hawley. The same can be said for Mad Men, True Detective, etc.