But it was also reported in the Washington Post that the "big staff shakeup" that will totally solve all the administration's problems because they certainly don't originate with the President might also involve "overhauling communications with the public, with the possibility of campaign-style rallies so Trump can…

Ironically, Observer.com is Jared Kushner's former newspaper. Also, just a note to be cautious about putting too much stock in articles by John Schindler: https://www.vox.com/world/2…

Reading the description here, I imagined the wrong type of mask (those white full-face ones, probably because of the Renaissance reference), and "group" made me think of a fictional band (like, maybe an SNL sketch?), and that led me nowhere close. I do tend to think I would have gotten it if I'd seen the picture.

I'm not sure I agree with you, then. When you say it's "extremely unscientific", I think that's a fair point, but it also implies that if their method was more rigorous, it might be appropriate, which is inconsistent with what I understand the Goldwater rule to say.

Seriously?

I hope everyone who interviews Trump from now on keeps peppering their questions with references to Laudato Si, preferably in Latin, as if they assume he's entirely familiar with the text.

The "and allies" part changes the discussion considerably. Not that it relieves the US of all responsibility, but it's not obvious that it makes moral sense to hold the country responsible for anything an ally does, either.

Are you objecting to the violation of the Goldwater rule, or to the quality of the analysis?

I'm partial to "pudenda".

There's a quote from a Neil Gaiman story ("The Goldfish Pool and Other Stories") that talks about Charles Manson and how such an obvious madman managed to attract a cult, hang around with the Beach Boys, and even inspire protest demonstrations against his trial:

All the behind-the-scenes reports I've seen about the Clintons claim that despite Bill's chronic unfaithfulness, they do have a close personal bond.

If you want to anger up the blood some more, here's the episode I was talking about: http://www.soundopinions.or… (skip to about 11:25 for the quotes I remembered)

I remember when Sound Opinions reviewed that record, they dissed that as a failed attempt to be cool, that she couldn't even pick the "right" Bond actor to reference. It was all part of a deeply stupid argument that Winehouse didn't have the credibility to do the kind of music she was doing, because she didn't have…

Even for a "joke", you manage to get an impressive number of things wrong about Saudi Arabia in just a few short sentences.

So, Sully obviously (though as he says in that movie, it wasn't a crash, it was a forced landing), but what are the two others? Cast Away? (I had assumed that was a shipwreck.) And… ?

I thought he was, for whatever reason, doing an Obama.

I thought it was hilarious that after the "too many rappers" sketch, the first musical number was just as overstuffed (did the drag queens sing? I muted it after the first few seconds), and even managed to up the ante by featuring a child of the corn. It was as if Perry had seen the sketch and thought "let's do that!"

I read an article that semi-seriously cited 2016 as evidence that not only is the simulation hypothesis true, but that we've recently reached a point where the simulators are just messing with the model to test out longshot scenarios. I remember they mentioned that sports thing where one team made a big comeback.

You crack me up, little buddy.

Nice! Not (by far) my favorite sitcom of this season, but there's some tough competition in the category, and Trial & Error was definitely funny enough that I'm glad to have it back.