actually, i don't think his attacking celeste would make sense if he *didn't* realize who jane was. up to that point, he wouldn't have abused her in public and would have played it off like a typical marriage spat, but once he realizes that everyone around him knows he's a sexual predator, he doesn't bother to…

and some people don't see the whole point of sex when all they want is the orgasm.

his character is already far more interesting than the standard abuser character we've seen before; they showed his vulnerability and insecurity (while most shows would have simply made him a one-dimensional monster). i don't think it's particularly interesting to romanticize his abuse by making it all about his…

i think renata had already redeemed herself by being so open to jane after being attacked by her, something her husband wasn't willing to let go of. she had nothing professionally or socially to gain from that relationship, so her motives seemed more sincere than not.

i liked the added touch that Celeste and Jane were both dressed as the same version of Audrey Hepburn

that's how i read it…he was watching them all react to Jane and it appeared that he realized why and that's why he attacked

yeah, it's everywhere, and it's really tired. the whole conversational thing is just an excuse for padded content with no editing.

maybe i missed something…ed's elvis is characterized here as 'vampire elvis', but i thought he was dressed as just elvis and madeline changed that to vampire in her retelling of it (something she has done throughout the series, changing details of what actually happened)…

the grandaddy is really damn good. it's a shame it got buried here in the review remainders pile.

if she had the bombshell everybody was looking for, she wouldn't be teasing it to show later; they would be breaking in for a special report. she apparently didn't anticipate that people were this contextually illiterate.

yeah, but without that surgery, you'd be trying to be the only one here noticing how she looks old and is letting herself go.

see you here in may!

having remini on provided such a great contrast. if her message were more political, she would be dismissed as 'merely' an entertainer, but there was more substance, meaning, and expertise in any single response she gave than in the entirely of milo's act.

you attribute this ostensibly widespread behavior to 'the left', but the only evidence you can('t seem to) find is 'buried' in message boards so obscure that links to them do not exist?

ok honey, keep telling yourself that. but you don't have to post it here every time you tell yourself that.

but his speech was not suppressed. he didn't lose his ability to say anything he wants to in any number of venues, official and unofficial, which he has made full use of. he merely lost his access to speak at the venue of his choice in exchange for money and/or publicity; if that is free speech denied, then it is…

under hitler's germany, milo would have been turning in gay people and jews for the continued privilege of partying with and blowing nazis.

i think she would have lost her value to them if every time she was in the spotlight she didn't get some kind of reaction from the left to something crazy she says; she otherwise had nothing substantive to say on any topic. trump's supporters' reaction to this week's press conference was the same—despite the same…

i tend to like maher, but he has his blind spots. he'll criticize republicans for being anti-science, but then he'll have a top scientist on and call them wrong if they don't agree with him on one of his pet obsessions.

wait so having a woman play bannon (a woman bullied by trump for years) is 'obvious' but having a male actor playing a man would be edgy.