Totally fine with recognizing historical context once people stop trying to actually bring the first century to the twenty-first.

I thought the bones of the old show were still there when they did the Netflix season, but it was tanked by the weird shooting schedule. It would’ve been a much different show if they’d been able to get the entire cast in one place for more than just that one scene.

FWIW, he’s been up in my neck of the woods of exurban Atlanta for the past month, filming some “gritty” Netflix show called Ozark about Missouri methheads or something. So there’s that.

G.O.B.s of money.

Can we start a Change.org petition for Jason Bateman to quit making crappy “comedy” films and go back to playing Michael Bluth full-time?

A remake of my favorite video game came out literally one week before the election. If anyone needs me, I’ll be in a stark frozen landscape in a world lit by fire.

The funny thing, I figured Star Wars, with a structure that borrowed heavily from 1930s Hollywood film, it’s lack of moral ambiguity, and its rejection of observed reality in favour of feelings would be ideal conservative entertainment. You’d certainly think there was enough casual racism in The Phantom Menace to keep…

I mean, I’ve had issues going to my #2 comfort show, Parks and Rec, because it’s about government. Every time she mentions Hillary, I want to cry.

In September, 32 girls in Chicago went on a religious retreat together. By November, their text message chain was riddled with racial slurs that got five of them suspended or expelled from their high school

Along that logic, and genuinely asking without trying to attack you, how does then telling women they can’t wear burqas amount to anything different? It’s still one group forcing women to do something?

I really really really do not like burqas. But I don’t think we get anywhere by banning them.

Mad Max- It shows us that even after an apocalypse there will be cool cars, leather jackets and I won’t have to go to work

Technically, Star Wars isn’t about the future, since it takes place a long, long time ago.

I’m not trying to argue anything about DWB specifically, but what exactly is wrong with overhead in a charity? Overhead is what you use to expand your charity’s reach and get more dollars—with which you can do more good.

Maybe a rarer, less-funded cancer? Pancreatic cancer is really nasty.

If you donate for cancer research, perhaps look into the types of cancer with the lowest survival rate. Not because they’re necessarily worse than other types of cancer, but there is a bit of a survivor bias with cancer research money, where cancers with higher survivor rates have more survivors raising funds directed…

Yes. Many charities who look great on paper for their low overhead do so by underpaying and overworking their employees and failing to provide them with the resources they need to actually be effective in carrying out their mission.

People have been contributing to Doctors Without Borders for YEARS and last I checked there’s still no evidence they’ve ever given even one doctor a border. It’s clearly not very effective.

if you were a stockholder you would have been pissed if they didn’t cut the huge expensive gamble of making AAA videogames for the super low investment with super high returns VLT/pachinko machine industry. Pleasing the stakeholders over the consumers is exactly why they did what they did.

I saw ads for the plays when in London last month, and promised my daughter we’d check it out in March when we go over.