J.L. my fear is that even if the US put serious weight behind pressuring Israel the domestic Israeli situation is as you aptly observes, approaching a point of no return. The Israeli peace movements and to a lesser degree the Israeli settlement divestment movements were respectively killed stone dead and severely damaged by the Palestinians behavior after the Gazan withdrawal. This isn't to say the Israeli's have or are behaving like angels but if the Gazan withdrawal had gone down with relatively no bad fallout then Kadima would have been able to replicate the manuver in the West Bank starting with the more marginal and far flung settlements and then gaining momentum to address the big blocs. In terms of real domestic politics though Israels posiion on the settlements is stuck now. A broad majority vaguely wish they weren't entangled with them. A smaller majority of them want to be rid of the settlements but also want to get things in return for removing them (recognition, pretty words from the Palestinians, concrete assurances, etc etc). Then there's a passionate minority that very violently and intensly wishes to retain them. In this case the passionate minority outweighs the inclinations of the depressed majority.
I'm with Mike here too, there's an enormous amount of reliable emotional and financial stability that comes from being in love with another person and managing your finances as if you were one entity. Communal living is useful but what you end up having in many cases is a fundamentally unstable grouping with either equitable splits with horrible division costs or horribly inequitable divisions when the group gets sick of each other.
I fear I disagree. At it's most basic form a marriage says "if something is wrong with me, or if I'm not around, He/She can act with all the authority that I would have regarding my person or my assets or my dependants." This is fundamentally impossible if you change he/she to they because at that point there needs to be some contingency for if they can't/won't agree.
While any number of organization function with more than two decision makers I'd submit that an enormous amount of the drama, tension and inefficiencies that exist in those organizations (and that even average marriages avoid) is due to the complexity that having more than two people in the organization adds.
I'm with Mike on the job thing. It's that thing you do to sustain the life you want to live.
Now I personally know some people who find passion and enjoyment in their job (and get paid for it, my goodness!) but I have never found a professional calling that speaks to me in that manner. For a lot of people finding a job you just don't mind is often the best they can hope for (in the absence of discovering some unexploited/unexplored area of talent).
Mike, I suspect that the evidence is already largely in on it in the negative as to benefits of plural marriage versus binary marriage. The old saw goes two's company, three's a crowd and I suspect there's significant salience in this cliché to the question. When there're two of you it's a team, just you and the other. As soon as there's three you now are in a group and suddenly you're part of a social group large enough for there to be room for teams to form. You inevitably have squabbles in any relationship but in 3+ groups there’s suddenly room for hierarchies of dominance and relative importance and groupings within the group. The team mentality is in danger of vanishing into an endless web of intrigues and social power struggles. As a practical matter binary relationships have a fundamental ease and simplicity of division that other numbers of people lack. Again there’s a question of relative authority, relative share etc… if one partner is sick then his/her other partner calls the shots on care. But in a group system who calls the shots? What if the two (or more) healthy partners disagree? The historical record on binary versus group marriages also generally rules in favor of binary. Historically group marriages have come in the form of powerful men accumulating harems to the detriment of both other all women and lower powered men in the society. Same sex marriage, contrastingly, has little to no historical precedent. That’s why I’m of the opinion that same sex marriage seems to be approaching promisingly from ahead while plural marriages generally are receding in the rear view mirror.
Yeah it's a pickle. The people who live in the settlements do it for a broad variety of reasons but one major one is that there is a massive edifice of government subsidy and support built into Israel to incent them to live there and make it easier for them to do so.
My own two cents: a boycott is both too clumsy a strategy and too ineffectual. Best case scenario; it'd land on some settlement produced goods and in response the current settlement friendly Israeli administration would simply increase the government gravy flowing to the settlements to compensate. Worse case scenario; it'd spin out of control turning into a Israeli wide boycott driving a wedge between the US and Israel and doing genuine economic harm to Israel while strengthening their right wingers and increasing the sense that Israel in general is under attack from the left. That would further bury the peace movement within Israel and further delay the time when the Israeli polity is going to have to ask itself what exactly it proposes to do with the Palestinian territories and peoples they are currently occupying.
BlaiseP I agree that the woulda-coulda should end. We are left now with what Bush (the very minor) handed off to us and what Obama has produced through a few years of pretty much rubber stamping the military's requests regarding Afghanistan. The big question is the future; what is to be done with the mess in our collective hands now. I'm hesitant to challenge your opinions on the subject since you've forgotten more than I have ever learned about the region no doubt; instead I've some questions.
-Agreed the Afghans haven't had a decent government in generations. That given, they now are somewhat stuck with the one we set up when we first arrived (Karzai et all). It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that Karzai et all would really prefer that the status quos continue which is to say we continue shoveling utter mountains of our resources into this particular region so they can embezzle it right back out again. Is this the best bang we could expect to get for our invested buck in terms of humanitarian outcomes? Could the same money not produce larger reductions in human immiseration in other regions that do not have a history of making fools out of foreign powers meddling in the area?
-Again Karzai et all seem to like the way things are right now. You suggested structural reforms, decentralization etc… would it not be true that Karzai and his crew would fight this tooth and nail? Having erected this new Afghanistan sort of government should we now topple it? Can we? Do you consider it elected? If we somehow knocked it over would the Afghans elect something better in its place? Or do you think Karzai et all could be induced to simply go along with the reforms you think are best?
-The proposals you have seem very long term, generation long in fact. It is harsh of me to ask however I have only a limited understanding of the region; this will be massively draining: do we owe the Afghans this? I know we took a side in a sort of proxy war there after the Soviets invaded and I gather the great powers had been poking about in the area for a good while prior to that. I’m asking mainly for clarity for my own mind: would this be us paying off a moral obligation to the peoples of Afghanistan or would this be mostly humanitarian charity (and if the latter see my first question again)?
-Do you think that Pakistan will actually buy into any solution you think is feasible? Should we partition the country? I’ve read that the Pashtun regions would be much better off as part of Pakistan and the non-Pashtun areas would probably be a lot happier as their own state rid of those fanatic Pashtuns? Regardless, Pakistan views Afghanistan as their personal sand box yes? They profit from the current status quos as much if not more than Karzai et all (Karzai at least runs the risk of getting his ass blown up); are we capable of inducing the Pakistanis to detach from the gravy train they’re currently enjoying from us?
Thanks in advance for your opinions and I think I avoided any "buts".
On further viewing a lot of these shots could be of Nova Scotian landscapes; well except they're not all hilly, swarming with bugs and drowned in fog and rain.
Not my experience though since I escaped directly from the howling wilderness of Nova Scotia to the Urban busom of Minneapolis perhaps I lack the experience to appreciate a nicer city. I live downtown and walk almost everywhere (only just got a car year 7 of my eight years of living here) so I can't speak to the traffic (though to a rural Canadian all American drivers are insane). But I love Minneapolis. St Paul on the other hand is the eigth layer of hell. They don't worship Satan in St Paul, he worships them.
Oh thank you kindly Patrick. If this one is off grid with a backup power system (fuelled or no) and has fail lock cells then it'd be damn near ideal as a zombie stronghold.
Minnesota over all isn't certainly. The urban heat shield tends to deflect them from the Twin cities themselves. I'm too close in to the downtown core to fret much over tornadoes. I do not want another roaring hot summer. I'll take the summer of 2011 thank you very much. So wonderful.
Seeds? Not too much challenge I'd think. Hershel is a farmer (or is he only a cattle man?) so he'd know what they need and where to scavenge it. Seeds are pretty compact stuff, fill a car with it and you're pretty much set yes? How well would prison fences stand up to zombie mobs though?
I think water and septic would become a problem too; if the facility was on city utilities then with the plants down there'd be no water running in and no sewage running out. In theory maybe they could pump water out of the water main? I'm not certain... they could rig some means of collecting it from a local source but then there's their sewage. If they don't dispose of it right they'd poison their own water. Cholera and diahrea won't kill you outright like a zombie bite will but I've heard that essentially crapping yourself to death is not a good way to go.
Yeah the scavenging should be pretty good for a while. But eventually things are gonna run out and go bad. Even non perishable items will suffer and spoil under freeze thaw cycles and when attacked by rodents and other critters. That's always what's frightened me about the zombie apocalypse: you can theoretically build yourself a castle and be impervious to the horde but sooner or later you have to reclaim the fields or else you die. But how do you reclaim the fields without whiping out every zombie on the continent?
Great minds.. the only real practical problem then would be a question of water and septic disposal... what do you think; Georgian prison somewhat rural though not immensly far from Atlanta. Think they have their own wells or would they be on a municipal water supply? Same question for septic.
True that, though I have a feeling that when the power cuts out the cells unlock? Anyone know off the top of their heads?
Oh... interesting secondary thought... if the cell doors work that way then prisons probably have a backup power supply. It may be out of diesel but if that's true then they could have electricity in the prison as soon as they scavenge some fuel.
The screen writers aren't covering themselves in glory BlaiseP, agreed, but I'd urge charity. Walking Dead's one of the better television or even movie submissions in the genre (a low bar I know) so I'd like to see it do well.
Fish, in fairness to the others in the group, they did see Andrea go down under a walker. It was dark and it would have been difficult to realize that the walker was dead when it landed on her so assuming she was lost was an eminantly definsible conclusion to draw.
As to our "Ninja" I'm looking forward to seeing how her actress portrays her and also how the relationships go since the character she played off in the comic books has been left out of the show (so far at least). I also flat out don't remember why she kept those walkers on leashes...
Maybe so Mike, perhaps the show was just playing up the dramatic tension with Rick and Hershel's uncertainty about waiting and how Lori and the others had to be convinced they should head for the highway (which was essentially the only off-farm site they all had been to mind, so it was pretty much the only logical guess for a place to find the others). But they also have no food except what they left for Sophia, no extra fuel, no really anything. You'd think they'd at least have prepared some bugger out packs. I still think the whole evacuation was pretty much 90% ad-hoc.
Yeah here here on Lori.
I've read the comics so I was just trying not to be too spoiler-riffic. The prison could indeed be riddled with undead prisoners but that is assuming that the guards wouldn't have released the prisoners when everything started falling apart. I'd think that the last few prison guards at their posts would still have enough humanity to unlock the doors before fleeing to try and save their families. If not then a locked down prison would be a very inhospitable environment for the walker plague: all the humans are sequestered from each other. Then again, we've learned, once they starved to death they'd have risen anyhow so perhaps you're right.
-The synchronized turn by every member of the zombie herd at the sound of the gun shot was awsome in terms of drama but viscerally terrifying and providing a useful insight into how "walkers" operate in this world.
Walkers operate according to their last provided stimulus. It seems a walker who see's a human running west will shamble west until they either encounter an immovable obstacle or until provided an alternative stimulus. walkers do have a very low level of cognition: they can distinguish between other walkers and humans (by scent) and will eat the latter but not the former. They also will react to information communicated by other walkers actions: if a walker sees another walker headed purposefully in a direction they will, lacking other stimulus, follow. This creates herds and also an interesting searching dynamic. In the comics it's indicated that a walker may see another walker stumble against a door and misinterpret this as an indication that there's food inside and thus will begin to batter the door. Other walkers will see this battering and join in. This results in a lot of buildings being entered essentially randomly.
- I'm very sad to see the end of the golden sunlight drenched farm. I suspect they will be a long time finding another sanctuary as idyllic and beautiful as this one. But the way the farm fell also demonstrates how spoiled even the veterans had become by its false security. There was no thoughtful co-ordinated defense. There were no escape routes planned and there were no fall back positions established. Having lost the farm the group is essentially back to square one.
-Jimmy is clearly too stupid to live having failed both to lock the RV's door and also apparently being unfamiliar with the idea of driving in reverse. What on earth was he thinking when he jumped up from the drivers seat?
-I didn't think I was capable of hating Lori more until this evening. Yes Rick was abrasive and rough but getting indignante becase Shane is dead? Were you not Lady Macbething on the very subject of killing Shane all of two or three episodes ago?
-I noticed a prison in the pan out at the ending. An interesting contrast there, a facility that was designed in the old world to keep dangerous elements contained away from the outside world could now serve in the new world as a means of keeping the dangerous outside world away from the survivors.
On “Stray Thoughts on This Week’s Peter Beinart To-Do”
J.L. my fear is that even if the US put serious weight behind pressuring Israel the domestic Israeli situation is as you aptly observes, approaching a point of no return. The Israeli peace movements and to a lesser degree the Israeli settlement divestment movements were respectively killed stone dead and severely damaged by the Palestinians behavior after the Gazan withdrawal. This isn't to say the Israeli's have or are behaving like angels but if the Gazan withdrawal had gone down with relatively no bad fallout then Kadima would have been able to replicate the manuver in the West Bank starting with the more marginal and far flung settlements and then gaining momentum to address the big blocs. In terms of real domestic politics though Israels posiion on the settlements is stuck now. A broad majority vaguely wish they weren't entangled with them. A smaller majority of them want to be rid of the settlements but also want to get things in return for removing them (recognition, pretty words from the Palestinians, concrete assurances, etc etc). Then there's a passionate minority that very violently and intensly wishes to retain them. In this case the passionate minority outweighs the inclinations of the depressed majority.
On “Economic Benefits of Marriage”
I'm with Mike here too, there's an enormous amount of reliable emotional and financial stability that comes from being in love with another person and managing your finances as if you were one entity. Communal living is useful but what you end up having in many cases is a fundamentally unstable grouping with either equitable splits with horrible division costs or horribly inequitable divisions when the group gets sick of each other.
"
Interesting.. never heard of it before. Maybe it'd suit a need. If libertopia comes someday perhaps it'd be useful.
"
I fear I disagree. At it's most basic form a marriage says "if something is wrong with me, or if I'm not around, He/She can act with all the authority that I would have regarding my person or my assets or my dependants." This is fundamentally impossible if you change he/she to they because at that point there needs to be some contingency for if they can't/won't agree.
While any number of organization function with more than two decision makers I'd submit that an enormous amount of the drama, tension and inefficiencies that exist in those organizations (and that even average marriages avoid) is due to the complexity that having more than two people in the organization adds.
"
I'm with Mike on the job thing. It's that thing you do to sustain the life you want to live.
Now I personally know some people who find passion and enjoyment in their job (and get paid for it, my goodness!) but I have never found a professional calling that speaks to me in that manner. For a lot of people finding a job you just don't mind is often the best they can hope for (in the absence of discovering some unexploited/unexplored area of talent).
"
Mike, I suspect that the evidence is already largely in on it in the negative as to benefits of plural marriage versus binary marriage. The old saw goes two's company, three's a crowd and I suspect there's significant salience in this cliché to the question. When there're two of you it's a team, just you and the other. As soon as there's three you now are in a group and suddenly you're part of a social group large enough for there to be room for teams to form. You inevitably have squabbles in any relationship but in 3+ groups there’s suddenly room for hierarchies of dominance and relative importance and groupings within the group. The team mentality is in danger of vanishing into an endless web of intrigues and social power struggles. As a practical matter binary relationships have a fundamental ease and simplicity of division that other numbers of people lack. Again there’s a question of relative authority, relative share etc… if one partner is sick then his/her other partner calls the shots on care. But in a group system who calls the shots? What if the two (or more) healthy partners disagree? The historical record on binary versus group marriages also generally rules in favor of binary. Historically group marriages have come in the form of powerful men accumulating harems to the detriment of both other all women and lower powered men in the society. Same sex marriage, contrastingly, has little to no historical precedent. That’s why I’m of the opinion that same sex marriage seems to be approaching promisingly from ahead while plural marriages generally are receding in the rear view mirror.
On “Stray Thoughts on This Week’s Peter Beinart To-Do”
Yeah it's a pickle. The people who live in the settlements do it for a broad variety of reasons but one major one is that there is a massive edifice of government subsidy and support built into Israel to incent them to live there and make it easier for them to do so.
My own two cents: a boycott is both too clumsy a strategy and too ineffectual. Best case scenario; it'd land on some settlement produced goods and in response the current settlement friendly Israeli administration would simply increase the government gravy flowing to the settlements to compensate. Worse case scenario; it'd spin out of control turning into a Israeli wide boycott driving a wedge between the US and Israel and doing genuine economic harm to Israel while strengthening their right wingers and increasing the sense that Israel in general is under attack from the left. That would further bury the peace movement within Israel and further delay the time when the Israeli polity is going to have to ask itself what exactly it proposes to do with the Palestinian territories and peoples they are currently occupying.
On “Everyone in Afghanistan suffers PTSD”
BlaiseP I agree that the woulda-coulda should end. We are left now with what Bush (the very minor) handed off to us and what Obama has produced through a few years of pretty much rubber stamping the military's requests regarding Afghanistan. The big question is the future; what is to be done with the mess in our collective hands now. I'm hesitant to challenge your opinions on the subject since you've forgotten more than I have ever learned about the region no doubt; instead I've some questions.
-Agreed the Afghans haven't had a decent government in generations. That given, they now are somewhat stuck with the one we set up when we first arrived (Karzai et all). It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that Karzai et all would really prefer that the status quos continue which is to say we continue shoveling utter mountains of our resources into this particular region so they can embezzle it right back out again. Is this the best bang we could expect to get for our invested buck in terms of humanitarian outcomes? Could the same money not produce larger reductions in human immiseration in other regions that do not have a history of making fools out of foreign powers meddling in the area?
-Again Karzai et all seem to like the way things are right now. You suggested structural reforms, decentralization etc… would it not be true that Karzai and his crew would fight this tooth and nail? Having erected this new Afghanistan sort of government should we now topple it? Can we? Do you consider it elected? If we somehow knocked it over would the Afghans elect something better in its place? Or do you think Karzai et all could be induced to simply go along with the reforms you think are best?
-The proposals you have seem very long term, generation long in fact. It is harsh of me to ask however I have only a limited understanding of the region; this will be massively draining: do we owe the Afghans this? I know we took a side in a sort of proxy war there after the Soviets invaded and I gather the great powers had been poking about in the area for a good while prior to that. I’m asking mainly for clarity for my own mind: would this be us paying off a moral obligation to the peoples of Afghanistan or would this be mostly humanitarian charity (and if the latter see my first question again)?
-Do you think that Pakistan will actually buy into any solution you think is feasible? Should we partition the country? I’ve read that the Pashtun regions would be much better off as part of Pakistan and the non-Pashtun areas would probably be a lot happier as their own state rid of those fanatic Pashtuns? Regardless, Pakistan views Afghanistan as their personal sand box yes? They profit from the current status quos as much if not more than Karzai et all (Karzai at least runs the risk of getting his ass blown up); are we capable of inducing the Pakistanis to detach from the gravy train they’re currently enjoying from us?
Thanks in advance for your opinions and I think I avoided any "buts".
On “Road Trip with Husky”
On further viewing a lot of these shots could be of Nova Scotian landscapes; well except they're not all hilly, swarming with bugs and drowned in fog and rain.
On “Arizona buried, again, beneath a tide of snow”
There must be some country that drives more staidly than Canadians! The English? The Germans?
"
Not my experience though since I escaped directly from the howling wilderness of Nova Scotia to the Urban busom of Minneapolis perhaps I lack the experience to appreciate a nicer city. I live downtown and walk almost everywhere (only just got a car year 7 of my eight years of living here) so I can't speak to the traffic (though to a rural Canadian all American drivers are insane). But I love Minneapolis. St Paul on the other hand is the eigth layer of hell. They don't worship Satan in St Paul, he worships them.
On “Walking Dead Season Finale: Open Thread (Spoiler Alert)”
Oh thank you kindly Patrick. If this one is off grid with a backup power system (fuelled or no) and has fail lock cells then it'd be damn near ideal as a zombie stronghold.
On “Arizona buried, again, beneath a tide of snow”
Minnesota over all isn't certainly. The urban heat shield tends to deflect them from the Twin cities themselves. I'm too close in to the downtown core to fret much over tornadoes. I do not want another roaring hot summer. I'll take the summer of 2011 thank you very much. So wonderful.
On “Walking Dead Season Finale: Open Thread (Spoiler Alert)”
Seeds? Not too much challenge I'd think. Hershel is a farmer (or is he only a cattle man?) so he'd know what they need and where to scavenge it. Seeds are pretty compact stuff, fill a car with it and you're pretty much set yes? How well would prison fences stand up to zombie mobs though?
"
I think water and septic would become a problem too; if the facility was on city utilities then with the plants down there'd be no water running in and no sewage running out. In theory maybe they could pump water out of the water main? I'm not certain... they could rig some means of collecting it from a local source but then there's their sewage. If they don't dispose of it right they'd poison their own water. Cholera and diahrea won't kill you outright like a zombie bite will but I've heard that essentially crapping yourself to death is not a good way to go.
"
Yeah the scavenging should be pretty good for a while. But eventually things are gonna run out and go bad. Even non perishable items will suffer and spoil under freeze thaw cycles and when attacked by rodents and other critters. That's always what's frightened me about the zombie apocalypse: you can theoretically build yourself a castle and be impervious to the horde but sooner or later you have to reclaim the fields or else you die. But how do you reclaim the fields without whiping out every zombie on the continent?
"
Great minds.. the only real practical problem then would be a question of water and septic disposal... what do you think; Georgian prison somewhat rural though not immensly far from Atlanta. Think they have their own wells or would they be on a municipal water supply? Same question for septic.
"
True that, though I have a feeling that when the power cuts out the cells unlock? Anyone know off the top of their heads?
Oh... interesting secondary thought... if the cell doors work that way then prisons probably have a backup power supply. It may be out of diesel but if that's true then they could have electricity in the prison as soon as they scavenge some fuel.
On “Arizona buried, again, beneath a tide of snow”
Minnesota is roasting right now. If I don't get some cold weather back sometime soon I'm gonna be mightily cross.
On “Walking Dead Season Finale: Open Thread (Spoiler Alert)”
Huh, does that work?
"
The screen writers aren't covering themselves in glory BlaiseP, agreed, but I'd urge charity. Walking Dead's one of the better television or even movie submissions in the genre (a low bar I know) so I'd like to see it do well.
"
Fish, in fairness to the others in the group, they did see Andrea go down under a walker. It was dark and it would have been difficult to realize that the walker was dead when it landed on her so assuming she was lost was an eminantly definsible conclusion to draw.
As to our "Ninja" I'm looking forward to seeing how her actress portrays her and also how the relationships go since the character she played off in the comic books has been left out of the show (so far at least). I also flat out don't remember why she kept those walkers on leashes...
"
Maybe so Mike, perhaps the show was just playing up the dramatic tension with Rick and Hershel's uncertainty about waiting and how Lori and the others had to be convinced they should head for the highway (which was essentially the only off-farm site they all had been to mind, so it was pretty much the only logical guess for a place to find the others). But they also have no food except what they left for Sophia, no extra fuel, no really anything. You'd think they'd at least have prepared some bugger out packs. I still think the whole evacuation was pretty much 90% ad-hoc.
Yeah here here on Lori.
I've read the comics so I was just trying not to be too spoiler-riffic. The prison could indeed be riddled with undead prisoners but that is assuming that the guards wouldn't have released the prisoners when everything started falling apart. I'd think that the last few prison guards at their posts would still have enough humanity to unlock the doors before fleeing to try and save their families. If not then a locked down prison would be a very inhospitable environment for the walker plague: all the humans are sequestered from each other. Then again, we've learned, once they starved to death they'd have risen anyhow so perhaps you're right.
"
My own thoughts from the episode:
-The synchronized turn by every member of the zombie herd at the sound of the gun shot was awsome in terms of drama but viscerally terrifying and providing a useful insight into how "walkers" operate in this world.
Walkers operate according to their last provided stimulus. It seems a walker who see's a human running west will shamble west until they either encounter an immovable obstacle or until provided an alternative stimulus. walkers do have a very low level of cognition: they can distinguish between other walkers and humans (by scent) and will eat the latter but not the former. They also will react to information communicated by other walkers actions: if a walker sees another walker headed purposefully in a direction they will, lacking other stimulus, follow. This creates herds and also an interesting searching dynamic. In the comics it's indicated that a walker may see another walker stumble against a door and misinterpret this as an indication that there's food inside and thus will begin to batter the door. Other walkers will see this battering and join in. This results in a lot of buildings being entered essentially randomly.
- I'm very sad to see the end of the golden sunlight drenched farm. I suspect they will be a long time finding another sanctuary as idyllic and beautiful as this one. But the way the farm fell also demonstrates how spoiled even the veterans had become by its false security. There was no thoughtful co-ordinated defense. There were no escape routes planned and there were no fall back positions established. Having lost the farm the group is essentially back to square one.
-Jimmy is clearly too stupid to live having failed both to lock the RV's door and also apparently being unfamiliar with the idea of driving in reverse. What on earth was he thinking when he jumped up from the drivers seat?
-I didn't think I was capable of hating Lori more until this evening. Yes Rick was abrasive and rough but getting indignante becase Shane is dead? Were you not Lady Macbething on the very subject of killing Shane all of two or three episodes ago?
-I noticed a prison in the pan out at the ending. An interesting contrast there, a facility that was designed in the old world to keep dangerous elements contained away from the outside world could now serve in the new world as a means of keeping the dangerous outside world away from the survivors.
On “Reliving The Nightmare: The Washington Post Revisits The Grand Bargain”
Indeed welcome back; even if it means revisiting this particularily messy subject.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.