No problem. It was easy to misunderstand.

Yann:
Read my sentence again. I composed it very carefully. I do NOT say he gave her drugs without her consent. I said he may have had sex with her without her consent, having given her drugs.

My fault, then.

Read my sentence again. I composed it very carefully. I do NOT say he gave her drugs without her consent. I said he may have had sex with her without her consent, having given her drugs. I think the preponderance of evidence is that the drugs were with the women’s consent.

Where are the Editors when you need them? (FAQ About Time Travel)

Yes. This is a grave concern. Julie near Chicago succinctly expresses the potential outcome of this unfortunate development. Ignorance of the foundational principles of our Republic is undermining our society. And social media seems to be a huge factor in creating a “mob mentality” about any subject du jour.

I mean I think he’s guilty of at times having sex with women (or at least one woman) without their consent, having given them drugs.

I’d be careful there. The media usually reports that he acknowledged to have drugged one woman. But that isn’t actually true.

I read the transcription time ago, and it was something like that:
– Did you gave drugs to X?
– Yes

Actually, the lawyer never said ‘without her consent’, neither he asked ‘did you drug her?’. That’s a tricky question. If you bring some weed and pass a joint to a woman, you should answer ‘yes’ to that question, since you actually ‘gave’ it to her. The verb ‘to give’ doesn’t involve lack of consent. That’s the reason because the media always states that he acknowledged to have drugged a woman, but never quotes the exact words.

There were two kinds of sitcom families in the 50s, the ideal and the real (or if not real, at least grittier). The premier example of the first is “Father Knows Best” and another was “Ozzie and Harriet” and still another “The Donna Reed Show.” Much of it was played for laughs, however, even the ideal. They were meant to present a wholesome, healthy picture as well as being amusing. Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz’s show occupied some middle ground. The grittier shows were the William Bendix show “Life of Riley” and of course Gleason’s “The Honeymooners.” I watched them all.

OK. I’m recalling the editor Edwin Faust offering that he found sitcom families of the 1950s disconcerting at the time and retrospectively because their inveterate congeniality was not family life as he’d known it and seen it. (Mr. Faust’s magazine articles can be found in The Latin Mass, all offline, I believe). As a youngster, I reacted to Fred Rogers roughly the same way (and I do believe Rogers merits more of a critique than an affirmation).

Acutally, I’d say the Huxtables were quite normal. Not “normal” in the sense of “average,” but in the sense of “well-functioning.”

Michael Constantine is still alive at age 91. His last screen credit is dated 2016. All the adolescent and peri-adult actors in the show are now eligible for Medicare.