wonderwoman1951

just saw this on linkedin — tomorrow@3 steven weberib the locher room

i’ve been meaning to discuss what has been bothering me about the discussion re gus walz’s emotional display at the dnc. while most of the conversation centered on that fact that gus is on the spectrum, what i think is the most important part of the reaction of the maga right has gotten lost in the shuffle. here’s an early post from some radio dj, jay weber: “Sorry, but this is embarrassing for both father and son,” the WISN-AM radio jockey wrote last week on X. “If the Walzs [sic] represent today’s American man, this country is screwed; ‘Meet my son, Gus. He’s a blubbering bitch boy. His mother and I are very proud.’” while weber deleted the post after learning that gus is neurodivergent, that misses the point: the maga crowd has a narrow, hypermasculine view of male behavior; and any male who would allow the world see him display raw emotions is a “blubbering bitch boy” and “the country is screwed” to which i say “[!@#$%^&*] you, jay weber — [!@#$%^&*] you!”

this is entertaining — in particular the one re jd vance. free link. gail collins quiz

not sure of your point; vance is a catholic convert.

wish someone would ask him how he feels about priests and nuns influencing children.

this is a perfect description of what it means to be pro-choice!

i was a little surprised, and pleased, to see kate mulgrew coming out for kamala. for a long time, she was a hardline pro-lifer, having given up a daughter for adoption in the 1970s. missed that that she had denounced dobbs, saying that while it wasn’t her choice, it was a choice each woman had to make for herself.

a brief, insightful analysis of the dnc from a.o. scott at the ny times. so pleased that he included michelle obama’s goldilocks advice. free link: a.o.scott—seven words

this really is a topic worthy of its own thread — maybe even a doctoral dissertation — or at least a masters thesis. so many factors at play. so many of the people inside the industry who never really understood why fans watch, and how they enjoy soaps. a while back, i was discussing focus groups (ro as eileen fulton liked to call them, fuckus groups), with a former exec at nbc and abc daytime, and he said that it was a plus if the person running the group actually watched soaps. a plus?! how about a prerequisite? how could someone who didn’t even watch soaps asked the right questions, or properly interpret the responses. and that’s just one example. when i have a few minutes, i’ll share my thoughts on jill farren phelpes interview with alan locher a while back.

That's just how those creeps are in that element, it's baked in sadly. But the larger public reaction has for the most part been very positive. I'm sure Trump will, and let him; it'll only hurt him more. my point exactly!

the mocking of gus’s tears has already started in the usual places. what’s the over/under on how long can trump resist the urge to join in?

was trying to post this reply to a comment re michelle obama’s speech just at the comments were closed. putting it here instead. @JL “Michelle is a classy woman and that she has to remind us to ignore our tendency to nitpick and worry that a bill or a stance or a decision is not perfect, is a reminder that democracy is incremental, messy, but must advance at all costs.” this! i can’t remember it verbatim, but she said something about goldilocks and things not having to be “just right.” i wish more people picked up on this, because we need to pay attention to this because some on the left are such ideological purists that they’ve been standing in the way of moving forward.

maybe their misguided sense of irony? that’s all a got! just came across this — the photograph is a hoot. trump and the queen

on the one board, katie was known as “the vagina no penis could resist.”

Considering Chris died not many years after that and Dan was off the show by the late-mid-90s, Nancy would've only been in her 70s. (I've always assumed, but maybe other people know better, that Chris and Nancy were like standard couples of the 40s and 50s...married when Nancy was probably only 18 or 19 because she would've been expected to go directly from her father's house to a husband's house and start popping out babies.) nancy was a teacher. she and chris married after she graduated from college, so you’re right, she would have been around 73 she married dan.

I just didn't know. sorry didn’t mean to be snippy. the wisconsin historical has an extensive collection of popular culture materials. anyone who’s doing serious research on soaps will spend some time in madison — a very cool town.

well, irna’s papers and p&g’ s papers are there. why not his?

doug marland’s papers are at the wisconsin historical society. in his gl longterm, nola and kelly were indeed the end game. wasn’t aware that it was the chemistry between nola and quint that changed his mind.

‘world turn’s 30th anniversary episode in 1986 (one of the best!) was structured around nancy and chris’s 50th wedding anniversary. so by the time she met dan, nancy would have been in her 80s.

had not been aware that nancy and sara had been hospital roommates, but it certainly makes sense given the story that followed. re nancy’s hysterectomy: can’t remember where (maybe this interview helen wagner interview), but i recall her saying that nancy’s hysterectomy had been performed by dr. jerry turner, played by james earl jones. jones joined the cast in early 1966. he wasn’t there long — i also recall helen saying that he left to to work on ‘the great white hope’ at the arena stage in washington, dc. re the scripts: here’s a irna’s archive at the wisconsin historical society, which includes decades of scripts irna’s papers

or as eileen fulton liked to call them — “fuckus groups.”

the recent passing of the great reminded me of something irna phillip told peter wyden’s when he profiled her in 1960 for the saturday evening post (which i know is somewhere, but can’t find it at the moment). gena rowland’s only broadway performance was in paddy chayefsky “middle of the night.” at the end, rowland’s 20ish character winds up with the older man played by edward g robinson. as i recall, irna was very unhappy. what she wanted to know was how the couple fared after the happy ending. can’t remember her exact words, but i do recall something about how would the people fit into each other’s lives. which is really the core of soap opera storytelling: the aftermath of what happens.

maybe a lame attempt at humor — or irony?

well mitch, packing the supreme court certainly worked out well for you and the republicans. honestly, the hypocrisy of some people…

it’s really a no-win situation. if biden had stayed in and trump won, the blame would also have fallen at the feet of the democrats who didn’t intervene. at least now, we have a fighting chance. she may have no calculus but winning, but she also has feelings. and i do not doubt for a second that this was, will always be a painful decision. what’s at stake is just so much larger than one person’s feelings. and, as you noted, he is already acknowledging that reality. i, too, hope their relationship recovers.