Recommend good HBO series?

Shameless is a Showtime comedy series about a poor family in Chicago. The family father is permanently drunk, lives on various variants of welfare fraud, and is basically an asshole. His seven children find various ways of getting by. Personally, I'm finding the series funny enough. I'm somewhat annoyed, though, about the way it portrays poor people as free riders having a blast at everybody else''s expense. Through Roberta, I have learned quite a lot about the New York welfare system---which supposedly is more generous than those in most other places in the US. The system has many problems, no doubt, but I don't think overgenerosity to cheats is one of them.

Oh....I know the series you mean now. I haven't watched but I heard it was great. I didn't know the US had made a version.

Must look out for it.

What about Canadia? There must be great shows made there. Anyone know of good ones?

Izzy, you're the last cab off the rank with the Sopranos, I'm certain.

Please let us know when you've reached the last episode.

I am dying to discus that episode!

But you will only find out why later.

I will say no more..

We could discuss it with grave warnings for izzie not to look?

Oh, I don't think he'd like that at all, deb!

Um......so what? Is Izzy a he? Can't s/h ebe disciplined and manage its curiosity?

Izzy is indeed a "he".

I don't know what the niceties of this situation require, to tell the truth, Deb.

What do you say, Izzy?

Can you cope with such a discussion?

Me, I'm kinda ferocious to discuss the end scene!

But only if a few others want to discuss it, too ....

Obviously.

i do!

Me, too.

That ending .... I need to compare notes.

But I would feel a whole lot better about doing so with Izzy's blessing.

And that might take a few days ... this weekend he is launching a new book of his own.

But could I ask, are there others here who would like to discuss the ending of the Sopranos (with Izzy's blessing)?

You can discuss it, but let me know by writing spoiler or something in big letters. I'm too mean to buy the CDs, as it's trundling on nicely. I know Steve Buscemi is introduced next episode. I also know, through watching Family Guy, that the last episode ends mid-sentence. That's about it. I'm nervous about tomorrow as well.

No need to be nervous, Izzy.
You'll be terrific tomorrow!

And we'll soon see if there's enough interest in discussing the end of the Sopranos here or not.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
But if it does happen, there'll be big spoiler warning messages to pre-warn you, OK?

Thanks for that, the kind words and the warnings. It's much appreciated.

My pleasure, izzy.
The "kind words" part, I mean.

In the first place, the Supremes long ago set a line about community standards, which will undoubtedly be the determining factor in Fox's continued appeal. But you're ignoring a point i'd already made which is that what is "inhibited" in one venue is actually produced in another venue, both of them a part of the American television production system. As i've alreay pointed out, this is neither an inferior or a superior system, it's just a different system.

It may well be that "permissiveness" is greater in Gemany. But so what? That does not constitute evidence that there is no segment of the German television viewing population which does deplore the situation. And, once again, even it that were established, it would only be evidence that the two situations were different, not that one or the other is better or worse. About the only reasonable adjective would be preferable.

My overall complaint, though, is the constant niggling drum beat of criticisms, all of which seem to be predicated on a condescending attitude toward these differences. Maybe we just got the lion's share of religiously motivated people from the old world. Certainly, the Moravians, the Mennonites and several other religiously extremist groups found the North American colonies attractive from as early as the late 17th century. (In particular, Pennsylvania, which was arguably the most religiously tolerant place in the European world then, except perhaps for Holland, which nevertheless imposed heavy limitations on Catholics.)

Whatever the reasons may be, this kind of social conservatism finds a home in the United States. Without being able to show that this is harmful to society, it's silly to sneer at it simply because it's different. Beside that, it's the little things that rankle. When people from countries with Westminster-style parliamentary systems have a rant about the Electoral College, i don't get to terribly upset--many, perhaps most, Americans don't understand its origin, nor its function--and a function which i personally consider to be useful and am glad to see continuing. In fact, i rather laugh at comments about how "undemocratic" the EC is, from nations where the chief executive is elected by a few thousand people in a single electoral district. Leaving aside that nothing in the constitution guarantees a democratic system, how is the Westminster or any similar system more "democratic" when the chief executive is chosen by a method wihtout a shred of democratic credential to cover its nakedness? No, there's just times when the constant petty carping gets tedious enough to elicit a response, and this was one of those.

We do know when we vote for our MPs, who the respective party leaders are. The vote is as much for the party as the individual. Not only do we know who the leader is, we also know who all the other prominent figures are as well, Health, Defence, Education etc. So there's no surprises when the leader takes a couple of months off to figure out who will be in his cabinet.

I don't know what you're on about, but none of that alters that Prime Ministers take office after having been elected by at most a few thousand people in a single electoral distict. I said nothing to suggest that any of you don't know what's going on. I'm just pointing the laughable absurdity of ranting on about the Electoral College given that situation. The fifteen American presidents who qualify as minority presidents nevertheless received millions of votes. What prime minister ever took office having received the votes of a millions of the electorate? I'm not saying it's a bad system, it's just different. I am saying that ranting about the Electoral College and decrying it as undemocratic is rather idiotic, coming from anyone whose government is chosen as are those of the Westminster system.

American presidential candiates don't take months off to decide who they will appoint to executive offices. That's as much a part of the election campaign here.

Arguments from ignorance.

There is a gap between being elected, President Elect, and being sworn in. That's when most of the cabinet positions are sorted out isn't it?

As the vote is for the party as much as the individual MP, Cameron can claim that all Tory votes, with a few odd exceptions, are votes for him to be prime minister.

The main exception to this is the speaker. His appointment tends to be on his record as a parliamentarian, he tends to be less of a partisan figure. That means when he fights in his constituency he, as tradition dictates, is unopposed by all the major political parties.