Randy Rawdogger

If there weren't many significant snubs of POC among the still-very-white Oscar noms, then it isn't necessarily just a problem of POC being overlooked in the nomination process. Rather, the problem may be that POC still aren't being proportionately represented in the pool of Oscar-fodder "prestige" films that are being written, produced and put forward for consideration. It's a problem of access as much as a problem of attention. That said, why are we measuring progress using a Hollywood industry popularity contest? These awards shows are just marketing charades, with the Oscars being perhaps the most tediously pompous and insipid example of the form. Great art doesn't require the validation of elite, insider consensus. It's well established that these awards shows are often terrible at recognizing true enduring merit.

MadTV at its best: https://youtu.be/eNFNTVyZCgY

Missed callback opportunity re: Oliver's "cute scoot": "Cute Scootin' Boogie."

Jane Caputi's assertion that testify and testicles share an etymological root is true; however, her conclusion that testify is therefore directly associated with male anatomy is exactly backwards. Testis, the shared root in testify and testicles, means "witness." In the case of testify, the connection is quite literal: when one testifies, one bears witness (i.e., gives an account of something that they literally saw). In the case of testicles (meaning "little witnesses"), "witness" is meant figuratively (interpreted variously and inconclusively). So, it is only accurate to say that testify and testicle are both derived from the notion of bearing witness. Caputi's suggestion that the act of testifying is somehow gender biased due to etymological happenstance is as absurd as stating that eating clam chowder is inherently misogynistic because clam has been figuratively associated with female genitalia in a derogatory sense. Caputi would be better served to advance her arguments without (ironically) bearing false witness by using deceptive etymological claims as red herrings.

The boss still seems like the most likely culprit. As was covered in the episode, he had both motive and access. Considering the prevalence of violence and harassment perpetrated by men against women, it's not much of a stretch to believe that two different women who lived in the same apt in a heavily populated city were each subjected to violence/harassment by two different men. Take any apt in any major city where a murder has taken place and survey its residents over the years—you'll likely find multiple instances of men targeting women with violence and/or harassment. The flasher/wanker just sounds like a wheedling, voyeuristic masochist who gets off on shame and humiliation—not a sadistic strangler serial killer. Kneeling down before her to "take her measurements," making himself pathetic by masturbating in front of her, apologizing profusely and begging her not to tell his mommy—it's certainly aberrant sexual behavior, but it's all too passive and too neurotic to fit the profile of a dominant, sadistic serial strangler. Care should be taken not to let the desire to uncover new information lead you to overestimate the significance of coincidence and ignore obvious inconsistencies.

Went SOLO BOLO on that ass, but it's still the same Hollywood is the spot where I host Comedy Bang! Bang!