Oh, I'm sure many who accept them don't regard them as that, and that's fine. I'm just talking about what SCOTUS has said about what they legally mean. It's not a requirement, for instance, that someone overtly confess or even agree that it's any sort of admission of anything to accept a pardon.

Technically, a pardon also "carries an imputation of guilt" (Burdick v US), which is why people sometimes refuse them. Though, I suppose, that's guilt of the applicable law, not an acceptance that the law in question is just or constitutional.

He talks endlessly about tariffs and has never uttered a sentence that makes me think he knows what they are or how they work.

Though new to audio books, I avoided fiction for quite some time too, but then found that my device allowed my bookmarks to work in both reading and audio. So, I could stop reading to make dinner or do dishes, listen, and then go back to reading. No overlap or missed bits.

Martha Washington Goes To War. It's a great read by Miller and Dave Gibbons.

It's like Medicare "Advantage".

Owned by Frank's sister, Sleeping Beauty Castle.

I like to have a favorite inanimate object (favorite pan, favorite remote, etc.) and then resent my other objects in the same class for not meeting the standards I enjoy.

There is literally a conspiracy theory that he is not any of that. That's what it takes to consider him decent.

Yes, this is me. And, yes, I have an idea what you mean. There are a lot fewer bows on character arcs. I didn't completely figure out Frank before he went, but that keeps me thinking about him. Same with Nina. You never close the book in your head. Martha Washington did that for me too.

This has been SUCH a great series. Great job, Sam! There are so many great choices on arcs and characterizations. I thought by this time I'd seen every conceivable Frankenstein personality possible, but then...that!

Loved it. Team Weasel!

Nothing says meritocracy like getting approved by a medical board consisting of no one other than yourself, your wife, and your father-in-law.

It's difficult to not put a new context on a lot of his work. I'd guess a lot fewer people would stomach Polanski remaking Lolita than they did him doing The Pianist. Unlike the platitude, it is not always possible to love art and not the artist. Some art is a reflection of the artist.

And constantly engaging with his self-professed consensual behavior with women critically financially reliant on his good will.

Also, in addition to hiding it, someone who was once legit fantastic can later be legit trash, and vice versa. This is why good or bad deeds, even many of them, in no way negate the other side of it, though they might form a new context and evaluation by you. Human beings are not simple.