I loved the little scenes with Blankenship and Cooper. The crossword puzzle, and his contribution to the eulogy, were both lovely little pieces of acting.
It’s not quite that rare yet- but in terms of overall percentage, you’re close. Even discounting all Japanese claimants (as they’re undergoing a major scandal as it has been discovered that many supposed supercentenarians have been dead for decades) onthe Wikipedia list, there are stilll several dozen people who were born between 1896 and 1899.
There are only three living WWI veterans, however. There’s a rare set for you.
I mixed martinis for Pops, too. But what does “that era” have to do with it? Are we so much more puritanical about alcohol now as compared to then? Parents these days :dubious:
The surest way to get a kid interested in alcohol is to lock it up and tell the kid that it’s forbidden.
We keep alcohol out in the open. I don’t drink much, but when my daughter asked about it when she was small, I let her sniff it, knowing what kid’s taste buds are like. She wrinkled her nose and went, “ew!” Now she makes fun of us if we have a drink, and has absolutely zero interest in alcohol.
On the other hand, if we had a Slurpee machine I’d have to post an armed guard.
I plan on having my kids make the occasional drink or fetch me a bottle of ale. I have a Homer Simpson bottle opener that shouts some of Homer’s beer quotes when used. I let my three year old help me open up a beer with it. It’s one of our little things, and it’s the tip of introducing that moderate alcohol consumption is not taboo, dangerous, or exotic.
When they’re 16 or so, I have no problem with them having a half or quarter glass of wine with dinner - provided they’re in for the night. All of this is to enforce at attitude of ‘this is normal - you have a bit, appreciate it for it’s flavor and craft - and you stop’. I think it’s somewhat of a European approach. This way, when they go to college and their roommate smuggles a plastic handle of vodka and case of Keystone light into the freshman dorm, they’ll be unimpressed and uninterested. I’d sooner have them be snobby alcohol connoisseurs than repressed puritans aching to go crazy. I don’t think that’s a false dichotomy. I want my kids to be almost bored by alcohol.
Was Cosgrove getting a bit uppity in that meeting? It seemed like he kept undermining Don – Don would tell the customers that they had to choose an ad campaign and stick to it, and Ken would argue against that. Had Don not had to keep kipping off to deal with all the lovely ladies in his life, I was expecting Cosgrove to get the ol’ smackdown.
You’ve watched 2 minutes and 15 seconds more of HOUSE OF PAYNE than I. As for his presence in STAR TREK, it was in keeping with J. J. Abrams’ artistic decision to people the story with repellent and unsympathetic characters. (Abrams’ only failure in this regard was with Young!Spock.)
I was born in '66 and while I can’t mix a martini I routinely made drinks for my parents and their guests. My parents kept their liquor cabinet unlocked and none of their kids, at least to my knowledge, ever snuck any. (They also kept their many guns free-access, and while we did use those it was with their consent and we never had any accidents.)
Why did Weiner bring Cosgrove back at all? He was one of the most boring characters and never really got a subplot of his own. Is something big involving him coming up? Will we ever get to meet his (presumably heavyset) fiancee/wife?
Cosgrove is a great foil for the rest of the agency. He’s the only non-background character who is actually happy, enjoys his work, is good at it and seems to have a decent life. He’s an ad guy (in sales no less) and I wouldn’t leave my 17 year old daughter alone with him but he’s not out to actively screw anyone over. Pete hates him for no other reason than Cosgrove doesn’t seem to have to work at it, professionally or personally, and Pete’s life is a constant mire of conflict.
A plot centered around him would be boring and a mistake because there’s no conflict there but I like the idea that not everyone at SCDP has to live in a constant high-drama soap opera and can actually have things go their way.
Joan was shown on a bus in next week’s preview… heading down to visit her husband during his after-basic leave? Depending on the timeline, she’d need to have sex with Dr. Rapist to have plausible deniability if she got knocked up by Roger.
I’m sure Cosgrove is back to provide conflict with Pete with regard to account management. Who brings in the biggest clients or the most ad dollars, etc.
Legally correct, though of course in reality Dick Whitman’s a deserter who changed his name to Don Draper. Betty would have to prove Whitman and Draper are the same, which might prove difficult since those who knew both well are mostly dead. (Any idea if the Army took photographs or fingerprints at the time of induction during the Korean Conflict? Or a brand across the chest?)
If Mad Men were real then Draper being brought to account for his desertion would be very interesting and complicated arc that could easily fill a season, which makes me sort of hope it’s never a plotline. Does anybody know if there ever were any cases that would be at all similar to Draper-Whitman years after the fact?
Wait, how is he a deserter? I thought he woke up in the hospital wearing Don Draper’s dog tags, and he just went along with the mistaken identity. Dick Whitman is officially dead, and Don Draper was honorably (medically?) discharged.
If he’d woken up wearing his own dog tags, Dick Whitman would still have been medically discharged, I think. He may be guilty of accepting whatever additional benefits there were for an officer, rather than an enlisted man.
He was one of the most boring characters and never really got a subplot of his own. Is something big involving him coming up? Will we ever get to meet his (presumably heavyset) fiancee/wife?