As often happens when networks attempt to ride trends, there’s a high risk of sucking the life right out of the concept and leaving audiences cold, especially since Rhimes is juggling a lot of shows at the moment and they can’t all receive her focus and attention. Given that this is new territory for her, this could potentially be an expensive disaster for the network.

We all know what happens when US networks attempt to remake UK shows; it’s usually an utter mess, to the point that one longs to put a paper bag over the head of the network to spare it the embarrassment of being seen in public alongside its creation. This is possibly one step worse, an attempt to capitalise on a meme that the network doesn’t fully understand, and can’t, because the US and the UK are two very different places with different audiences, histories, and creative approaches.

The story revolves around the lives of the Lilys, New York aristocracy with considerable wealth and power brought low by a family scandal that changed their fortunes. They open New York’s first luxury hotel, and the show is off to the races as the characters tangle with secrets, rivalries, and class collisions. Given that Shonda Rhimes is behind it, it’s safe to bet on extreme sudsiness, but that’s part of the fun; audiences do so love to see the rich behaving badly.

It’s intriguing to see US television exploring class, but also telling that producers and creators feel more comfortable examining class in the context of the past, rather than in the present. With a few notable exceptions, US television in contemporary settings doesn’t delve very far into class issues; there is a sense that creators want to retain the myth that this is a classless society. While UK costume dramas are noted and beloved for their unstinting analysis and presentation of class, there are also a lot of shows set in the modern era with equally astute, and much more relevant, explorations of class issues.

For UK creators, it’s about more than just putting people in lovely frocks and waltzing them around gilded ballrooms. There’s a genuine interest in looking at class stratification, the history of the class system, and the radical shifts that permanently altered British society and continue to shape it today. Even on Doctor Who, class is integral, and important.

Perhaps Gilded Lilys is a baby step, but keep in mind that it’s coming from the same network that brought viewers Secret Millionaire, so any hopes of a keen class analysis will probably be dashed at the start. US networks seem to have picked up on the idea that viewers like costume dramas, and assume this liking stems from enjoying a mixture of fabulous frocks, lavish sets, and soap-level drama. However, it’s more than that; there’s a unique twist to the British costume drama that simply isn’t replicable with shows set in the US.

US and British class issues, then and now, are very different animals, and they can’t be easily ported across the pond for viewing pleasure. Gilded Lilys might be a fascinating look into New York at the heart of the Industrial Revolution, with all the US-specific issues that were pressing for many people at the time. Or it might be a disastrous attempt at pretending that it’s possible to recreate Downton Abbey in the Big Apple.

There’s tremendous potential and I will definitely be tuning in for the premiere, but I don’t have high hopes. Class issues aside, the show may also suffer from the same problem many other US series are currently struggling with: loose and sloppy timelines. Shows like Downton Abbey are so deligthful in part because they are crisp, succinct, and tight. Limited by the miniseries model, creators have to plot things out carefully and say what they want to say within a very specific framework, which keeps viewers gripped through to the end. It’s hard to lose focus when you’ve only got a handful of episodes in a season, and when creators have to make every one count.

When a season is 13 or 23 episodes long, creators tend to start wandering, and that’s where Gilded Lilys may trip and fall. On cable, where seasons are shorter and there’s more demand to tighten up, it could be an unexpected hit, like Boardwalk Empire and Mad Men, both of which have taken a uniquely US approach to the costume drama that celebrates the nation’s history and culture rather than trying to suppress it. On a network, it seems highly likely that it won’t have the drive, or the pull, to make it through a single season.

Rhimes might have done better pitching this to a cable network, unless ABC is exploring new ground. But I will wish her the best of luck with the show, because I do rather enjoy nice frocks.

It is an anxiety as old as modernity itself–the fear that technological change will destroy relationships, families, communities, souls-and one apparently so pressing that an organisation called Ichud HaKehillos LeTohar HaMachane (Union of Communities for the Unity of the Camp) considered it worthwhile to rent out the stadium at a cost of a mere $1.5 million.

Rabbi Ephraim Waschman charged that the Internet said is “changing who we are…You can see it in the ebbing eyes of the younger generation, of the jittery inattentiveness of our children, in the flippant and callous language and attitude, the cynicism … the unbelievable breaches of [modesty in Orthodox communities].” Rabbi Don Segal told the story of a man who, forced to use the Internet for work, “became completely spoiled. This device destroyed his yiddishkeit” (Jewish values).

The rally has provoked a surprising amount of interest outside the ultra-Orthodox world, with a mixture of scorn, bewilderment and levity among the responses. More seriously, counter-protesters outside the asifa noted there has not been a similar rally against the wave of molestation which has been exposed in ultra-Orthodox communities recently with writing in the New York Times, The Jewish Forward, and others. The immoral abuse of power by rabbis against their vulnerable charges has not been met with similar outrage as Internet porn.

In short, to rail against the Internet today in 2012 feels much like protesting the printing press or electricity or modern medicine – pointless and self-defeating.

But unlike anti-technology groups like the Amish, Orthodoxy has never rejected modernity tout court, incorporating modern technology judiciously and sometimes inventively into Jewish life, mediated by halakhic (Jewish religious law) principles. The question of how to use technology in a Jewish way has long pre-occupied many rabbis, while entrepreneurs have produced numerous devices that obey Orthodox laws about the Sabbath, where switching an electrical current on or off is forbidden.

It is this that is in part fueling the asifa, which was not uncoincidentally sponsored in part by an Internet filtering software company. While some of the rabbis allowed for the necessity of Internet usage for work, at its more extreme elements, others advocated Orthodox Jews stay away from the Internet entirely.

One rabbi in a large Hassidic group, speaking anonymously to the The Times of Israel argued that even filtering software provides an insufficient response to the dangers of the Internet:

“A whitelist, where you are allowed to surf only to specific sites, is the only way you could possibly allow the Internet into the home. There really is no choice today but to take the most extreme position you can against Internet use,” he said.

“It’s just too easy to surf to inappropriate sites. Not too long ago you had to go through a great deal of work if you wanted to, for example, view pornography and keep your interest private. Today it comes to you. This is a major crisis for religious Jews, and it is just as much a tragedy for everyone else as well,” said Reb C. “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that life has gotten so much shakier, with depression, suicides, drug addiction etc. at an all-time high, during these days of unlimited Internet access.”

As the secular Jewish philosopher Karl Marx once famously noted with Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto, in capitalism, “all fixed, fast frozen relations with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.”

The diagnostician of capitalism par excellence, Marx recognised that it was the relations of commodity production and consumption that drive our engagement with technology. Businesses and governments are online now, irrevocably, and indeed many can no longer be conducted offline at all. Haredim may pack as many stadiums as many times as they wish, but so long as they want or need to do business with the plugged-in world around them, it is doubtful that it will result in much.

And indeed, as threatening as the world outside might appear, it is clear that the real danger is inside. Rabbi Yechiel Meir Katz told the crowd that the problem is a lack of self-discipline and discernment about appropriateness: “there is not sufficient integrity among the generation today for people to be able to sit in front of a screen with the Internet, and to be able to decide what is acceptable and what is not.”

But perhaps the rabbi is mistaking integrity for desire. The Internet, and more particularly the Internet porn which occupied centre stage at the rally, exerts a pull because it is desirable, because we desire. Haredim often follow the doctrine of shomer negiah, abstaining from contact with the opposite sex, but sexuality is not so easily repressed (Freud didn’t call it a sex drive for nothing).  Indeed its suppression very often results in an eroticisation of the very forbidden object or practice. To ban the Internet through religious mandate, or demonise those who do use it, is essentially pointless, since an unfollowed law is no law at all.

It would be better if the Haredim gave sexual desire a place in their religious practice where it could thrive more openly and honestly. But then again, if that were possible, perhaps the asifa never would have taken place in the first place.

Sherlock is, in a way, ideally suited to Moffat’s personality and writing abilities. The creator doesn’t seem to understand women, has trouble crafting female characters, and is utterly baffled when audiences express unease or discomfort with the depiction of women in his work. Doyle’s classic, even updated, is very much a man’s world, revolving around the central relationship of Holmes and Watson. Other people may come and go from the story, but they’re the leads.

In Sherlock, the man who has trouble writing female characters had an ideal fix to his problem: a world where women aren’t expected, wanted, or needed. He could have made a calculated choice to add more female characters—Lucy Liu will be playing Watson in a CBS adaptation, for example—but he didn’t. Evidently Moffat has gone from cavalierly ruining female characters to avoiding them altogether, figuring this is the wiser course of action.

Well, almost avoiding them, at any rate, and therein lies the rub, because even with only a handful of women, Moffat still manages to make a bollocks of it.

Mrs. Hudson is a cardboard cutout who flutters at the edge of the scenery much like she does in the books, there simply because “the boys” need a housekeeper and occasional foil. The sandwich shop downstairs seems to get more screen time than she does, and despite her periodic battle cry of “I’m not your housekeeper,” she very much is, ushering guests upstairs, brewing endless cuppas, and threatening to tidy up ‘round the flat. Every now and then she’s allowed to have a stroke of brilliance that betrays a steel core, but then she subsides again into listlessness.

With Irene Adler, Moffat did even worse; in adapting the text, he made the character weaker, not stronger, which was quite a feat considering she wasn’t exactly a masterpiece of female liberation in the first place. The new Irene Adler doesn’t outsmart Sherlock: She besexes, befuddles, and bemuses him. He becomes obsessed with her beyond the point of rational thought, and very rarely does she have an opportunity to display the keen critical mind she had in the books. Probably because she doesn’t really have one.

Instead of being a smart woman who plans every move with deliberation and care, Adler became a muddled mess, flailing about the screen. Equally infatuated with Sherlock as he was with her, she teased and confused Sherlock in a way that was strikingly telling of Moffat’s attitudes about women; Irene Adler became a distraction with her wicked and wanton ways, clouding Sherlock’s mind with texts and flirtations. She almost became his ruin, until cold male logic and reason were able to overrule her feminine softness and lack of control.

Adler is also, of course, a sex worker, which adds another layer of complexity to Moffat’s depiction. Telling again that she should be a dominatrix, skilled in the art of power, control, and intense physical intimacy; the scene where she beats Sherlock across the face with a riding crop is a titillating glimpse of what Moffat thinks her working life must be like. The fact that she’s really the only woman of note in the series means she occupies an outsized role, and this, apparently, is how Moffat wishes to depict women.

It’s difficult to view Sherlock without considering Moffat’s record on women, and the handling of women in the show itself doesn’t speak well of him. It’s a great pity, because overall, the show is excellent; the artful cinematography, music, and editing are stellar, and really make it stand out artistically from other shows currently airing. As a work of art, Sherlock is nothing short of hauntingly beautiful at times, which is adventurous and somewhat daring for a television series. There’s a reason the budget is on a cinematographic scale.

And the relationship between Watson and Holmes is fascinating. The portrait of two men growing into themselves and getting to know each other is complex, intimate, and layered, illustrating that Moffat and his writing team are capable of truly incredible character development when they feel driven to pursue it. Having a woman (or even more than one) on the writing team would probably be beneficial if the series truly wanted to explore women more fully and deeply, which it doesn’t seem to want to do, even though the modern world of criminal investigation, and crime, is an equal opportunity environment.

Women may not be as heavily represented as men, but they are still present and highly active. In a series that’s been updated to accommodate modern times, with the latest of technology, society, and culture, the lack of women on Sherlock stands out. It’s striking that Moriarty appears to be far more cunning than Adler; think of how much more novel and intriguing the show would be if their roles were switched, and Moriarty was a woman leading a crime syndicate while Adler was a male sex worker struggling to protect himself.

In creating a show with partnered leads who aren’t in a romantic relationship or constantly dogged by romantic tension, Moffat has done something that is again interesting and exciting. However, it’s clouded by the thought that this seems to be his idealised working model; two men, pillars of logic and calm and function, going up alone against a world filled with women-as-furniture, disposable girlfriends, or evil temptresses out for blood.

Much like his writing team, it would seem.

Front page photo: Martin Freedman and Benedict Cumberbatch filming the second Sherlock season, by Mark Carline, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

We have five basic principles: Greece belongs to the Greeks. One does not become a Greek, but is born one. […] If a black man comes from Africa and stays in Greece for 15 years, he is still not a Greek. We are anti-capitalists, anti-communists and believe in a national state. We also have extremely normal and strict opinions on matters regarding illegal immigration, drugs and homosexuality. It’s all pretty straightforward if you think about it.

Quite. Golden Dawn has gone to great lengths to leave the taste of fascism in people’s mouths while still officially distancing themselves from the neonazi label. They adopted the Meandros in black and red as their flag, a very unsubtle tribute to the swastika of the Third Reich, they utilize the roman salute as the Nazis did, their supporters wear black shirts, and one of their members of parliament recent stated on Skai TV that “Hitler has not yet been judged by history.”  Translation: That particular MP can foresee a future in which humanity revisits mass murder and genocide as possibly morally virtuous. Hmmm. I hope I’m dead by then.

Amidst all this, the rich are fleeing Greece, looking for a safe place to transport their families and their wealth, taking money out of an economy that can ill-afford it. Wealthy Greeks have read the writing on the wall and are seeking shelter in the United Kingdom, and this process only accelerated before the elections, which failed to produce a viable coalition government. Besides the fact that Greece’s raison d’etre seems to have been reduced to meeting the terms of debt agreements wrestled out of them in a rigged match with the titans of the continent, the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, collectively known as the The Troika, Greeks just elected a fragmentary parliament featuring heavy gains from the most extreme political parties in the country.

With the country in the thrall of a deepening recession and the unemployment rate rising over 21%, some have blamed economic desperation for the inroads Golden Dawn made in the most recent election. Others have tried to claim that those who voted for the party weren’t fully aware of what they were doing or what the party stood for.  While facing the bilious and putrid ideology of the worst portions of society is difficult and unsettling, it is a duty that cannot go unanswered. Especially considering how insidious and pernicious and metastatic extremism can be. Along with the rest of the world, Golden Dawn’s ascension has worried those in neighboring Cyprus, prompting President Demetris Christofias to speak out about the dangers of embracing nationalism and xenophobia during times of economic turmoil.

The world economic crisis unfortunately offers today such possibilities to the extreme right particularly where there is no awareness of the historical truth and the mature democratic awareness. History teaches us that any tolerance to fascism is catastrophic.

Cyprus’ own National Popular Front (ELAM,) a right wing nationalist party formed in 2008, greeted the news of the Greek elections with jubilation, donning black shirts and taking to the streets immediately after the election results were announced. Members of ELAM see Golden Dawn’s victory as a precursor to the rise of their own fortunes.

The picture that is emerging is that you can’t pin Chrysi Avgi’s ascension into power solely on the economy. Other political parties that made large gains in this election espoused erasing the debt agreements with the Troika, ceasing austerity measures, and possibly even pulling out of the Eurozone. Greeks seem to roundly reject the last proposal — they don’t want economic stagnation but they likewise don’t want to return to the drachma — but the first two are common currency among the parties that did win. Golden Dawn ran specifically on expelling immigrants, espousing Greek “purity,” and preventing and reversing immigration with the threat of violence. Both Syriza ( which captured 17% of the vote) and Independent Greeks (10.9%) ran on anti-austerity platforms, meaning the votes Golden Dawn received were uniquely xenophobic and rabidly nationalistic.

The economic decline allowed the party to extend their local outreach in a visible way by filling vacuums left by spending gouges with their own agenda, including forming local mobs to roam the streets and violently harass foreigners and having party members deliver groceries to poor families. But already they’ve given a disturbing preview of their place in national politics. Journalist Xenia Kounalaki published a criticism of the party in the Athenian daily Kathimerini, concluding they should be banned by the government. For her trouble she was threatened by the party on their website, in a 2,5000 word polemic which recounted details of her life, mentioned her daughter, and told her to watch her back. This threat prompted WordPress to shut their website down. In the article she wrote for Der Spiegel detailing the the harassment she faced, Kounalaki said that the two major political parties (PASOK and New Democracy) started xenophobic campaigns of their own that normalized Golden Dawn’s message.

A month before the elections the police conducted a series of “clean sweeps,” rounding up undocumented immigrants in downtown Athens which the country plans to house in detention centers, one of which has already opened. To Vima predicted that around half of the police officers in Athens voted for Golden Dawn, with polling places centered around the police station turning over votes for the party at a higher rate than those father away. This wouldn’t be surprising, given the reports that the police have turned a blind eye to the group’s activities:

International observers who closely follow refugee affairs say the police watch passively when Golden Dawn thugs rough up immigrants. The Racist Violence Recording Network, set up at the initiative of the Greek National Commission for Human Rights and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, reported 63 racist attacks in Athens and neighboring Patras between October and December 2011, but the UNHCR said the results “represent only minimally the real situation.”

As of Sunday the Greek government had failed to find a parliamentary coalition, with Syriza balking at joining without first jettisoning the terms of the bailout agreement. Syriza’s leader, Alexis Tsipras, announced he wouldn’t be attending the subsequent meeting on Monday and Fotis Kouvelis, leader of the Democratic Left party, stated he wouldn’t be able to join a coalition without the support of Syriza. New Democracy and PASOK combined do not hold enough of the vote to form a coalition without the other two parties. Amid the escalating political brinksmanship, European officials began speculating openly about the fitness of a EU without Greece. If a coalition cannot be formed by May 17th, Greece must hold new elections.

If the factious new parliament cannot form a coalition Greece will be forced to hold another round of elections and Golden Dawn’s fortunes may sour, if their rise to power is as anomalous as some Greeks believe it is. Or they could gain seats and wield more power, especially if the police force sanctions their violence through inaction and links their cause in the public eye to law, justice and order, If so, Greeks may begin to see Golden Dawn as an auxiliary to the mechanism of the state and choose to ignore the dangerous rhetoric it is founded upon.

But even us, the optimists that we are, were taken aback by the depth and maturity of the so-called Generation 2.0 that brought about change in Cairo and Tunis in early 2011. And it is always worth pausing to analyse and consider that great moment, especially at this time in which so many counter-revolutionary forces are either attempting to reap the benefits of that moment or derail it completely. The Arab revolutionaries were expressing their demands in witty, profound slogans that echoed the aspirations of some the most noble revolutions in history. While most analysts believed, pre-2011, that Arab youth were beholden to the extreme notions of political Islam or were simply too lethargic to do anything meaningful, we all woke up in February 2011 to find ourselves surrounded by hordes of young Thomas Jeffersons in Tahrir square. This is the greatest revelation of the Arab spring – a youth enlightened beyond our best hopes.

But some people won’t recognize a revolution even if it hits them in the face! The conspiracy theorists, pseudo intellectuals and plotters of the Arab World united from day one to warn the masses of the chaos and disorder that any change to the miserable status quo will create. Ridiculous statements mourning the independence of the regimes and lamenting over the potential intervention of the east and the west emerged from every corner.

Egypt is not Tunisia, Libya is not Egypt, Yemen is not Libya and Syria is not Yemen. Despite panic-stricken cries of those who fear any type of change, Arab springers marvelled at the domino effect triggered by a generation who dared to break eternally the mythical wall of fear.

The cynics and the veteran conspiracy theorists are simply missing the point. And the point could not be simpler or grander. Arab youth, driven by ideals of freedom and justice, have removed tyrants from power by the sheer force of their persistence and determination. This is a fact. And an absolute first in Arab history. Imagining extravagant ulterior motives or over-analysing context or consequences does not detract for a second from the magnitude of this achievement.

And this is what we must always pause and remember. Of course, a revolution unleashes a maddening rush of internal and external forces that will do everything in their power to manipulate the course of the rebellion. What we are seeing in Egypt is nothing but a blatant attempt by the Muslim brotherhood and the military to hijack the revolution that was caused almost entirely by liberal forces. A revolution that surprised the brotherhood as much as it surprised Mubarak.

The only thing worth doing is to engage with this cataclysmic moment. It is now about all of us and how we react. If all of this doesn’t move you to do or say something constructive, then perhaps you should remain silent forever.

Now is the time to see what can be done to rescue the revolution in favor of those who instigated it. The performance of the liberal forces who literally made the revolution out of nothing has been nothing short of disastrous ever since the toppling of Mubarak. The failure of liberals in Egypt to coalesce behind a leader still astonishes me to this day. In fact, I would say that the failure of the Tahrir activists to produce a leader may singlehandedly delay the democratic project in the Arab world for a generation. We now find ourselves in the absolutely extraordinary position in which not one of the main presidential candidates in this month’s election in Egypt was involved in the revolution. In fact all indications are that those who caused the revolution can only muster single digit numbers in terms of electoral weight. Sadly, it seems that liberals who went out on the street to change a regime are not interested in government. And that is naive at best, almost suicidal at worst. You cannot simply continue the revolution on twitter and Facebook and leave the big boys to run the show. This risks a return to the dictatorships of the past or worse, a cultural and social backwardness towards which some so-called Islamist parties are working at a fervent pace.

We should also consider a fact which is still amazingly overlooked by most analysts: the pan Arab nature of this spring. How can we explain the fact that Tunisia inspired Egypt, Egypt inspired Yemen and on and on. Is this a mere coincidence? Anyone who thinks that is not a realist or pragmatist, as all those intellectuals who attack pan-Arabism like to think of themselves. Denying the common Arab element of these revolutions is either silly or an attempt to contrive the facts in a way to fit a prejudicial analytical bias.

There is no easy recipe for what can be done to save our spring. One thing is for sure: If Arab liberals retreat into that old comfortable cocoon of cynicism, then they will leave the road wide open for either the forces of “Islamist” regression or those harking back to the status quo to take over. This is no time for lethargic fatalist reflection. It is time to make a difference.

I believe that it is time for liberals to work towards defining an Arab liberal agenda. The Islamists have succeeded, for better or for worse, to define a clear message that the Arab street can easily grasp and understand. What is the message of the liberals? What do we stand for? There has been no concrete attempt to define our vision in a way that translates well amongst the Arab masses who are new to the spectre of competing political ideologies in a democratic context. It is my view that this Arab liberal agenda should focus on a number of principles, including:

1. Freedom with responsibility. Our focus should be on an unflinching belief in all fundamental political and economic freedoms including freedom of expression and assembly;
2. A democratic system of government.
3. A bill of rights. It is my view that this is where the liberal forces have failed most spectacularly so far. We must work towards defining a fundamental set of rights from which there can be no derogation. The problem in Tunisia and Egypt now is that the process of constitution drafting has been left at the mercy of short term electoral politics. We must push for a set of fundamental rights that cannot be changed easily at every election cycle. We must think long and hard as to what inalienable rights must be championed. If this puts the liberal forces in conflict with “Islamist” forces, then so be it.
4. A pan-Arab project. This is a very important element in the liberal agenda and this is the “Vision Thing” behind which many Arabs will unite. As mentioned above, there is no doubt that the Arab spring has proven that there is a pervasive sense of Arab identity and unity amongst all Arab peoples. We must work towards defining a unifying project that would serve the economic and political interests of all Arabs.

There will be much more to debate as to what would constitute a fundamental Arab liberal agenda. But the point is clear: If Arab liberals want to triumph in electoral politics over the Islamists and the old guard, then they must all come together. We cannot persist as we are now, with liberals disorganized, fragmented in hundreds of parties.
I believe that in this first phase of democracy in the Arab world, we will not be divided along traditional lines of political and economic principle, conservative vs. labour, capitalist vs. socialist. It is early for that. The political divide is between Islamists, status quo protagonists and liberals. In the current political map, the liberals, despite their outstanding role in leading the Arab revolutions, come as a distant third.

But this all can change. Even though it is early days in Arab democratic transformation, I trust in the basic common sense of the Arab masses. If presented with a clear vision based on hope rather than fear, progress than regression, rights rather than restraints, moderation rather than extremes, I am confident that the majority of Arabs will respond positively. It is now down to all of us liberals to formulate that vision.

In this climate, shareholders trump the farmworkers who handle the produce, the sweatshop labourers who sew the designer jeans, and the people who monitor the quality in the pharmaceutical lab. Many board members have also sliced off a large piece of the pie for themselves, using their positions for self-enrichment even as they take care to stay within the lines of the law—or at least appear to do so—to avoid investigations from government regulators and other agencies. Right behind the shareholders come rocketing executive compensation, including ample signup and leaving packages.

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising to see members of the public resenting shareholders and identifying them as targets in the effort for financial reform. Leaning on major stakeholders is one way to pressure companies into changing their activities; if, for example, a large shareholder can be shamed for holding shares in a company known to use child slaves, it in turn will pressure the company to change its labour practices. Under the threat of losing that stakeholder and the accompanying value, the company may comply, and activists have achieved their goal of creating a meaningful and lasting change.

This is not, however, the only way to engage with shareholders.  They themselves can be activists, and there’s a rising movement to utterly alter the landscape of annual meetings. Far from being a self-congratulatory pleasurefest, they are becoming a minefield for executives and key representatives, who are suddenly put in the hot seat by the people they are supposed to be working for, the individuals who collectively own the company and have the right to make key decisions about its operations.

It’s hard to retool the social relationship with shareholders, but that’s exactly what activists have been doing over recent years, and a growing number are joining in, pushing for change from the inside. Groups like the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation and Domini Social Investments have been engaging in shareholder activism for years, for example. A group of nuns from Philadelphia have been using their shares in major companies to push for corporate reforms while groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have used their shares to compel changes in animal welfare policies. This kind of institutional investment as a form of social activism is not uncommon, but more individuals are adding their voices to the discussion in annual meetings, and it’s starting to show.

Some have a very personal stake in this. Activist Alex Friedmann is an ex-convict who is preparing to speak about prison rape at a Corrections Corporation of America annual meeting. He wants CCA to take a more active role in addressing rape and sexual abuse, and he’s using his $2,000 worth of shares to demand just that by calling for a resolution creating clear guidelines and parameters for reporting sexual assault statistics and other data from its facilities. Given the culture of silence surrounding prison rape in the United States, just bringing the resolution is a significant act, ensuring the issue doesn’t go unremarked and putting attendees of the meeting on the spot.

In 2011, it looked like shareholder activism—and revolt—was on the rise in response to changing economic conditions and a growing interest in using activism to reform the financial industry, rather than relying on regulators and policy alone. This trend appears to be continuing, and it’s entering the mainstream, to the delight of many organisers and trailblazers who have been involved with shareholder activism for decades. For newcomers to shareholder activism, it’s another method to add to the toolbox, while veterans of the practice are picking up new skills and thinking about ways to expand the scope of their work.

Shareholder revolts are a time-honoured tradition in the corporate world, as shareholders frustrated with company performance decide to use their clout to vote in a block for measures like rejections of executive pay, checks on compensation packages, and board ousters. Along with representing their financial interests, such groups also indirectly support the will of a growing number of activists on the ground. While people protest in the streets about social stratification and the vast disparity between CEO pay and that for average employees, shareholders are doing the same thing with their ballots, for a far more immediate effect.

Both groups play an important role in the fight for financial reform. Shareholders need to take a more active role in shaping policy at the companies they invest in, and they should be using their clout in annual meetings to push for immediate and direct change. More attention and aggression in annual meetings could have prevented some of the financial disasters of recent years, had shareholders been engaged and involved with the companies they were investing in.

At the heart of some shareholder resolutions can lie truly radical policy shifts.  In the realm of animal welfare, for example, once one major fast food company commits to a change like not crating pigs, others are often forced to follow suit to remain competitive. Shareholders can create a domino effect across an entire industry with a single well-timed resolution, if they coordinate ahead of time to ensure they’ll get the votes needed to pass it, or at least to trigger an extensive conversation on the subject.

Meanwhile, street-based activism keeps the general public informed. As protesters gather at annual meetings and similar events, they can alert people to the social misdeeds of the companies they’re protesting, and the ways in which members of the public can act directly to confront them. While the media may attempt to ignore some protests, the coordinated national outrage created by the Occupy movement has proved difficult to push under the carpet. Consequently, such protests are getting more media face time, and more opportunities for direct engagement with the public. The result is an increasing awareness of exactly how bad some companies are—and what people can do about it.

The Guardian warns that a number of companies may be facing a ‘shareholder spring,’ a concept which might seem laughable, but is a very real risk for those in the upper echelon. While shareholders with large blocks of shares are traditionally among the most wealthy and powerful in society, they’re sending a signal to the companies they invest in, and society in general: enough. That message has been in part driven by pressure from the ground up, as the growing unrest and anger can no longer be ignored, but there’s also a sense of fury on the part of high-flying shareholders who are tired of financial abuses. The era of high executive pay and lavish perks on the side may be drawing to a close in the United States.

And not all shareholders are representing major funds, unethical institutional investors, and individuals with very high net worth interested in curbing executive pay and other practices solely because they pose a financial risk. Some are pension funds and other social groups, while others are social justice-minded organisations who have chosen to use the power of the boardroom to push for reforms from the inside, in addition to lobbying for greater government oversight and more comprehensive reform from the outside. Their investment activities can be an important part of their activism strategy, although this aspect of their work is not as visible to the public.

They’ve started asking lesser shareholders to join them, adding their voices to shareholder meetings. While shareholder activism has traditionally been framed as something that is only possible with large blocks of shares, any shareholder with enough votes can speak up at a general meeting, and that means executives and representatives can be directly confronted with the voices of people affected by company policies and activities. While these shareholders don’t have the clout to force a meaningful vote on these issues, they do have an opportunity to force companies to face the real-world consequences of their actions.

This is a departure from the traditional model of shareholder activism, where groups have focused on coordinating votes to support specific single measures with the goal of reforming policy or publicly shaming companies. Asking for individual testimony can also result in shifts in corporate attitudes, but more critically, it humanises and individualises the company’s actions.

There’s a profound difference between a united effort between multiple environmental investors to pressure a company into using ethically sourced wood, and forcing executives to hear testimony from indigenous people threatened by illegal logging practices. Both can create reform, but one also drives home the fact that this is an ethical and moral issue. Voting against a resolution in the wake of such personal testimony is a public relations gamble, as the voter is effectively put in the position of opposing human rights and dignity, not just a dry resolution.

The Occupy movement has readily joined in to create coordinated protests at shareholder meetings. While protesters advocate on the street in front, representatives enter the meeting to provide testimony, as happened recently at a Bank of America meeting in Atlanta. At other board meetings, activists have taken advantage of the right to proxy votes, delegating representatives to attend in their stead to give them a voice they wouldn’t otherwise have. People with a group of shares large enough to entitle a shareholder to speak, for example, turn over a seat at the meeting to someone directly affected by a company’s pollution. That person, acting as a proxy, can give voice at the meeting.

Coordinating efforts like this results in a situation companies cannot ignore. While they may try to shield their investors from the angry public marching in front of their meetings, they cannot keep shareholders and their proxies out of annual meetings except by technicality, and too many technicalities start to draw attention. The practice of invading annual meetings via direct shares or proxies is well-established in Europe, and the fact that it’s spreading to the United States is a good sign, illustrating that it is possible for small voices to be heard in the din, and for the historically downtrodden to have a voice.

For many people in the lower classes in the United States, the economic meltdown has been accompanied by a sense of futility and an awareness that as individuals, people are often powerless to take direct action. Shareholder activism puts the power back in the hands of the people, many of whom are being supported by established activist groups with experience in this arena who are delighted to have more participants on board. Some are working with local organisations to offer mentoring and support as they start to explore shareholder activism and prepare for specific actions.

Some investment firms have issued statements of solidarity with the occupy movement, highlighting the fact that the divide between investors and the people is much more blurred than some activists may realise. Owning shares in a company does involve a direct investment in the system, but the way those shares are used may run contrary to the tendency of capitalism to put profit before all else.

It’s unsurprising that in this landscape, organisations like The Wall Street Journal are attacking shareholder activists, while agencies like the Federal Reserve block shareholder activists in the guise of protecting the economy. These authorities are beginning to recognise that even shareholders aren’t safe from the growing desire for social change. In moving to protect the interests of the rich and powerful, they counter the myths they promote about the free market and self-regulation; surely, in a world where the market can look after itself, shareholder activists should be viewed as a natural evolution with a place in the framework, rather than a threat.

Thus, we may end up in a world where occupy protesters are buying shares in major companies for activist purposes, and using their earnings to fuel more shareholder activism. Which means that they need to start thinking about their strategies and goals. Much of the outside criticism of the movement has revolved around the superficial lack of organisation and seemingly disconnected nature of much of the messaging and activism from city to city, and even within individual cities. Such criticism will continue, and protesters need to be ready to counter it.

As a tool for directly shaping company policy and corporate activities, shareholder activism has tremendous promise, but only when used effectively. Tactics like soliciting shareholders and proxies to provide direct testimony at shareholder meetings are an excellent component, as are measures like those promoted by Friedmann, who is taking the additional step of bringing resolutions to annual meetings. While such resolutions may have a slim chance of passing, they still require consideration, discussion, and a vote. And lay the groundwork for next time.

This provides an opportunity to air grievances in a forum where they must be heard and taken seriously before the meeting can proceed. While this may present a temptation to stage a series of nonsense resolutions in the goal of prolonging the meeting and creating a sense of irritation, this isn’t a good long-term strategy. The backlash against shareholder activists has already begun, which requires them to be one step ahead when it comes to shaping policy without being shut down, silenced, and thrown out. Allowing this tool to be taken away would be a profound disservice.

Activists claim to be ready for the delicate dance—whether they really are remains to be seen.

Pope is a fixer in Washington who can handle any problem that comes up—for a price. Based on consultant Judy Smith, who worked as a press aide to George H. W. Bush, Pope is an expert in crisis management with the ability to multitask, delegate at the speed of light, and handle anything the press corps, and the public, can throw at her clients. Her swanky offices house an assortment of misfits with variably shady pasts who are all united by one thing: Their tireless admiration of Pope and commitment to the business. They’ll stop at nothing to support the goal of Pope and Associates, which is to make sure the secrets of the wealthy and powerful stay secret, even as they hide a few of their own.

What’s fun about Scandal is the setting on the outside of the White House looking in, although Pope enjoys a close personal relationship with the President. Viewers become insiders, but not quite, and there’s a certain tension created as they see politics at its worst, when it’s time to call in the big guns and stage an intervention. Unlike The West Wing, which focused on the daily activities of staff members at work, Scandal revolves around the dangerous pitfalls that lie in the potential career of any politician, power broker, or high-profile executive, the things that can bring down a life’s work in a single instant.

And, in true Rhimes tradition, a lot of those pitfalls are totally over the top. A certain suspension of disbelief is required to enjoy the show, which verges on the ridiculous at times and sets up scenarios that are highly implausible. We are supposed to believe, for example, that Pope is the kind of person who would help a woman escape from an abusive marriage with one breath and order an employee to torture someone with another.

Rhimes doesn’t shy away from murky ethical territory on her other shows, and it’s in full flower on Scandal, where Pope handles anything for the right price, including some very sordid cases. She makes it clear that she wants to run a nonjudgmental office, whether they’re assisting someone accused of rape, a DC madam, or a Latin American dictator. Unfortunately, Rhimes attempts to balance out this ruthless attitude with plot twists that allow the characters to take the moral high ground in the end, rather than allowing the story to unfold naturally (and more true to life).

Intriguingly, the Grant administration is Republican, though moderate rather than right-wing—the President clashes with his Vice-President, Sally Langston (Kate Burton) over their divergent politics—and Pope is a former Grant employee. For those who thought Rhimes might explore a more nuanced depiction of Republicans, exploring the diversity and complexity of the party, never fear: Grant (Tony Goldwyn) is utterly morally bankrupt and repulsive, and his Chief of Staff, Cyrus Beene (Jeff Perry) is equally horrific.

One of the aspects of politics highlighted by Scandal is the role of gatekeepers, and the way in which public officials can become trapped in rigid roles. Pope and Grant routinely miscommunicate because their messages are filtered through other people; Cyrus in particular at least claims to have the best interests of Grant at heart, and routinely throws Pope under the bus to get what he wants. In the latest episode, Grant chafed at the fact that he was effectively a prisoner in the White House; ‘I’m the leader of the free world…and I can’t leave my own house,’ struggling with the fact that being President doesn’t mean you have free access to everything you want, or need.

Scandal has just two more episodes this season, and the last is likely to be explosive, given Rhimes’ penchant for leaving readers hanging at the end of the season as well as tantalising the network to encourage it to pick up another season. I for one would like to see the show renewed, because there’s a tremendous amount of potential here, and it’s exciting to see Rhimes taking things in a slightly new direction from her previous work.

While Scandal definitely has some soapy aspects, it’s not as sudsy as offerings like Grey’s Anatomy and Private Practice and has the possibility of being a much more mature, emotionally complex, and savvy show. I’m engaged with and interested by the characters, particularly Olivia Pope, who is one of the few Black female leads on television at the moment. Her relationship with David Rosen (Joshua Malina) is particularly interesting to watch, as the characters spar brilliantly and delightfully in the course of doing their work, sometimes on opposite sides of the law. Good plot and character development could take the show to an exciting level, if Rhimes resists the temptation to rely on cheap tricks and twists to get what she wants. Her showing has been a bit hit and miss so far in that department, but there’s a chance it could tighten up next season.

Progressive audiences have been thirsting for a new West Wing and Scandal won’t get there, but it may be fun along the way. For that alone, I’m waiting eagerly for renewal announcements. Given that we’re in an election year, Scandal is particularly well-positioned for some sharp political commentary in the fall if Rhimes is willing to go there; and I bet she is.

She’s up against some competition, though, with Veep, Political Animals, and 1600 Penn all vying for a position as political top dog. Too much political commentary for one year? We’ll find out in September…

From the report at Business Insider:

The alleged victim, a 25-year-old Belgian call-girl referred to as Marie-Anne, says that the incident took place on the night of December 16, 2010, DSK.

DSK was in the room with the girl and other men when he began being violent. Marie-Anne says, “that is to say, he held my hands. Pulled my hair, he hurt me. I weigh 50 kilos, he is heavier.” The former head of the IMF then attempted to sodomize the call-girl, the newspaper reported.

“I refused and told him no, I do not want to. I tried to get loose but it was complicated because he was on me and he is very heavy (…). Admittedly, I did not scream, but I made it clear that I did not want, several times, out loud. “

This, however, is not the first time that witnesses, onlookers and participants of the alleged sex parties related to the Carlton Hotel prostitution ring mention Strauss Kahn’s violence. Back in March, Beatrice Legrain, one of the women now accused of being a facilitator of sex workers for Strauss Kahn, gave an interview where she described the alleged parties where Strauss Kahn met sex workers:

She also said that the former International Monetary Chief had attacked her during the party.

‘I got up to go to the bathroom and DSK followed me and in a passageway he grabbed me by my throat and said ‘it’s you who I want’,’ she added.

Strauss Kahn, once a very powerful member of Europe’s political elites is not taking all these accusations lightly. His reaction, initially one of silence and denial, has lately changed to reflect a growing resentment. In an interview for The Guardian, at the end of April, he went as far as accusing people close to (now former) French President Nicholas Sarkozy of orchestrating these claims to ruin his political career. He traces his initial downfall to the rape accusation at the Sofitel Hotel in New York in May of 2011.

While he does not believe the incident with Nafissatou Diallo was a setup, he said the subsequent escalation of the events on 14 May into a criminal investigation that destroyed his chances of winning the presidency had been “shaped by those with a political agenda” and that “more was involved here than mere coincidence”.

However, Strauss Kahn fails to address all the new charges that have emerged ever since and the subsequent accumulation of testimonies and allegations from many different women who came in contact with him both before and after the Sofitel allegations. Given the many different women involved, all their testimonies united by a common thread of violence, disdain for their humanity and alleged lack of consent, none of these episodes seem to be isolated or the result of misunderstandings. There seems to be a pattern of misogyny and entitlement in his dealings with women he perceives to be beneath his stature: hotel maids, sex workers, women involved in procuring sex workers or young and inexperienced journalists attempting to interview him. Journalist Tristane Banon said of her meeting with Strauss Kahn when she was 21 years old:

Strauss-Kahn lured the then 21-year-old trainee journalist to the property under the promise of an interview, and then started to rip her clothes off, it is claimed.

‘I kicked him, I called him a rapist, he didn’t seem to care,’ said Ms Banon in earlier interviews, in which she also described Strauss-Kahn as acting like a ‘rutting chimpanzee’.

As if the climate was not rarified enough, on Friday, France repealed a sexual harassment law on the grounds that the definition of the crime was too vague. This has created an uproar within feminist organizations who rightfully pointed out that the decision, by France’s highest constitutional body, would leave victims without legal protection until a new law is put into place. Reuters reported on this worrying latest development:

Former International Monetary Fund chief Strauss-Kahn was arrested last May, accused of sexual assault by a hotel maid. The charges were later dropped but the ensuing scandal cast a harsh light on a practice in France of hushing up or shrugging off sexual advances by powerful figures. Feminists demanded a change of attitude.

Strauss-Kahn had already been rapped over a sexual relationship with a subordinate in 2008, who said she felt pressured to sleep with him, and French writer Tristane Banon filed a complaint after the New York case alleging he tried to assault her in 2003.

Junior civil service minister Georges Tron was forced to resign in June after two women who had worked for him filed sexual harassment complaints. One said the debate sparked by the Strauss-Kahn scandal had prompted her to break her silence.

The law was overturned because it was contested by a former deputy mayor in the southern region of Rhone who had been sentenced to three months in prison and a 5,000 euro ($6,700) fine for sexually harassing three employees. His lawyers successfully argued that the law was too vague and that it did not cover the specifics of what had transpired between the former mayor and his accusers. The Constitutional Court agreed with the arguments and declared the law voided.

However, it could be months, or even more than a year, until there is new legislation into place. Meanwhile, all existing cases currently in court dealing with issues of sexual harassment have been dismissed and people who wish to bring new ones up cannot do so due to the fact that there is no law to contemplate the crime.

Dominique Strauss Kahn seems to be a visible symptom of a larger culture of misogyny and contempt for human rights. The fact that Strauss Kahn targeted already vulnerable women points to a seriously alarming potential consequences of this lawless state. People who are already considered easy targets for predators and susceptible to harm such as immigrants, trans women, queer people, and minorities are now left with practically no recourse to protect themselves. The law might have been “too vague”, but a state of no protection is very concrete and tangible: it tells potential predators that there will be no consequences for their actions. After all, some people do not seem to be worthy of legal safeguards.

Predictably, faith communities have been at the forefront of the struggle. On one side, Patrick Wooden, Jr. of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ, has welcomed this latest offensive against LGBT people in the state. Amendment supporters have used him in a cynical attempt to reach out to socially conservative Christian African-Americans. A good friend to Christian Right outfit, the National Organization for Marriage, Wooden has made many hysterical assertions about LGBT people such as his claim that gay men “have to wear a diaper or butt plug just to be able to contain their bowels.” Beloved North Carolina evangelist Billy Graham has meanwhile tried to lend a veneer of respectability to the cause, saying, “Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern.”

But North Carolina also has a history of progressive faith-based activism, so many clergy within the state are fighting the Amendment. More than 200 faith leaders have pledged to vote against Amendment One. And William Barber, Disciples of Christ pastor and President of the State NAACP, has spoken out strongly against the racism informing pro-Amendment activism. In a video for anti-Amendment group Protect All North Carolina Families, Barber says, “Far-Right wing forces are trying to roll back Civil Rights. They’ve come up with a new trick to attempt to divide us. They know that many African-Americans are church-going, religious people, family oriented, but we must understand what this trick is…no matter how you feel about same-sex marriage, personally or religiously, what you should always be against is any attempt to codify hate, discrimination or division into the sacred document of our State’s Constitution.”

Of course, North Carolina is a deeply religious place, and this is true regardless of politics. That’s why faith has been the site of so much political struggle throughout the State’s history just as it is now. That’s why it would be a mistake to assume that every North Carolina resident who is speaking out on the basis of faith is in league with the Christian Right. Christians here are incredibly divided on the issue. And it isn’t a new battle. Since at least the 1950’s, people of faith have been fighting each other to figure out which Christianity – the discriminatory or progressive one – best exemplifies who we want to be as citizens and religious believers. At the end of the day, it is simply impossible to argue that this is a struggle between secularism and faith. Rather, it’s a struggle about what kind of faith we North Carolinians want to live.

The very idea of gay marriage is not something that all North Carolina believers are going to settle any time soon. This is just the unfortunate reality of living in the Bible belt. However, the Amendment carries several potential harms that have nothing to do with the LGBT population and that all people of faith should be able to rally around. After all, more than 85% of couples who could be seriously harmed by the Amendment are unmarried heterosexual couples. So, we should all be skeptical that this is really about gay marriage in the first place.

In fact, its scope is extremely broad and could have many devastating consequences. Two of the most likely are also the most troubling. First, the Amendment could prevent employers from providing health insurance benefits to the children of unmarried parents. According to the Coalition to Protect All NC Families, that’s the children of nearly 90,000 couples, the sum total of all unmarried couples with children in the State. There is simply no religious justification for harming children.

Not only this, but the Amendment could also invalidate existing domestic violence protections for all unmarried women in the state. It would almost certainly weaken the State’s already minimal domestic violence statutes. When it comes to domestic violence, Ohio’s similar amendment to ban gay marriage is very instructive. When Ohio’s amendment became law, 27 domestic violence convictions were overturned or dismissed. So no matter what anyone thinks of gay marriage, all people of faith should agree that there is no justification for any law that could reward domestic abusers.

The mainstream media consistently casts the debate as one about the issue of gay marriage, but this is a deflection. It is in fact about far more than that. At minimum, it is really about just how much we value the very lives of women and children in our State. Polls show a healthy 14% lead among Amendment supporters, but I am convinced that it wouldn’t stand a chance if all of us knew just how broadly it could be interpreted once it becomes law. But not everyone knows, so we need to take the next few days to ensure that they do.

North Carolina was the final – and most reluctant – Southern state to join the Confederate States of America. Now it is the final – and most reluctant – Southern state likely to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The state has always been a strange – and contested – mix of Old South politics and progressive populism. It’s a fascinating state, politically speaking, because it has always been the site of intense political struggle between regression and progress. It has all of the elements of every other Southern state, but far more political diversity than many. This was reflected in the 2008 presidential election when the state helped elect President Barack Obama by a narrow margin.

We might be defeated in our attempts to stop the Amendment this time around. But the debate about Amendment One has thrust the idea of gay marriage into North Carolina politics in an unprecedented way. None of us were talking about it before, but now it’s a defining discussion in our State’s political discourse. Opponents have waged an impressive and well-funded campaign against the Amendment, and they have a lot of momentum on their side. If Amendment One passes, a galvanized public will continue to fight it, and marriage equality may be achieved even faster than it may otherwise have been. A few years ago, I’d never have dreamed that this could be a reality of my lifetime, but with 40% of the population on board to fight LGBT discrimination and a lot of momentum, more and more people will soon realize that this isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about the struggle for the soul of North Carolina.

I know I’ll be trying to catch at least seven finales, each for entirely different reasons.

NBC’s Community has a reputation for bang-up season finales, and I suspect this season will be no different. Now in its third season, the show has become a crowd favourite, and the network has set aside 90 minutes on 17 May to wow viewers with a three episode special. Depending on NBC’s schedule announcements on 14 May, the season finale will either be a opportunity for rejoicing or mourning on the part of fans, but one thing it will definitely be is entertaining. And possibly messy, if the last two seasons are any indication. Remember to wear eye protection!

Desperate Housewives is wrapping it up for good on 13 May after eight seasons. It’s a good run, and ABC was wise in knowing when to throw in the towel; the actors and production staff agree, thanking ABC for being able to go out with a bang. Viewers have been entertained, fixated, and sometimes repulsed by the antics on Wisteria Lane, and it’s good to end on a high note, rather than letting the show quietly peter out. With the show’s classically slightly soapy note (ABC seems to excel at primetime soaps), I suspect the season finale will be a tearjerker, with everything neatly wrapped up at the end, and I’m curious to see how it all falls out in the finale.

Fellow fans of GCB will want to tune in on 6 May for the season finale, ‘Revelations’; while the debut season of the show has been short, it’s packed in a lot of action, and the final episode promises to be no different, as the title suggests, with secrets spilling every which way as the GCBs confront the past, the present, and the future. Hopefully this won’t also be the show’s last season, because it’s currently on the bubble and ABC has a limited amount of time to make a final decision.

Over on Fox, viewers may see Bones framed for murder on 14 May as the show continues its juggling act between baby and brutality. The network has already renewed the show for an eighth season, so there isn’t much suspense in terms of whether or not it will be coming back, although some fans may be wondering whether it should come back, given the generally poor performance over the last couple of seasons. Bones has lost its focus, and the season finale may be an opportunity to pull it back in and tighten up; let’s hope so, or Fox may be facing poor ratings when it comes back in the fall.

Will they or won’t they? That’s the question on Castle on 7 May, where we’ll allegedly learn who shot Beckett…and whether Beckett and Castle will get together at last. Given the way a relationship between the leads destroyed Bones, I can’t be the only fan rooting for a continuation of sexual tension with no resolution. Part of what keeps ABC’s offering snappy is the dynamic between the two characters, and the sense of fun that pervades most episodes; the writing team has managed to play with the procedural format in a way that’s truly delightful. A relationship could ruin that feel for good.

Starting out strong, ABC’s Revenge has been a bit floppy in the last few episodes. The faltering show is set to finale on 23 May, and it’s unclear whether it will be back. This is a show tailor-made for the miniseries format, so I fervently hope that ABC is planning to either wrap it up, or clearly define an end date to give the series more structure. I want to know what happens to Emily Thorne on her quest for vengeance—and her voyage of self-discovery as she learns the high cost of revenge—but I can’t sit still for dull, wandering storylines that demonstrate a rising carelessness on the part of the writers in charge. The performance of the finale will in large part determine whether I come back for season two, if it happens.

Speaking of faltering, House—remember that show?—will be airing its series finale on 21 May. The long-running show is finally calling it quits after eight seasons, and in my opinion, it’s a decision that should have been made at least two seasons ago, when the show’s sparkle was long worn off and it had become deeply formulaic and dull. Making medical dramas engaging can be a challenge, and an artful production team knows when to gracefully end it. House notably lost its reputation as a critics’ darling over the last two seasons, and with good reason. The finale will be more of a relief than a bittersweet ending for me, because it was long past time, but I’ll still tune in for the end of an era.

Overall, fewer flashy endings have been promised for this season than last, reflecting an increased sobriety on network television. The more sombre tone seems in fitting with the somewhat muted mood of many viewers, but I’m hoping GCB and Community lighten things up a little as we gear up for summer.