I came across this utterly insane story in the local paper--and I swear it's Laura's other half!

This woman, Bridget Adams, was a drug counselor who came onto a client of hers. After he rejected her, she:

• became obsessed
• harassed him with an endless barrage of text messages
• Used an app to create a new phone number every time he blocked hers
• Got a restraining order as retaliation for the restraining order he got against her
• Fabricated documents as evidence
• Called the cops multiple times claiming he'd violated the restraining order when he hadn't
• Contacted his work to try to get him in trouble there
• Made up claims of Domestic Violence
• Impersonated a variety of people, including lawyers
• Tried to intimidate him into dropping the restraining order via legal threats (including a letter of intent to sue!)
• Used that litigation threat to try to compel communication
• Claimed that someone else hacked her and they're really the ones doing the harassment when caught
• Claimed a conspiracy was involved in framing her
• Tried to get another restraining order after a move left them thousands of miles apart from each other

Sound like anyone we know?!

>I think your embarrassed and scared to reach out to her because you meant the things you said in the very beginning and then you became an evil dick and the best way to handle things for you is being a passive aggressive narcissist instead of an actual man.

[emphasis mine] Flashbacks to Greg in particular.

I also think it's interesting that she preyed on someone who was in an emotionally vulnerable spot, like Laura did Clayton and Mike, and lied about her professional background (again, like Laura).

As with Laura's victims, law enforcement were extraordinarily lazy when it came to evidence, taking Bridget's word for it that these fabricated messages were sent by her victim. The victim here also suffered lost employment opportunities because of the fraudulent restraining order against him.

>UC Berkeley criminal law professor Andrea Roth, who is generally sympathetic to the difficulties of investigating sexual assault threats, said that if prosecutors and police officers don’t realize emails and text messages can be easily fabricated, “that is embarrassing ignorance on the state of digital evidence.”

What really had me gasping: Bridget, too, once sued a man for paternity after they dated for a week and a half... when she didn't have any children. Apparently this is a thing.

Anyway, Bridget Adams was sentenced to nine years and four months and later had another two years tacked on. Does that give us hope for Laura's outcome? 🤞

I know Kasia Walicka-Maimone chose signature colours and character-specific palettes with a great deal of intentionality and thought as to the symbolic and emotional significance of colour.

But I have to say... I think she really did some of the actors dirty with the colours she chose.

There is often a lot of debate when it comes to seasonal colour analysis--different people often come up with wildly different assessments.

Part of this is different lighting, settings, and makeup. Part of it is the subjective nature of aesthetics and what each individual thinks "looks good."

I was grumbling to myself about Cynthia Nixon being frequently attired in oranges, rusts, and mustards, because in my opinion these are terrible colours for her. This is not necessarily a widely-shared opinion! But it is mine.

Just because she named her dog Pumpkin doesn't mean you have to dress Ada like one.

Nixon is a fine example of the subjectivity of seasonal analysis--she is widely accepted as a Spring of some kind with warm undertones, whereas I believe they are too swayed by the fiery red hair of her most famous character and she's actually neutral.

She certainly looks gorgeous in blue shades--which of course is not dispositive of her having warm undertones, as Spring has its own blues.

In the Easter episode, they have her in a subdued Light Spring green and you can see how much fresher she looks:

https://preview.redd.it/2guep3j77lyg1.png?width=614&format=png&auto=webp&s=53ad9c80cfe94ee59430a0525fa2835092af768a

Big improvement over the Autumn palette! But look how ethereally pretty she looks in a Summer blue. Look how striking her eyes suddenly become.

https://preview.redd.it/mhr7qb156lyg1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=d34f9e19c357fae78ab2684afb56bfca3d2e5265

Anyway, perception of colour is subjective, but CMYK values are not.

So because I'm a giant nerd who loves spreadsheets, I decided to create a tool that would consider the relative CMYK values to generate suggestions. I take a number of colour swatches from the forehead, cheek, chin, nose, and neck and then average them into one CMYK representative sample. I make my own contrast assessment from a desaturated photo and select a contrast level from a drop-down menu. The tool references the four criteria of Hue, Value, Chroma, and Contrast to suggest a season.

https://preview.redd.it/g6m4oiop9lyg1.png?width=1067&format=png&auto=webp&s=67b6f1b4d5f86ccd6737adecb76d2eaeea156227

It's not a ✨magic seasonal colour oracle✨ and it was never meant to be--just a plaything meant to incorporate some objective data in quantifying something elusive. I disagree with some of its assessments! But I had fun running it on the cast.

https://preview.redd.it/9945zxcu9lyg1.png?width=1109&format=png&auto=webp&s=4080f3aaad120ec2300666f04ad3738e6d2b8331

https://preview.redd.it/vhu6x7yualyg1.png?width=604&format=png&auto=webp&s=957daa4c710b9055c38bdaa2b89a530b9b46c004

So for this one I should specify--I don't disagree with the assessment. I just love the jewel-toned rich Deep Winter palette they use for Agnes because it supports the gravitas of Old Money Authority while still looking great on Christine Baranski. So I'm super onboard with Maimone's colour choices with Agnes.

https://preview.redd.it/59t9ixh6alyg1.png?width=605&format=png&auto=webp&s=7935e79a05066d76df912ec39416e6e0d48631c1

I don't hate the assessment of Light Summer, but I think Carrie Coon can handle bolder, darker colours. Perfect example of how there's no substitute for draping.

https://preview.redd.it/4uwatlg6blyg1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=0939800f0ff15fb10e504934ef47d06ad1e8e373

While it's very far from perfect, sometimes, the tool can be useful in challenging perceptions. I loved Denée Benton in her blue and purple outfits, so I assumed she would be cooler. The tool spat out "Dark Autumn" and I thought "Poppycock!" until I put a Dark Autumn palette next to her face and damned if she doesn't glow. It also explains why the pale powder pink ballgown, IMO, do her no favours. It felt like the dress was fighting to pull attention away from her face. I do still like a lot of the light summer colours on her, but maybe that's just because Denée is too damn pretty to look bad in much.

https://preview.redd.it/7bld13g1clyg1.png?width=558&format=png&auto=webp&s=422fdca66770533008864bfc7faf4c7b00c30e3a

No notes on this one; a lot of the colours Gladys wears do fall into this palette.

https://preview.redd.it/yfzitzneclyg1.png?width=682&format=png&auto=webp&s=e7386bc8e8544ad0427daecd2364553ba2f87ae5

Marian's palette is such a mixed bag! She wears a LOT of pale blue and pale yellow, and those work fine with Louisa Jacobson. I do, however, object to the navy-and-bronze dress that might be pretty on someone else, but is terrible on her. (And really, does EVERY ballgown need to be yellow?)

https://preview.redd.it/43dil1x4dlyg1.png?width=323&format=png&auto=webp&s=d33f1dcd4fe6d2cb2a4d4efbfc672784fba05447

https://preview.redd.it/6umew67qdlyg1.png?width=529&format=png&auto=webp&s=fa1837d8f2829e4087bc5571cb7b69a2a1544b77

I more or less concur with the CMYK tool on this one. She really rocks the black and white dresses as a lady's maid, as you might expect of a Winter.

Her costumes as Mrs Winterton were also a bit of a mixed bag.

https://preview.redd.it/slaeld5selyg1.png?width=523&format=png&auto=webp&s=698656fb48e415576b71ca6f8f0609fb194da19f

The result for Dorothy Scott was so different from my take on her that I don't even know what to think! I think she looks lovely in cool, muted colours; I loved her in greys, muted purples, silvers, and light blues.

https://preview.redd.it/h9e4w5z4flyg1.png?width=526&format=png&auto=webp&s=d33655b4d2b43df9d70f2e2bafc5263a5ef69f11

https://preview.redd.it/0mikq5fhflyg1.png?width=418&format=png&auto=webp&s=71581cbf7c48a33ba79a18d1902b11a9dba98db1

Am I taking crazy pills, or what? What's your take on Audra McDonald's season?

Posted a version of this previously before Trump set next year's military budget to an unconscionable $1.5T. I also took pains to cite my sources here.

------------------------------------------------------------

American taxpayers are paying through the nose for the privilege of being poor.

President Trump's proposed FY2027 defense budget requests $1.5 trillion for military spending–a 44% increase over 2026 levels and the largest such request in decades.¹ For context: the next highest military spender in the world is China, at $300 billion.² That is one-fifth of what the United States proposes to spend.

This same budget simultaneously cuts nondefense spending by 10%, eliminating the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that keeps poor families warm in winter, slashing housing assistance, cutting $5 billion from the National Institutes of Health, and reducing funding for public health emergency preparedness.¹ The president explained his priorities plainly: "We're fighting wars. We can't take care of day care."³

This is happening while the United States carries a national debt of $39 trillion–a figure that has roughly doubled since 2017.⁴ We are now paying more than $1 trillion per year just in interest on that debt.⁴ The Congressional Budget Office projects the annual deficit will reach $1.9 trillion in FY2026 and swell to $3.1 trillion by 2036, with debt rising to 120% of GDP, surpassing the previous all-time record set just after World War II.⁴ The party that calls itself fiscally responsible has presided over the bulk of this accumulation, and is now proposing to add $1.5 trillion in annual military spending while cutting the very programs whose absence generates the downstream costs that inflate the debt in the first place.

If the United States simply matched its primary strategic competitor–spending $300 billion plus a generous $5 billion margin to maintain bragging rights as the world's best-funded military–it would free up $1.195 trillion annually. Not a one-time windfall. Every year.

Applied to the national debt, that surplus alone would eliminate the entire projected FY2026 deficit and begin to meaningfully reduce the $39 trillion balance... all without raising taxes or cutting a single domestic program.

But we don't even need to choose between debt reduction and human welfare. Here is what that $1.2 trillion could cover simultaneously:

•  Universal childcare: ~$150B⁵ 
• Universal pre-K (ages 3–4): ~$35–70B⁶ 
• Free meals for all K-12 students: ~$25–30B⁷ 
• Universal paid family leave (12 weeks): ~$35B⁸ 
• Free public college tuition: ~$58–75B⁹ 
• End chronic homelessness entirely: ~$20B¹⁰  
• Full food security expansion (SNAP universalization): ~$60B¹¹ 
• Universal free broadband internet access: ~$100B¹²

Total for the above: approximately $500–560 billion–leaving over $600 billion remaining annually for debt reduction, infrastructure, and the renewable energy transition. Even using the highest estimates for every program, we still come out ahead.

Universal healthcare need not draw on this surplus at all. The United States already spends more per capita on public healthcare than Canada or the UK spend on their entire universal systems. The inefficiency is not underspending; it is the $500–800 billion in annual administrative waste generated by our multi-payer system.¹³ Single-payer reform rationalizes expenditure already being made.

Americans currently pay approximately $385 billion annually for residential electricity, water, and gas.¹⁴ Making these universally free is achievable within the remaining surplus. Fossil fuel energy carries a permanent recurring cost — you pay for the fuel indefinitely. Solar and wind, once built, have near-zero marginal cost. The sun does not invoice us. Princeton's REPEAT Project and National Renewable Energy Laboratory modeling both indicate that the long-term cost of a fully renewable grid is lower than maintaining fossil fuel infrastructure once fuel costs, improved public health outcomes, and avoided climate damage are included in the accounting.¹⁵ Full grid decarbonization is estimated to require roughly $100–150 billion per year over 20–30 years — less than Americans currently pay annually for electricity alone. We would be trading an endless recurring expense for a finite capital investment, after which electricity is effectively free to generate in perpetuity.

The EPA projects climate change will cost the US economy more than $2 trillion annually by mid-century in infrastructure damage, agricultural disruption, healthcare costs, and disaster response.¹⁶ This is the single largest deferred item in any honest accounting of the national debt–a liability we are accumulating in real time by choosing not to act.

The full UBS stack–education, childcare, food, housing, healthcare, utilities, internet, and green infrastructure–runs to approximately $1 trillion annually in transitional costs, declining significantly over time as renewable infrastructure matures and the despair economy contracts. That figure is more than offset by the combined savings from healthcare administrative reform ($500–800B)¹³ and the aggregate costs of the 'despair economy': poverty-driven addiction, incarceration, preventable illness, emergency healthcare utilization, and lost productivity, conservatively estimated at $1.3 trillion per year.¹⁷

Harvard economist Raj Chetty's landmark research found that low-income children with identical mathematical ability to their wealthy peers became inventors at a fraction of the rate–not due to talent, but access. He called them the 'lost Einsteins.'¹⁸ Columbia University estimates child poverty alone costs $1 trillion annually in lost productivity and social expenditure.¹⁹ Every year we defer this investment, we forfeit innovations, medical breakthroughs, and human potential that will never be recovered–and add their costs to the debt we keep insisting we cannot afford to address.

Meanwhile, the proposed 2027 budget funds two "Trump-class battleships" armed with advanced missiles and lasers, and allocates $10 billion to "beautify" Washington DC.¹

This is not a radical proposal. It is arithmetic. The United States is not too poor to care for its people. It is not too poor to pay down its debt. It has made a choice about where to direct its resources. The data suggest that choice is not only ethically indefensible; it is fiscally irrational.

This is a purely logical, common-sense, self-interested argument in favor of universal basic services. It doesn't even begin to address the deeper accounting: the one measured in human lives rather than dollars.

None of us can fully imagine what it would be like to live free from the despair that unchecked capitalism manufactures as a feature, not a bug. But ask yourself: what would you do with your life if you were certain of never being hungry or homeless? What passions could you turn into your life's work rather than scraping minutes during weekends to indulge them? How much more time could you spend with your children and loved ones? What kind of health could you enjoy if the stresses of basic survival were removed?

These are not rhetorical questions. They are the actual cost of the choice we keep making.

We could live in comfort. We vote to live in terror.

We already have the money. We are choosing, every single day, that we would rather bomb people in other countries than live well in our own.

The only question left is how long we can live with that choice.

Sources

¹ Trump FY2027 Defense Budget — $1.5 trillion: Associated Press / Federal News Network, "Trump budget seeks $1.5 trillion in defense spending alongside cuts in domestic programs," April 3, 2026 (federalnewsnetwork.com); CNN Politics, April 3, 2026 (cnn.com); NPR, April 3, 2026 (npr.org). The same budget eliminates LIHEAP ($4B), cuts NIH by $5B, reduces housing assistance, funds two "Trump-class battleships," and allocates $10B to beautify Washington DC while cutting nondefense spending by 10%.

² China military spending: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, sipri.org. The internationally recognized standard reference for military expenditure comparisons.

³ Trump quote on daycare vs. military: CBS News, April 3, 2026 (cbsnews.com). Direct quote from Trump at a private White House event, April 2, 2026.

⁴ National debt — $39 trillion; interest >$1 trillion; doubled since 2017: U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data / Wikipedia, "National debt of the United States," April 2026: "as of March 2026 is $39 trillion," having "roughly doubled since Trump first took office" when it was $19.9 trillion. Fortune, "The national debt just crossed $39 trillion," March 2026 (fortune.com). Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026–2036, February 2026 (cbo.gov): deficit projected at $1.9T in FY2026, rising to $3.1T by 2036; debt rising to 120% of GDP. Net interest exceeding $1T: Joint Economic Committee Monthly Debt Update, March 2026 (jec.senate.gov).

⁵ Universal childcare — ~$150B/year: The Build Back Better Act (2021) proposed ~$400B over 10 years for universal childcare. Senator Elizabeth Warren's Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act proposed a comprehensive system estimated at similar scale. The Council for a Strong America finds the current lack of adequate childcare costs the US economy $122B annually in lost productivity alone (strongnation.org, 2023). $150B represents a consensus estimate for a comprehensive federally-funded universal system; see also Bipartisan Policy Center, "National and State Child Care Data Overview," 2025 (bipartisanpolicy.org).

⁶ Universal pre-K — ~$35–70B/year: National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) estimates $70B annually to serve 70% of all 3- and 4-year-olds at high quality (nieer.org). Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates ~$35B/year once fully operational for a universal 3- and 4-year-old program (budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu, 2022). The range reflects variation in quality standards and coverage targets.

⁷ Universal free school meals — ~$25–30B/year: The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) currently costs ~$17.7B annually serving 29.7 million children (USDA Economic Research Service, FY2024). The School Breakfast Program costs an additional ~$5.75B (Education Data Initiative, 2025). Universalizing both programs to cover all K-12 students regardless of income would add approximately $5–10B in additional federal cost, bringing the total to ~$25–30B. Source: USDA Food and Nutrition Service, fns.usda.gov; School Nutrition Association, schoolnutrition.org. Note: The Rockefeller Foundation has estimated that every $1 invested in universal school meals generates approximately $2 in economic returns.

⁸ Universal paid family leave (12 weeks) — ~$35B/year: Urban Institute analysis of the FAMILY Act (reintroduced 2025) estimates the program would cost "roughly 0.57 percent of Social Security taxable payroll, or roughly $35 billion a year once fully phased in." Source: Urban Institute / WorkRise, "Paid Family Leave Pays Off," 2025 (workrisenetwork.org); Urban Institute, "The American Families Plan Comes with a Modest Price Tag for Paid Leave," 2021 (urban.org). Note: The United States is the only OECD member country not providing paid leave to new mothers in the private sector (Congressional Research Service, R44835, 2025).

⁹ Free public college tuition — ~$58–75B/year: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) estimates a first-dollar tuition-free program for all public colleges would cost $58.2B in the first year, reaching ~$800B over 11 years (cew.georgetown.edu). A debt-free program covering living expenses as well would cost ~$75B/year. Senator Sanders' College for All Act estimates at least $48B/year in federal grants to states. Sources: Georgetown CEW, "The Dollars and Sense of Free College" (2024); Education Data Initiative, "How Much Would Free College Cost?" (2026, educationdata.org); Peter G. Peterson Foundation analysis (pgpf.org).

¹⁰ End chronic homelessness — ~$20B/year: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, huduser.gov. HUD's estimate of approximately $20B annually to end chronic homelessness is widely cited in policy literature. Note: current fragmented crisis responses — emergency rooms, jails, emergency shelters — cost multiples of this figure annually.

¹¹ SNAP universalization — ~$60B/year: Current federal SNAP expenditure is approximately $113B annually (USDA FNS). Expanding to cover all food-insecure Americans and raising benefit levels to nutritional adequacy is estimated to add approximately $50–70B in additional annual federal cost. Source: USDA Food and Nutrition Service annual expenditure data; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cbpp.org.

¹² Universal free broadband — ~$100B/year: Based on approximately 130 million US households at ~$65/month average broadband cost = ~$100B in annual residential broadband expenditure. Sources: FCC Urban Rate Survey; USTelecom 2025 Broadband Pricing Index; Benton Institute, "Broadband Prices Increased in 2025," January 2026 (benton.org). Infrastructure buildout for currently unserved areas estimated at $65–80B one-time (partially funded by the federal BEAD program). Per ASCE's 2025 Infrastructure Report Card, 96% of US adults used the internet in 2024.

¹³ Healthcare administrative waste — $500–800B/year: Shrank, W.H., Rogstad, T.L., & Parekh, N. (2019). "Waste in the US Health Care System: Estimated Costs and Potential for Savings." JAMA, 322(15), 1501–1509. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13978. Administrative complexity was the single largest category of waste, estimated at $265B. Total healthcare waste estimated at $760B–$935B. See also: "The Role of Administrative Waste in Excess US Health Spending," Health Affairs Research Brief, October 2022. doi:10.1377/hpb20220909.830296.

¹⁴ Residential utility spending — ~$385B/year: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook and Residential Energy Consumption Survey, eia.gov. American Water Works Association for water/wastewater expenditure data.

¹⁵ Renewable grid transition: Princeton University REPEAT Project (repeatproject.org); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Annual Technology Baseline, nrel.gov/analysis/atb.

¹⁶ Climate change economic costs: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action, epa.gov.

¹⁷ The "despair economy" — composite estimate ~$1.3T/year: CDC estimates substance use disorder costs ~$600B annually across opioids, alcohol, and other substances. Bureau of Justice Statistics: incarceration costs ~$80B annually. Columbia CPSP child poverty costs ~$1T annually (see footnote 19). Author's synthesis across primary sources; not a single-study figure. Individual components are each independently citable.

¹⁸ Lost Einsteins: Bell, A., Chetty, R., Jaravel, X., Petkova, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2), 647–713. doi:10.1093/qje/qjy028. Available at opportunityinsights.org.

¹⁹ Child poverty costs $1 trillion annually: Garfinkel, I., et al. (2022). "The Benefits and Costs of a U.S. Child Allowance." Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. doi:10.1017/bca.2022.15. Columbia University Center on Poverty and Social Policy, povertycenter.columbia.edu. See also: "Child Poverty Is Preventable," The Century Foundation, September 2025 (tcf.org).