Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 25, 2012 10:12:46 GMT -5
Can we get Erin Andrews to do some sideline reporting from the steps?
On the undercard:
- Apparently, Arizona is no longer "East Germany for brown people," so that's good news. I guess now, it's just kind of like "the evil DMV office for brown people."
- For some reason, Damien Thorne, Macauley Culkin, and all those kids from 'The Bloodening' cannot go to prison for life without parole. This may be sensible to some, but I contend that kids are creepy and evil kids will always be evil.
- Corporations are not just people, they are rugged, burly Marlboro men!!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 25, 2012 11:03:20 GMT -5
Can we get Erin Andrews to do some sideline reporting from the steps? Isn't she busy shacking up with Jeff Daniels? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 25, 2012 12:16:53 GMT -5
Can we get Erin Andrews to do some sideline reporting from the steps? Isn't she busy shacking up with Jeff Daniels? Happy to talk about that too, if people want. I thought it was a fairly good show. As is obvious to anyone, I agree with Aaron Sorkin on practically nothing, but he is remarkably talented, so I am always willing to give him another shot. (albeit with a short leash for my continued attention). Yes, all of his characters are a bit dislikable and always always too clever by half, but I...well, I don't really know where I was going with that. Maybe Aaron Sorkin sucks? |
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Jun 25, 2012 12:57:14 GMT -5
I'm thinking you change your last sentence just a little bit, specifically, "Aaron Sorkin TV shows suck."
His movies, I really like.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 25, 2012 13:26:21 GMT -5
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 25, 2012 13:33:56 GMT -5
Sports Night was awesome. The West Wing -- while I realize the politics may have ruined the appeal for some -- was also well done if wildly unrealistic in the end decisions by the politicians (apparently the dynamics were very realistic, but Jed was particularly ethical).
I also really liked what little of Studio 60 existed -- it had its flaws, but the dynamic between liberal/atheist Matthew Perry and hot conservative/religious what's-her-name was great and well balanced. It was handled beautifully and is almost never addressed these days and for all else that was wrong with that show, that was truly different and well done.
The reviews on this seem to be that everyone is unlikeable and preachy. Aaron Sorkin is always preachy, but at his best, he presents both sides of interesting issues (Why do you like them so much? Because they stand on a wall, and say nothing's going to get past me. Why do you hate them so much? Because they picked on the weak kid. He was small and couldn't run as fast, so they hurt him).
But the difference is that in Sports Night or the West Wing or the American President or A Few Good Men, the characters are inherently likeable. A Few Good Men is a perfect example -- Jack Nicholson's character is much more likeable than a lot of characters out there for a "villain."
|
|
|
|
Post by hooahhoya on Jun 25, 2012 19:42:42 GMT -5
- For some reason, Damien Thorne, Macauley Culkin, and all those kids from 'The Bloodening' cannot go to prison for life without parole. This may be sensible to some, but I contend that kids are creepy and evil kids will always be evil. Not quite, the Court just said that it can't be mandated by statute. Judges/juries/prosecutors can still determine based on an individualized assessment of the defendant, the specific facts of the crime, and other relevant details that the proper sentence is life without parole. The only thing the Court held today is that state legislatures cannot take that option away from the trial courts. Now when a court does determine that a juvenile deserves life without parole will the Court come out and say that decision was improper? Who knows... |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Jun 25, 2012 20:46:02 GMT -5
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jun 25, 2012 22:35:55 GMT -5
I liked that they put in the past and had the show deal with stories that the viewer new the outcome of. It was nice to watch a show and know whether the characters were making the right decisions or now. Also I LOVE Sam Waterston so I will probably watch just for him, even though I find the dialogue pretty cloying.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 26, 2012 8:34:31 GMT -5
That's pretty funny. I was well aware of a lot of this, but I always gave Sorkin a pass for rehashing everything he did on Sports Night, since no one watched that show and it really did deserve to be watched by more people. Back on topic.... Not quite, the Court just said that it can't be mandated by statute. Judges/juries/prosecutors can still determine based on an individualized assessment of the defendant, the specific facts of the crime, and other relevant details that the proper sentence is life without parole. The only thing the Court held today is that state legislatures cannot take that option away from the trial courts. Now when a court does determine that a juvenile deserves life without parole will the Court come out and say that decision was improper? Who knows... Details, details. Kids are creepy and I don't see why we can't have laws in place to lock them up forever. Kids are only not creepy if they sing Depeche Mode: Wait. Did I say "not" creepy? I may have meant "extra" creepy. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 27, 2012 12:25:56 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 27, 2012 15:10:21 GMT -5
Arizona is only one of the states that border Mexico, and if it succeeds in excluding illegal immigrants, these other states will bear the brunt, so it is unclear what the net gain to society would have been from Arizona's efforts, now partially invalidated by the Supreme Court. I think that's missing the point on state sovereignty. So Arizona should be concerned about how New Mexico may be harmed by Arizona's laws? P.S. I had to google "peroration." |
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Jun 27, 2012 17:24:00 GMT -5
Arizona is only one of the states that border Mexico, and if it succeeds in excluding illegal immigrants, these other states will bear the brunt, so it is unclear what the net gain to society would have been from Arizona's efforts, now partially invalidated by the Supreme Court. I think that's missing the point on state sovereignty. So Arizona should be concerned about how New Mexico may be harmed by Arizona's laws? P.S. I had to google "peroration." I think you are missing the point of why Judge Posner brought this up. I don't think he ever argues that the court should base its decision on what the net gain to society would be. BUT, since Justice Scalia felt compelled to suggest that Arizona bears the brunt of the problem -- the sentence you quote immediately follows "Arizona bears the brunt?" -- Judge Posner has decided to point out that that may not actually be the case. Or even if it is, he just wants a citation. Though -- and this is likely totally irrelevant to most everyone -- surely, Judge Posner would not care how Justice Scalia's authority is cited: abovethelaw.com/2011/01/quote-of-the-day-judge-posner-benchslaps-the-bluebook/ |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 27, 2012 18:41:20 GMT -5
Posner showed his stripes with this: "Many people hate illegal immigrants."
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 28, 2012 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posner showed his stripes with this: "Many people hate illegal immigrants." As a fan of the Muppet Show, I don't trust any person who refers to muppets as "stuffed animals." This single written phrase clearly negates Richard Posner's distinguished public legal career. It also quite clearly renders meaningless all other words in the link I previously posted. Posner is quite obviously an oaf and I am sorry for bringing your attention to his words. Thanks for adding to the discussion. Tomorrow will be fun. I am sticking to my prediction that the mandate will be upheld. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 28, 2012 9:12:08 GMT -5
Tomorrow will be fun. I am sticking to my prediction that the mandate will be upheld. I think you're probably going to be right.  |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 28, 2012 9:27:52 GMT -5
So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 will replace the Commerce Clause as the new darling of liberal lawmakers. I wonder if the teleprompter will have new language loaded in as to whether or not it's a tax. STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/ |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jun 28, 2012 9:28:52 GMT -5
How many heads roll at CNN?
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 28, 2012 9:29:13 GMT -5
Yes, it's an EXTREMELY HAPPY SCOTUS WEEK!
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Jun 28, 2012 9:32:50 GMT -5
Well, this makes Romney's job a bit easier for the next four months.
|
|
