Atticus

If Avatar wins for best picture, I will kill myself. Or at least bitch about it for a couple of days on 2 message boards and facebook, and to my friends and loved ones. That'll probably suffice.

MAGIC 8BALL SAYS "Signs point to yes"

I'll answer this: gravely. the answer is "gravely."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA&feature=player_embedded

I think this link might work better, Dan.

so does my wife, so do many people I know. I think something must be broken with me, because it makes me want to vomit.

but hasn't this been a really big problem in the past? you know much more about news media than I do, but I've been led to believe that before the advent of tv, many voters' primary source of opinion on candidates/elections was from newspapers, many of which were not much more than mouthpieces for their owners. aren't we at least in a time now when voters can get information from an overwhelming amount of sources--and therefore are not so direly in danger of being swayed by corporate-funded candidate ads? just curious. Also, as to the "hidden corporate agendas," each ad has to pass the dis

good point

we continue to like the Office. I think we're just biased because we caught up on the whole U.S. series over the past 9 months, and still like the characters so much. love Big Bang Theory love Parks and Recreation (this doesn't get near enough media attention in my book) love Modern Family we tried Community 3 times at the beginning and just couldn't watch it. is it better now? Cougartown is torture. It's worse than How I Met Your Mother. oh and the new scrubs is not quite as painful as cougartown, but it's trying.

but this case has nothing to do with donation powers to candidates--it struck the ban on entities making ads that are candidate-specific (did I misread what you were saying?). the court can't just restrict speech because it suspects that the speech might lead to a problem. a demonstrable harm must be shown that is compelling enough to limit the right to free speech. again, I know that people don't want to see for-profits making ads in support of republican candidates whose views they don't agree with, but that is not a good enough excuse to prevent every entity from being able to make a

but we aren't supposed to be in the business of prohibiting speech based on its content. just because for-profits may make MORE speech or better-looking speech than non-profits (or more for repubs than for dems) is not a good enough excuse, on its face, to deny corporations the right to speak in political matters.

congrats!!!

happy birthday A-man. I hope it's a great day for you. I'm going to start a duplicate happy birthday thread for you for old time's sake.

I know this point gets lost in some of the discussion, because of how the big for-profits are going to rig all elections to kill puppies, etc., but this decision also opens the way for non-profits and other corporate groups to put up ads for candidates they think will do good in the world. Which points out that in the end most want this type of speech restricted for its content (i.e. the for-profit backing of candidates is bad, but the non-profit backing of candidates may be good)--which is what our government is not supposed to do unless there is actual evidence of a compelling interest in r

I 100% agree that the Court's reasoning for not issuing a narrower ruling was pretty weak, but I think the "agenda" of the decision's majority is to stick to their beliefs about the constitution, not to effect an outcome for a political party. I think the overturned cases were wrong to begin with, and I think the ruling here is the correct one--for now--although I think (as expressed above) that eventually facts may emerge which establish a compelling enough interest to curb corporate speech vis-a-vis electionering communications. I know the big bad corporations are always evil on this boa

BECAUSE HE FUCKING SAID, TO CONAN AND TO THE WORLD, THAT HE WOULD. ON HIS OWN SHOW.

if it's so abundantly clear that the Supreme Court's decision was purely political--as opposed to a decision based upon interpretation of constitutional law--please tell me (or offer a list of) which candidates and/or sitting politicians benefit directly from the ruling.

we get it. hilarious.

I guess I just don't see the issues involved in the case as purely partisan (maybe my zoning in on "political" is misguided--that term can mean a lot of different things to different people). Corporations donate loads of money to both parties. I don't think of any single party as having a stranglehold on free speech as an issue either.

I'm not saying it wasn't a bone-headed mistake. But "flamboyant"? and calling the state of the union a "pure political event" (one that is mandated by the Constitution)?

um, really?

the only way to resolve this is for Alito and Obama to duke it out here with links to blogs, quotes from dead writers and non sequitur essays on the new world order

I'm guessing Jawbone

really? really, Ben?

happy birthday Donna!