Atticus

I've tried to listen to some steely dan, because some musicians I really respect love them, but everything I've heard from them seems recorded so shitty--sounds like muffled playing through a stringcan.

thus ushering the death of America

I tried a search on this for existing topics, but found none, and just got frustrated over how sucky the search function has become wife and I are looking at replacing our dinosaur DVD player. we never even considered blu-ray but now some friends are all evangelical about them. any thoughts on what to buy (that hopefully won't be replaced in 6 months by something else)? do they have decent recording capability now? gracias, Poon

I tried to get through all of Stevens' partial concurrence/dissent, but my eyes are bugging out. I think the dissenters make some good points about how the majority made a fairly sweeping overturning of the whole face of part of the statute (and prior cases), rather than issuing a narrower, more limited decision, but I'm conflicted because I see the majority's logic, as much as I may not like the result this decision may bring. It's one of those strange cases that really does not rely on a very persuasive lower-court/party-briefing situation, but I think that this ruling would have come arou

from my reading, this non-profit corp had a Hillary-bashing movie, and they wanted to put it on cable video-on-demand (free to cable viewers). In fear that the video would violate existing "electioneering communication" prohibitions (read the opinion for specifics, but basically corporations couldn't use general treasury funds--as opposed to PAC funds--to publicly distribute candidate-specific ads within 30 days of a primary election), which could result in steep civil and criminal penalties, the non-profit wanted a ruling from a federal court that they weren't in violation of federal law. T

I'm reading the opinion! hold on...

here's the actual ruling if anyone wants to read it: Link actually that was the syllabus. Here's the opinion: Opinion

I know my law background gets me in trouble in these kinds of threads, but appellate cases are really not supposed to accomplish what I think some people think they're supposed to accomplish. An appellate decision is supposed to stick to the issues raised (properly raised and preserved for appeal, that is) at the trial level. It seems like we get these headlines sometimes saying "___________ Court destroys everyone's rights!!!" when upon examination it turns out that said court was making the proper legal decision in light of the facts and law in front of them. that's why courts make decisi

has anyone actually read the opinion yet, or an article on what specific issues were before the Court? the OP article mentions the following: I guess I'm just confused, trying to wade through both sides' talking points, exactly what this decision does. It upholds the ban on the Clinton ad that was the subject of the original lawsuit, it apparently does not allow corporations to make unregulated donations to candidates or parties, and could have an effect on state and local elections??? edit: oh yeah, and America's dead!!!! ahhhh!!!! panic!!!!

I guess you and I just agree to disagree on this. I think that Conan would trade the payout in a heartbeat to continue hosting the Tonight Show, at 11:35 p.m., without having to worry about Leno fucking with it.

no kidding. it seems that the dollar figures are the only thing in play to some in this thread as well. is it so impossible for people to accept that Conan and staff WANTED to do the Tonight Show (not just get paid)? So much so that they all relocated themselves and families to do so? That they thought it would be their workhome for years to come?

isn't that why we were set up as a republic, rather than a true democracy?

IT'S PAT ROBERTSON!!!!!

I sometimes think you and sullivan assign a little too sinister an intent to some of these people. I'm not sure their plans are even that well thought-out.

you mean that's your opinion, right?

of all the terms that might be employed to describe the Beatles' music, "smooth and sophisticated" would never come to mind for me. they survive in my favor partially for the lack of slick overproduction that plagues many successful acts. I just can't subscribe to any theory that includes calling the Beatles un-innovative. that's just craziness.

not to mention the legal and other incidental costs of a clusterfuck of this size

you're forgetting that Leno played no part in this--that he was just another hapless pawn in the NBC machine

O'Brien's first Tonight show episode aired June 1, 2009. Leno started his 10 p.m. show on September 14th. 3 and a half months (in the summer no less) to garner an audience for a new version of the Tonight Show? that's ridiculous. hmm

vibes to Greg

I liked when Gervais said "I like a drink as much as the next guy, unless the next guy is... Mel Gibson"

any other nominee