Law, politics, pop culture, sports, and a touch of Oregon.
About this site
Comments When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
No Legal Advice Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Personal View This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
Regarding NBA player Tim Hardaway's totally obnoxious and disgusting diatribe against homosexuals, this response by George Takei (formerly Lt./Capt. Sulu on "Star Trek") is hilarious. Not totally work-safe, I suppose.
What was up with the endlessly boring ballads last night on "American Idol"? The only good one was by the singer from Seattle -- ironic, considering how the judges kept trashing the Seattle auditions as being completely worthless.
I think I'll give the women a chance on tonight's show to demonstrate that I should continue to watch "American Idol."
But, man, the guys' performances were so bad that I had to go back to TiVo and watch Slacker Danny's (aka Max) rendition of "Summer of '69" on "Grease! You're the One That I Want" . . . .
New research on napping provides the perfect excuse for office
slackers, finding that a little midday snooze seems to reduce risks for
fatal heart problems, especially among men.
the largest study to date on the health effects of napping, researchers
tracked 23,681 healthy Greek adults for an average of about six years.
Those who napped at least three times weekly for about half an hour had
a 37 percent lower risk of dying from heart attacks or other heart
problems than those who did not nap.
Maybe it's time to put "The Apprentice" out to the pasture. I don't know if the overload from the double whammy of the Donald and Martha Stewart versions mortally wounded the show, or if it's just tired and showing its fatigue, but this Los Angeles version is pretty bland and boring. There's no one so annoying and freaky that you have to watch; there aren't even interesting challenges; and even the Boardrooms are relatively subdued.
At least "Survivor" comes up with some different ideas that actually change the strategy of the show and make it interesting to follow. Having the challenge losers live outside the mansion in a tent isn't really all that funny, or fun.
At this rate, I may just abandon "The Apprentice" when "The Amazing Race: All-Stars" starts up next Sunday in the same time slot.
This article is part of a symposium,
guest edited by Mark Tushnet, reviewing key decisions from the Supreme
Court's October 2005 term. The landmark decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
has been emphasized as one of statutory interpretation, leaving it up
to the President to seek from Congress the authority he deems necessary
to fight the global war on terrorism. Yet, Hamdan is not merely a
decision of statutory interpretation. It furthers a trend begun in the
2004 trio of terrorism cases: Rasul v. Bush, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, and
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Those cases were also (primarily) statutory
interpretation cases, but with a subtle distinction: the two cases
brought by citizens resulted in interpretations of statutes favorable
to the government; the one case brought by aliens, like Hamdan,
resulted in interpretations of statutes favorable to the individuals.
In other words, these cases cannot be explained as instances where the
Court has consistently construed ambiguous statutes against the
Executive Branch. In this article, I consider why the Court has opted
to favor aliens but not citizens. A tempting explanation is that the
Court is acting in a "representation-reinforcing role," ensuring that
politically powerless aliens detained outside the country are not
oppressed by the political branches. However, under that analysis, the
Court would be expected to make decisions of constitutional law, not
statutory interpretation. Instead, I conclude that the Court's
decisions can be understood as taking advantage of congressional
inertia. Congress remains free to undo the Supreme Court's statutory
interpretations, but it must overcome that inertia to act. In effect,
this is a "clear statement of intent to discriminate against aliens"
"24" has always been full of implausibilities, like how Jack Bauer can get from anywhere in Los Angeles to anywhere else in about 10 minutes. That's part of the charm of the series. But something has gone seriously wrong this season. I'm going to discuss spoilers through last night's episode, so be forewarned.
First, the dark family ties -- not only does Jack have a brother (I suppose it's not out of the question that it wouldn't have come up before), but he's the Bluetooth leader of the secret cabal? And then Dad turns out to be even more twisted and ruthless, murdering Graem to keep him from talking? And for what, the "company"?!? (Hey, is this going to be a crossover with "Prison Break"?)
Second, for someone who's been in a Chinese prison camp for 20 months, not only does Jack look ridiculous fit (and intact), he seems up to date on protocols, personnel, etc. I mean, at least last season, when Jack was out of touch for 18 months, they had him using outdated codes in the airport hostage crisis. That made sense. This season does not.
Third, I realize that "scientists" on TV can pretty much do everything. The Professor on "Gilligan's Island" could build radios out of coconuts, make soap out of sand, tell the history of South Pacific natives, and so on. (He couldn't repair a boat, but I suppose that's engineering, not science.) But how is it that Morris O'Brien is a top computer data analyst and also a nuclear engineer?!? Is playing with tactical nuclear devices a hobby?
Fourth, does every discussion of extreme antiterrorism measures -- internment of Arab-Americans, torture -- have to involve a mini-debate on civil liberties versus national security?
Fifth, why isn't Chloe annoying her co-workers anymore? She's lost that prickly edge that made her so endearing a character. (Well, not in season 3, when she was just annoying.)
I don't want it to be true, but at the rate things are going, it really seems like "24" is just going to be another example of how nearly all shows go rapidly downhill after five seasons (if not earlier -- see "Alias").
UPDATE: Some more things that are bothering me about this season . . . .
Sixth, the writers seem to be going for pure shock value without any concession to logic or even plot. There was the awful psycho-Curtis scene, taking Doctor Bashir, er, Assad hostage, forcing Jack to shoot him. Having Curtis lead the team that got nuked would have been shocking and plot-advancing, not cheap theatrics. Then, there was the utterly ridiculous Jack torturing Graem scene. How exactly did Graem think that confessing to setting up the murders of President Palmer, Tony Almeida, and Michelle Dessler was just throwing Jack a bone? Jack almost killed him, and Graem had no reason to think that Jack wouldn't have done it. I guess that would have been a way to protect the company, but as we saw later, Graem didn't want to die.