… involves this…
I’m not interested.
Little help here from the lawyery types…
In philosophy, there’s a moral principle that “ought implies can“. Put otherwise, it means that in order for some action to be obligatory, it must be possible for the agent to perform that act.
Is there a similar principle in law? If the Congress enacted a law requiring the executive to provide a free unicorn to each citizen (or some non-zero subset of citizens), could that law be considered Constitutional? Clearly it is impossible. Wouldn’t impossibility imply unconstitutionality?
Similarly, Obama’s defense of his endless improvisations that substantially alter the law seems to be that the law is impossible to implement.
I hope you can see where I’m going with this.
Any such principle, law nerds?
The dust-up over a certain reality TV personality’s recent comments about sexual mores reminded me of something that has irritated me for some time about the Celebrate Diversity crowd, and a minor revelation I once had while watching a Will and Grace re-run.
But first, a minor detour. Back in 2002, not too long after college, I was living in the DC area working in what I would consider my first “real” job — something that didn’t involve bussing restaurant tables or making inordinate amounts of photocopies. Rather suddenly, I found myself in need of a new place to live. I ended up finding an ad for a cheap, metro-accessible place. The ad said “gay friendly”. Hmmm, not my ideal choice. But I needed new digs pronto, and it was cheap! As it turns out, it was three gay dudes living in a house, and I was the odd straight guy. Little wonder that I ended up watching a re-run of Will and Grace.
Two totally different movies, both just happening to revolve around some apocalyptic scenario.
“This is the End” was very disappointing. I mean, I knew it was going to be dumb — that was the premise. But it was idiotic, and not particularly funny, unless you find the consumption of copious amounts of drugs to be inherently funny.
I mean, there are stoner flicks, where people get high and
do dumb things have wacky adventures, and there are movies where drugs are part of the main plot, and there are movies where there is incidental drug use that’s about setting and character development, and of course, some overlap among those three categories. But the first, I dunno, twenty minutes or so of this film is basically and ode to recreational drugs, first and foremost weed, to little apparent cinematic end. Ok, coked-out Michael Cera was mildly amusing.
Seth Rogen smokes weed? You don’t say…
Anyway, the movie has its moments, but most of those were in the trailer. I give it a 3 on a 10-scale.
“World War Z” was about a 6.5 on a 10-scale. Disclaimer: I have had no exposure to the source material. As a basic horror film it was a little light on the gore. There is very little character development of anybody other than Brad Pitt, and not much there either.
The IDF chick is sorta cute despite the GI-Jane haircut. She sticks with Pitt longer than anybody else during his adventures, but we never really learn anything about her either.
Zombie films need to be either about (1) the interaction of the survivors, (2) the development of some sort of Christ-figure capable of saving everybody, or (3) pure gore and terror. WW-Z was light on all three.
To the extent that WW-Z was at all terrifying, it was through the use of not just fast-zombies, but crystal-meth fast zombies in the opening scene. I mean, it was practically a river of zekes flowing through the streets of Philadelphia. When you start questioning the plausibility of the zombie apocalypse scenario in a zombie film, that’s not exactly starting out on the right foot.
The end was anticlimactic. I suppose in this sense they were probably bound by the source material, but I really couldn’t know that for sure. If you like zombie movies, go see it, but if you’re on the fence about this one, just go ahead and skip it.
Anybody see Man of Steel?
The pods, which covered her gums, tongue and cheek, were filled with an ejaculatory apparatus and sperm, with the apparatus discharging the sperm very forcefully.
There are a lot of problems I have with Joe Scarborough. The biggest ones are not just disagreements of policy, but his smarmy insistence that he’s the lone Voice of Reason for conservatism.
Some lowlights from the segment:
Bite me, Joe. Let’s see you stroll through Brooklyn during a blackout while lugging a couple bags of groceries. (And who said it was a white guy walking through Brooklyn? Black folks can’t carry for self-defense??) Ever heard of Mara Salvatrucha? Worldwide, they’re seventy-thousand strong, and that’s just one gang. Have you been to Mexico lately, Joe? Wanna take your kids? Ever heard of Fast and…, well, never mind — you probably haven’t given who you work for.
And yes, a lot of us are frightened. We think the freight train we’re on could very well go over the cliff. We’re all the more frightened that your pals are not only flushing the USA down the shitter, but trying to take away people’s only recourse for survival should that come to pass.
Look at the debt, Joe. Look at the debt-to-GDP ratio. Then look at Greece’s. Then consider that the USA is a lot more important than Greece.
Now consider President “We don’t have a spending problem” Obama, and the fact that our idiot brethren re-elected him.
Are we not boned?
And if you want to quote Reagan, Joe, I’ve got one for ya: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.