gdp's Comments

Big Hollywood : Ms. Bonner, Mr. Powell and Why I'm Now a Democrat

Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:18:42 +0000

The Red Menace never looked so good.

Big Hollywood : Sickness of our Age: Leftist = Historic

Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:13:45 +0000

Man, Kochar. This historic piece of writing deserves a place in history for being the first to point out that historically, history hasn't been called history until it's been history for quite some time. The the historical concept of history has, unfortunately, become history, relegated to the annals of history and rarely mentioned in history books. Historic. (Loved the piece, Kochar!)

Big Hollywood : 42nd Street: Too Big to Fail?

Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:39:02 +0000

Reading "President Walter Mondale" gave me a rash.

Big Hollywood : 'Global Citizenship': An Unsustainable Social Injustice

Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:32:22 +0000

I didn't say I was a pacifist - I just drew a distinction between the beliefs of a large portion of the student body and the conclusion Anti tried to draw. I wasn't making any qualitative judgments in the least.

Big Hollywood : 'Global Citizenship': An Unsustainable Social Injustice

Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:22:52 +0000

Actually, the school was founded by a pacifist organization and continues to stress the importance of nonviolence to the student body. No dice, Auntie. However, I did find a nice recipe for pie that you'll appreciate if you e-mail me.

Big Hollywood : Open Thread Wednesday

Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:07:12 +0000

What happened to Nolte? Within a period of ten years he became your drunk uncle that lives way out of town.

Big Hollywood : 'Global Citizenship': An Unsustainable Social Injustice

Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:34:13 +0000

Yeah Ellis - the best thing about teaching in a private school, for me, is the concurrent Firefly / American Western unit.

Big Hollywood : 'Global Citizenship': An Unsustainable Social Injustice

Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:26:59 +0000

Private education is enjoying healthy growth because of the problems you've addressed. I teach at a private school, and the freedom of expression in the classroom is something that I and the students value in equal measure. Many public schools are glorified prisons these days - the ability to choose your child's education is more important than ever.

Big Hollywood : So You Want to Be Tortured?

Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:23:04 +0000

That Kriskey's right on AGAIN!

Big Hollywood : Rewriting the 'Star Spangled Banner'

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:35:34 +0000

All right, and I trust you'll keep a list of those of us who have been there, and you'll moderate those comments separately?

Big Hollywood : Rewriting the 'Star Spangled Banner'

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:33:28 +0000

What a sick monster you are.

Big Hollywood : Open Thread Monday

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:47:35 +0000

Wow. Before I thought you were trying to make a point, but now I realize you're just an inarticulate scumbag troll whose caps lock and question mark keys are apparently stuck.

Big Hollywood : No More Apologies from Sotomayor

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:40:49 +0000

Miles, you son of a gun! You're on to us! Just listening to the racist drivel on this message board is enough to sicken a person. How dare we say things like, race shouldn't be a factor when examining a man or woman? Or, we judge people not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character? How dare we say things like, racism should never be tolerated - discrimination of any person by any person is wrong? And there you are, the epitome of race-sensitivity, speaking for all the "people of color"! I'll bet the "people of color" are so overwhelmingly thrilled to have someone as sensitive as yourself going to bat for them. You're an inspiration, Miles.

Big Hollywood : No More Apologies from Sotomayor

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 12:09:31 +0000

All of the racial implications aside, as commenters have mentioned before, the real issue here is legislation from the bench - impartial interpretation of the Constitution is what the American people expect, even according to the polls, not legislation from the bench based on one's life experiences. That having been said - conservative judges often vote with their bent, and liberals with theirs. How is it possible to ensure that a nominee will eschew their personal proclivities and truly interpret the Constitution? This certainly isn't a justification for Sotomayor's incendiary words, but an attempt to understand them as they apply to any judge.

Big Hollywood : Margot Tenenbaum Would Not Approve

Fri, 29 May 2009 18:32:49 +0000

They should just censor it: The Man With No Name leans down and gives a dying soldier a puff of his... lollipop. Margot Tenenbaum reaches into her chimney and pulls out an ancient pack of... chicklets. The Smoking Man... uh... those are herbal cigarettes?

Big Hollywood : Race Only Matters When it Favors Democrats

Fri, 29 May 2009 17:43:48 +0000

Joe, I'd never stoop to bragging about my job - I don't make enough money. You completely (yet unsurprisingly) missed my point. To paraphrase what I said above, in light of her whole speech - and yes, I suffered through all of it - it's clear that she believes judgment is a series of decisions based on her experiences in a changing moral landscape. Impartiality is therefore NOT her desired result. However, interpretation of the law in spite of one's background, not legislation from the bench, is what a justice is called to do. In light of the fact that 60% of her decisions were overturned, her stated belief about what judges DO is disconcerting. And did you actually say "I'd rather have a judge balance impartiality with" what is essentially inherent partiality? This is America, friend. That's not the way it works.

Big Hollywood : Race Only Matters When it Favors Democrats

Fri, 29 May 2009 17:13:07 +0000

All the symbols and capital letters you use make you seem both clever and awesome at typing. You're like the internet Jesse James.

Big Hollywood : Race Only Matters When it Favors Democrats

Fri, 29 May 2009 16:33:36 +0000

Joe, My sincerest apologies for the "gender-racial terms" bit. But it's the only concession you'll get because it actually begins to prove my point. You clearly don't understand what judicial activism is. Calm down for a minute and I'll explain it to you. I'm an English teacher, so I'm pretty sure that I can parse it down to your level without your egregious use of capital letters. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. What she basically means is that her judgments may and will be affected by her gender and natural origins. This suggests interpretations of the law beyond what the Constitution itself may say, up to and including the zeitgeist that is her cultural heritage. Her judgments areaffected by her upbringing. Exactly what I said. She says, Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. Once again - she's using her experiences as the backdrop for her judgments. One might even suggest, Joe, that what she seems to be implying here is that her upbringing is inextricably linked with the way that she judges; i.e., interpreting hermeneutically the founding documents instead of performing an exegesis. This, again, is judicial activism. There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make ... I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. She says this immediately after discussing that way a Latina woman must "judge when her prejudices are appropriate." The fact is, her prejudices are not appropriate. A Supreme Court Justice doesn't rely on his or her prejudices - and being a Latina woman doesn't allow her to reserve that special right. Moreover, the Constitution does not view "morality" as being "relative." While this could springboard us into an entirely new discussion, I think it's clear that the quote demonstrates her belief that judging is a series of decisions based on a changing moral landscape - not the mere interpretation a justice is privy to. In other words: impartiality is not only impossible - it's not the desired result. Now, maybe you're unaware that this speech is so full of contradictions it's scary to think she actually wrote it. Maybe that's why 60% of her decisions were reversed by a higher court. In short, your creative reading of this speech couldn't possibly be more summary and uninformed.

Big Hollywood : Race Only Matters When it Favors Democrats

Fri, 29 May 2009 15:58:53 +0000

Joe, you buffoon - you're still missing the ridiculousness of the statement that she made. She's talking about life experiences and couching her argument with terms like "wise," and "richness of experiences." If that's the argument she's making - if that's what she's trying to say - why couch it in gender-racial terms? Plus, she's made it clear that she does not share the values of the mainstream, especially when it comes to judicial activism. The color of her skin and the experiences that she faced will ultimately come into play when she legislates. She believes that the law should be interpreted in light of her experiences, not of the Constitution. That's a deal-breaker.

Big Hollywood : Race Only Matters When it Favors Democrats

Fri, 29 May 2009 15:50:29 +0000

Racism is a platitude used for strategy and expedience. This doesn't mean racism doesn't exist - in fact, it means racism is even more rampant because it has been co-opted and redefined to include very specific actions and attitudes for one group of people while applying a different set of actions and attitudes to another. No, racism is alive and enjoying its insidious resurgence on the left.