PseudoSABR

The thing about the Constitution is that it was authored by many minds who had disparate purposes. Everything that ended up in the Constitution was a result of compromise not consensus. It's simply foolhardy to go back and try to find 'original intent,' invariably the historian discards that which doesn't fit his theory, and brings forward that which confirms his theory. (See Scalia in writing Heller v. DC). I personally think the second amendment was premised on the fear that we might not always have a standing army. The personal right to bear arms only extends as far as it is part of a well-regulated militia. But that narrow reading of course has been left behind in favor of broader readings that favor various interest groups - original intent be damned.

The pacing in this episode, and writing in general, was not very good, and honestly I think many of our complaints lie there, and not with the character development or plotting, per se. 1. To what extent Arya always intended to lead the waif to the dark room where she had hidden Needle I don't know, but they really didn't need to stretch it out over a whole episode and kill off the actress-lady. I think Arya will be far more skillful from hear on out, as the need to drag on that plot-line is over, over, over. 2. I thought of few things: a) they know Tyrion is alive they discovered a crap load of wildfire c) Gendry has been found, and his identity revealed. If Cersi is found guilty for incense, maybe she brings the legitimacy of her son down with her (has Tommen not thought about this possibility?), and Gendry plays a role. 3. Jaime was cool, though I didn't really believe Edmund Tulley would give up Riverrun and the Blackfish to save his Frey son whom he's never met and been reared by his enemies. I understand that Jaime might let the Tully army march North for the Battle of the Bastard, but that should have been the narrative if that's what ends up happening. (Too much trying to hide the ball). And Blackfish dying off screen? Wtf. (The Waif died off screen too, but at least that made some sense). 4. The joke scene in Mereen was horribly executed - could have been fun, but bleh. Deux-machina-Dany shows up. Ugh. 5. I don't think there's narrative time to accomplish it, but it would be nice if Arya somehow got back to Westeros in time to rally the BWB to fight for the North.

Wrong. A ban on assault weapons existed during the Clinton administration; we just let that ban expire. We don't need to overturn the second amendment to ban/or limit particular types of guns. (Recent cases, Heller and McDonald, apply to handguns in the home, where the second amendment was found to establish a fundamental right to self-defense by fire arm; that ruling would not get extended to semi-automatic weapons). As far as fundamental rights go, it's not matter of no 'infringement' its always about a balancing of how much infringement can be justified by government's interest. Like yelling fire in a movie theater, etc. There are lots of reasonable limits to fundamental rights that we live with day to day. Again, the second amendment does not prevent states/feds from enacting reasonable gun control. Please don't perpetuate this myth, as it just empowers gun-advocates to unreasonably resist any change whatsoever. We need gun-advocates to show some willingness to go back to 90s legislation or else wise negotiate in good faith.

This is another case of both. It sounds like he was motivated by anti-gay hate (according to his father), and he called 911 before the shooting to pledge allegiance to ISIS. What's the reasonable argument that AR-15s are legal, again?

The polls aren't to be trusted yet. And really, we've only had a couple of days where Clinton and Trump have truly been on the national stage vis-a-vis. For instance, Zogby just released a poll that showed Clinton beating Trump in Kansas (43-36). While Clinton is unlikable, I think as general gears up, the prospects of a blow out in her favor will become pretty apparent. I just don't see her becoming more unlikable through the general elections process as she's known-quantity; in fact, I think the general will go a long way to repairing Clinton's image.

Very nicely framed.

Why would the government be interested in perpetuating the myth of global warming? More regulation means less profits for corporations and a smaller tax base for the government...take off your tin foil hat. Science needs funding, typically government grants don't have strings attached that try to steer the results of scientific studies. Pure research still exists, and its contemptible to suggest that majority scientist somehow lack integrity to produce fair results on this issue. Corporations put their money, not in the science but in trying to curtail Agency regulation through notice-and-comment proceedings, and through the lobbying of legislatures. A question you should be asking is: if global warming really is a myth that could be demonstrated through scientific research, why isn't the industrial complex spending hand-over-fist to get those results out? Probably because scientific studies don't produce results compelling enough to pay for (i.e. science demonstrates the reality of global warming, not its myth). Again the industrial complex stands to make boatloads of money if we accept their premise that global warming is a myth; however, if we accept that global warming is real, who exactly would be making this comparable boatloads of money? (Those damn greedy folks at the SIERRA club!). What's especially terrifying for me, is that by the time some people are willing to accept the evidence showing man's contribution to global warming, it will be too late to doing anything about it, if it isn't already. Trust me, being "right" at that point will give the rest of us little solace.

You think there's more money in writing scientific papers on global warming and in climate-change advocacy groups then there is in corporations not having to regulate their externalities/pollutants? I'm not talking about simply funding studies, I'm talking about the overall economic interests of the parties involved.

That's an awful solution for the poor and further relegates them to second-class (er, second-hand) citizens. Why do you believe that the poor "are getting trapped in poverty in an increasing percentage."?

Well, Bill O'Reilly recommends him.

Just let Biden VP again. Can Obama do it (semi-serious question)? The thing about nominating a progressive liberal is that there really aren't many high profile Democrats that are known to be progressive on par with Sanders or even Warren. Democrats have shied away from the kind of arguments Sanders has been making, at least for all my adult life. I don't know really anything about Castro except that he's young, Hispanic, and from Texas. Brown, I've seen on TV a few times, and he seemed more genuinely liberal than most, but who knows, and evidently, he had a falling out with Sanders, suggesting that if Sanders has any leverage it won't be Brown. Other names floated have been: Corey Booker, Devon Patrick, Martin OMalley, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner and Thomas Perez (current labor secretary, I literally know nothing about him). I've also seen both Minnesota Senators mentioned... I think her pick in some way must rebut the establishment attack, whether that's a non-politician or a liberal, I'm not sure, but if she merely reinforces what she already offers (say Kaine, Warner, etc.) I think she'll have made a mistake.

I hope Hillary goes this route (putting a progressive liberal on the ticket) as opposed to gaming swing states or picking a white guy to the right of her. I know people are cynical of the two-women ticket, but I think Warren makes a lot of sense as a bridge to Bernie's supporters.

Well, you're painting your lack of respect brush awfully broadly -- as I certainly don't consider Brock a lefty, the main proponent of shaping consumer choice; and as a lefty myself, I agree with you on this particular point about the effect of consumer choice on climate change. It doesn't take a liberal to believe in human-caused climate change, so I'd drop the lack-of-respect rhetoric because its needlessly confrontational. (And really, if you can't respect people with whom you disagree, I just feel bad for you.) And the notion that liberals are the ones telling people how to live their lives ignores the reality of modern politics. I wonder what kind evidence would convince you that mankind is a chief cause in global warming. If no amount of proof will change your position (as you can continue to argue that we can't preclude it's a natural phenomenon), well, it means you're argument is ideological not empirical--and deserves as much respect as any tinfoil hatter. Again, if there's a side that has a vested-interest to be dishonest about climate change, it's the side that stand to lose the most money. As much as there are faux-environmental organizations that are propped up by causes their existence is a but a drop in the bucket of wealth that is the industrial complex. I mean come on.

I'd be disappointed if the bi-polar theory turns out to be true; though it remains a possibility and does make some sense--the Waif is Arya when she's actually given up her identity. Still too much like Fight Club for my tastes.

The AP's (and other's) decision to declare Clinton the "presumptive nominee" on the eve of the California primary is, well, interesting.

The top two stills are from Season 5, which is well interesting if not a coincidence. Of course nerds everywhere are on the case, and already have theorized that Arya is some how playing everyone (link from buzzfeed).

I just watched it, and I'm not surprised the amount of buzz and praise she received. She's just very measured throughout, even when she's tacitly flinging zingers; I think this is the way go to, project competence and even-handedness, and I think it will override reasonable people's distaste for her personality or past.

BA has some nice things to say about Tyler Jay this week. Keep an eye on BA's hot sheet chat going on now.

Speaking of global warming, should be a nice weekend!

It makes a difference, but it doesn't begin to really fix the problem on a large scale. It merely slows the rate of towards our eventual climate crisis. Consuming less is not enough, and consuming nothing is not an option....

Consumer choices will hardly be enough to alter our economy and infrastructure to the point that climate change is actually positively effected. Impact of choices, even on a larger scale, is still much too small. If all bring our own grocery bags to the store, that doesn't eliminate the plastic island floating out in the Pacific, nor does it slow the rate of plastic production generally. For as much as even Americans as a whole scaled back our carbon footprint (or whatever), the rest of the World will be increasing their footprint. The change necessary to stifle climate change is so fundamental that personal steps just won't get the job done. I fear an economic collapse will be the only real way we even begin to address the problem earnestly as a society -- given the chance to rebuild our economy and infrastructure perhaps we could better take climate, etc. into account. I think too often people recycle, bring their own grocery bags, etc. and then wash their hands of the problem. "Well I've done my part! What else do you want me to do?" Sometimes these personal choices, even though they are noble, act as soporifics for the larger pending doom.

Reminds me of this: Today, my dad was talking about movies generally, and said this, "Kill as many humans as you like, but kill a dog...." He just couldn't finish the sentence he was so distraught. Something that's oddly easy to relate to, too. The animal v. stupid human is a stinker of a dilemma for Americans, I think. Mass outpouring happens because of the absurd, not the logical, unfortunately. Americans are too complacent, too happy with their scraps of privilege to change the system which makes them fat and stupid.

Hard to believe this is only the third time he's won the award, given the batting titles and the MVP season in his past. Nonetheless, good for Joe.

I think Margery was surprised by the show of force, but she had already sown her fake-allegiance to High Sparrow; I think her primary concern is her brother living through this ordeal, and a battle might not have produced that result. --This whole plot line has become rather convoluted to me; and just disappointing to see High Sparrow's rhetoric swoop up the baby King. I'm so glad Arya has rebuffed the faceless men; the less that she is a Stark, the less invested I am in her story. This storyline, seemingly like all of Arya's, needlessly stretched on far too long. Clearly, she's a better fighter for having served with the faceless men, but I hope she's garnered some of their other abilities as well. Riverrun looks interesting what with the Freys, Jamie Lannister, Blackfish, and Brienne. I wonder if the season will end with a batter there instead of at Winterfell, like I had assumed. Where once this season's plot was moving at break-neck speed, is there still time (four episodes) for Sansa and Jon to raise an army? That would need to get sorted out pretty-right quick.

My first thought was: I hope KC panicked and traded for the guy. No offense to Plouffe.