• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

75% of people clapping liked the show!

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

Fight them, without becoming them!

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

This fight is for everything.

“Just close your eyes and kiss the girl and go where the tilt-a-whirl takes you.” ~OzarkHillbilly

“Perhaps I should have considered other options.” (head-desk)

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

When we show up, we win.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Trump’s cabinet: like a magic 8 ball that only gives wrong answers.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

The revolution will be supervised.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

We’re watching the self-immolation of the leading world power on a level unprecedented in human history.

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

The fight for our country is always worth it. ~Kamala Harris

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

She burned that motherfucker down, and I am so here for it. Thank you, Caroline Kennedy.

Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.

I desperately hope that, yet again, i am wrong.

Weird. Rome has an American Pope and America has a Russian President.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Internet girl

Internet girl

by DougJ|  July 2, 201210:17 am| 197 Comments

This post is in: Assholes

FacebookTweetEmail

Everyone’s talking about this Aaron Sorkin story, and I love it because it’s a perfect illustration of the type of douchebaggery that permeates contemporary life:

“Listen here, Internet girl,” he says, getting up. “It wouldn’t kill you to watch a film or pick up a newspaper once in a while.” I’m not sure how he’s forgotten that I am writing for a newspaper; looking over the publicist’s shoulder, I see that every reporter is from a print publication (do not see: Drew Magary). I remind him. I say also, factually, “I have a New York Times subscription and an HBO subscription. Any other advice?”

He looks surprised, then high-fives me. Being not a person who high-fives or generally makes physical contact with interview subjects, I look more surprised.

“I’m sick of girls who don’t know how to high-five,” he says. He makes me try to do it “properly,” six times. He also makes me laugh; I’m nervous, and it’s so absurd. He loves it. He says, “Let me manhandle you.” Then he ambles off, hoping I’ll write something nice, as though he has never known how the news works, how many stories can be true.

I know I’m supposed to like Aaron Sorkin, because he wrote West Wing, but I hate this kind of misogynist bullshit.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Interstate Commerce: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Next Post: Searching for the Heart of a Saturday Night »

Reader Interactions

197Comments

  1. 1.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 10:24 am

    Yes, and as long as you only pay attention to their interviews and don’t actually bother to watch their movies, you’ll know that Spike Lee really, really hates whitey and Quentin Tarantino is a racist douchebag.

    In other words — meh. Sorkin is such a horrible, horrible misogynist that he cast Jane Fonda as the head of the network on his new show.

    ETA: And given the various “these kids today should get off my lawn” comments he’s been putting into his characters’ mouths on “The Newsroom,” this seems like more of that than anything specifically misogynist.

  2. 2.

    Larold

    July 2, 2012 at 10:27 am

    A bag of wet fart bread would be more appetizing.

  3. 3.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Ugh. But my understanding is that he inappropriately condescends to pretty much everyone.

    ETA: I like how I say “my understanding” like it comes from anything different than reading and watching shit here and there.

  4. 4.

    Jewish Steel

    July 2, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Don’t leave your girlfriend alone with grandpa.

  5. 5.

    MikeJ

    July 2, 2012 at 10:28 am

    I’ve met too many artists to think that there’s any correlation between “great artist” and “not an asshole”.

  6. 6.

    DougJ

    July 2, 2012 at 10:28 am

    @Mnemosyne:

    I’m not sure he’d try the bullying high-five stuff with another man.

  7. 7.

    redshirt

    July 2, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Need a parody of Neil Young’s “Cinnamon Girl” with “Internet Girl”. Get it on, Tubes!

  8. 8.

    DougJ

    July 2, 2012 at 10:29 am

    @MikeJ:

    I agree, I loved the Facebook movie.

  9. 9.

    rb

    July 2, 2012 at 10:29 am

    More over-rated: “The West Wing,” or Sorkin himself? I’d go with the former, but it’s a close thing.

  10. 10.

    rb

    July 2, 2012 at 10:30 am

    @DougJ: If he did, he’d have punctuated it with “I’m sick of girls who don’t know how to high five.”

    So: yeah, misogyny.

  11. 11.

    Hypatia's Momma

    July 2, 2012 at 10:30 am

    @DougJ: Or said, “internet boy” to one.

  12. 12.

    Shinobi

    July 2, 2012 at 10:31 am

    It’s funny that Sorkin is such a creepy misogynist. I’m actually really enjoying The Newsroom, despite my angry feminist core. I find several of the female characters interesting, especially the young blonde who seems to have internalized so much feminine passivity. I’m interested to see how her character grows.

    But this kind of real life attitude makes me wonder about how he views his own show. It makes me wonder if he thinks the hero is not the person everyone else thinks the hero is.

    (Though I have to say that thing where the 2 black people in the office only exchange banter with each other, old after 1 episode.)

  13. 13.

    PeakVT

    July 2, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Sorry for the OT, but Katherine Eban, the author of the F&F story in Fortune, is on OnPoint right now, and the host is having a hard time getting his head around the idea the whole controversy is bullshit. It’s kinda funny.

  14. 14.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 10:31 am

    @DougJ: Probably not, but as misogyny goes, that’s pretty mild. It seems more like he’s going to be a jerk in general, and that happened to be the particular jerky thing that came into his head at that moment.

  15. 15.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 10:32 am

    @MikeJ: We call it the Woody Allen rule around here. The only way to view art is outside the personality of the artist, or we’d never get any.

  16. 16.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 10:34 am

    I suppose that it’s theoretically possible that you could find something less relevant to write about, but you would have to search long and hard to find it.

    Meanwhile, here’s something that’s actually relevant to real people’s lives.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/gay-marriage-issue-reaches-court/#more-148247

  17. 17.

    kindness

    July 2, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Sooo, Aaron is an asshole. Yea, OK. Still, I like most his work.

    I long ago let go of the idea that I’m supposed to actually like and or respect sports heros, politicians, writers or religions persons. It would be nice, but my world would suck if it was manditory.

  18. 18.

    RossInDetroit

    July 2, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Data point: Aaron Sorkin apparently dated MoDo. There was a bit of mild hilarity that I missed where she mistakenly sent ‘racy’ emails intended for him to Andrew Ross Sorkin instead.
    Heh.

  19. 19.

    Joel

    July 2, 2012 at 10:39 am

    Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino can eat bowls of dicks as far as I’m concerned. I like ther movies less than most, so there’s that, too.

  20. 20.

    iLarynx

    July 2, 2012 at 10:39 am

    I just read her article and I disagree with the misogynistic comment. I think SHE comes off a bit jerky, and quite hyper-defensive. She assumes his question “…did you not understand it?” was a condescending remark when I saw it as merely asking how she interpreted the show (the same piece of music, art, literature, etc., can be interpreted differently by different individuals). Either way though, she immediately takes it as a personal affront and attributes it to Sorkin’s “huge hubris.” I suspect her attitude was showing through which is probably why Sorkin decided to just laugh off the end of the “interview” with a fashion writer. Maybe Sorkin is a jerk, but it also looks like Sarah Prickett is best suited to writing about lapels and hem lines.

  21. 21.

    quannlace

    July 2, 2012 at 10:40 am

    \And I’m sick of the Aaron Sorkin trademark, ‘two people walking fast down a hallway and talking rapid fire at each other,’ shot.

  22. 22.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 10:41 am

    @quannlace: That got old decades ago.

  23. 23.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 10:43 am

    @DougJ:

    I’m not sure he’d try the bullying high-five stuff with another man.

    Of course he would — he’s showing that he’s the Hollywood Alpha Male, where you demonstrate how much power you have by being a douchebag to people who have to grin and take it.

    There are very few industries where you can get away with literally being a screaming asshole to the people you work with, but Hollywood is one of them.

  24. 24.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 10:45 am

    From our totally fucked up shit files

    Quiz – who is that and what is he doing. Hint – youthful photo of a now elected official in the senate

  25. 25.

    horatius

    July 2, 2012 at 10:48 am

    @burnspbesq: Ah, the good old diversion tactic. Why are you not blogging about Y instead of bitching about X?

    Why didn’t we all think of that?

  26. 26.

    horatius

    July 2, 2012 at 10:49 am

    @Mnemosyne: And every corporate boardroom in the country.

  27. 27.

    EconWatcher

    July 2, 2012 at 10:50 am

    OT, but it sounds like one or more conservative justices have been leaking stories to the press to imply that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure–that Roberts voted as he did because he concluded from press stories that striking down the law would be viewed as illegitimate. If these leaks occurred, they are very slimy and break with very longstanding Court norms of civility.

    I’m telling you, if the wingnuts go too far in trying to slime Roberts, you never know how far the guy might evolve. This personal stuff really can influence outcomes. It has happened on the Court any number of times before, most notably with Blackmun.

    The justices live in a very confined and suffocating little bubble, and festering personal animosities in there can be a very big deal. Let’s watch.

  28. 28.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 10:54 am

    @EconWatcher: Along those lines, I’ve been wondering if Kennedy’s reported rage at Roberts might play out badly in marriage equality cases. Kennedy’s past opinions have been mostly gay-friendly, but we saw in the ACA ruling how little precedence mattered and how capable at least four justices are of writing a snitty tantrumy opinion that completely ignores the constitution. Roberts is not likely to opine on the side of the angels this time.

  29. 29.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 10:54 am

    @horatius:

    I’m sorry, are you actually suggesting that Aaron Sorkin’s personality disorders are more important than the beginning of the Supreme Court’s review of the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act? Please clarify.

  30. 30.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 10:55 am

    @horatius:

    Physical violence would get you fired from most corporate boardrooms, but it’s very common in Hollywood. When was the last time you heard about, say, Bill Gates punching a wall and the board members framing it for him?

  31. 31.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 10:57 am

    @burnspbesq: I think his point was more that this thread is about towering assholes, and that your contribution is in keeping with the general theme. Do you ever walk into a thread, a room, etc. without starting off with gratuitous rudeness that makes you look foolish?

  32. 32.

    WereBear

    July 2, 2012 at 10:57 am

    @Mnemosyne: There are very few industries where you can get away with literally being a screaming asshole to the people you work with, but Hollywood is one of them.

    Yeah, so a BSD in a BSD dominated industry is a BSD. Color me surprised.

    I watched both episodes of the new show on HBO yesterday, and I have to say that his shows are always interesting, and I do miss dialogue as a regular thing. It’s a rare art and I’m glad to hear real actors say realish things and get to react to what each other say.

    I don’t know why it’s so difficult to find when it’s about 75% of what drama is, but there you go.

  33. 33.

    EconWatcher

    July 2, 2012 at 10:58 am

    @shortstop:

    Based on his dazzling opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, I think Kennedy is a safe vote for marriage equality. So Roberts’ vote, whatever it might be, will not be needed, as long as all the liberals are on board–and I have no reason to believe they wouldn’t be.

  34. 34.

    scav

    July 2, 2012 at 10:59 am

    @burnspbesq: I think he was gently suggesting you ain’t da boss and many people like a bit of chocolate or wee-tiny bit of dried fruit in their burnsie-approved-diet-of-unrelenting-musli-of-which-burnsie-is-self-appointed-master-of-relevance.

  35. 35.

    Mark S.

    July 2, 2012 at 10:59 am

    @General Stuck:

    I honestly can’t tell what’s going on in that picture.

  36. 36.

    Villago Delenda Est

    July 2, 2012 at 10:59 am

    @General Stuck:

    I wonder what went wrong with young Rand. He seems to be a non-asshole in that picture.

  37. 37.

    aimai

    July 2, 2012 at 10:59 am

    I read the whole article and I thought it was just a great essay, as essay, and also a great “interview” of a person (Sorkin) who was giving a press conference in order to pimp his work while acting as though he were too good to interact with the plebes questioning him. The entirety of his remarks to her were pretty standard old man/young woman flippant take downs. The “High five” comment at the end was actually his attempt to be conciliating and, in his mind, charming, by condescending to treat her as a toy and a pet instead of merely trying to (as he saw it) humiliate her and take her down a peg. She was actually attempting, in her question, to engage with him as a writer/director and a political and cultural figure. He came out of the gate attacking her as pretentious, uninformed, and unimportant. Let this be a reminder to old farts never to pick a quarrel with someone who buys ink by the barrell or, in this case, the pixel.

    aimai

  38. 38.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 11:00 am

    @WereBear: Yeah, seems the script is almost always the weakest link in any production now. I can’t begin to count the number of shows and movies that have disappointed me because the cinematography, sets, costumes, score, etc. were excellent and the dialogue was mediocre to atrocious.

  39. 39.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 11:01 am

    @EconWatcher: Sincerely hope you’re right. I’d known that the right wing of the court was capable of rank partisanship, but all this personal venom now being publicly and semipublicly aired is worrisome.

  40. 40.

    bjacques

    July 2, 2012 at 11:01 am

    @General Stuck: At first I would have said “Jeffrey Dahmer.” On second look, Mitch McConnell sexing a chicken?

    [ETA: At least I got the state right. What about the chicken?]

    That kind of behavior does erode one’s admiration for the person. Funnily enough, I got into a discussion with someone who proudly (!) remembered when they started hating the Dixie Chicks and made a point of still hating them today, eight years later. Yup, that.

    Authoritarian types switch quickly from idolizing a person to trashing him or her. For everyone else, it’s more of a process of erosion. It takes a pattern of disappointing behavior before one finally has enough, and simply walks away. If said annoying idol is, say, a musician, movie star or writer, you can still enjoy the back catalogue and remember when he or she didn’t yet suck.

  41. 41.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 11:02 am

    @shortstop:

    The DOMA cases are going to be the ultimate in legal inside baseball, because a preliminary issue that most non-lawyers either don’t get or don’t think should be important (the standard of review) is going to be outcome-determinative. Even the lower court judges that have declared Section 3 unconstitutional have candidly admitted that if the appropriate standard of review is rational basis, Section 3 stands. Loony-tunes like our genial host, who have convinced themselves (in the face of 223 years of contrary evidence) that judging is an inherently political act and legal reasoning is just smoke and mirrors, are going to go nucking futs if it comes out that way.

  42. 42.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 11:03 am

    @EconWatcher:

    Well, the actual supreme court justices are not the only people that work in that building. there are clerks and others, and like every place of work, there is scuttlebut galore, I would think. I can’t really get my head wrapped around the idea that one of the justices is leaking to the press, from a bunch that would ‘have teevee cameras in oral arguments, over their dead bodies”. And I doubt that anyone other than the justices themselves are privy to their private meeting they have to twist arms and call in favors, or the equivalent. Scuttlebut can sometimes be accurate, in a broad sense, but it is easy to miss the trees for the forest.

  43. 43.

    MikeJ

    July 2, 2012 at 11:04 am

    @WereBear:

    I don’t know why it’s so difficult to find when it’s about 75% of what drama is, but there you go.

    Drama on TV means gunfire, or fx shots of labs after guns have been fired.

  44. 44.

    Hill Dweller

    July 2, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Sorkin was probably high during the interview. I’m not joking. The guy has a reputation for snorting more coke than some small countries. I’ve seen his appearances on both Fallon and Colbert recently, where he had the flop sweat going before the interview even started.

  45. 45.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 11:10 am

    @bjacques:

    Cat

  46. 46.

    MikeJ

    July 2, 2012 at 11:10 am

    @burnspbesq: Scalia will argue that gay people weren’t mentioned in Carolene Products so fuck ’em.

    You don’t have to know anything at all about the law to know which way most of the justices will vote. That’s because the Supreme Court isn’t a legal body, it is a political body.

  47. 47.

    scav

    July 2, 2012 at 11:10 am

    @WereBear: Maybe that lies behind my current reliance of radio-drama from the bbc. Some of it’s dreck but they certainly can’t go the throw up a scenic background and no-one will notice the utter absence of script approach.

  48. 48.

    Zandar

    July 2, 2012 at 11:11 am

    “Everyone’s talking about this Aaron Sorkin story”

    Umm…no.

  49. 49.

    EconWatcher

    July 2, 2012 at 11:12 am

    @General Stuck:

    Ordinarily, it would indeed be very shocking that justices themselves might be leaking. But Scalia has been acting kind of unhinged lately. I’d peg him as the most likely leaker. I say that as someone who used to have quite a bit of respect for Scalia as a thinker and writer (way back when).

    On Burnsie’s point about standard of review, I would remind folks that Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws, was decided on the “rational basis” standard of review. In other words, a majority (led very eloquently by Kennedy) decided that, even giving legislation the most deference possible through the standard of review, the government failed to show even a simple “rational basis” for sodomy laws.

    In dissent in the case, Scalia very presciently complained that if states could not claim a rational basis for sodomy laws, they would not be able to claim a rational basis to ban gay marriage. I think he was right then, and I think that’s just how it will play out now, with Kennedy leading a majority.

  50. 50.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 11:12 am

    @MikeJ:

    You don’t have to know anything at all about the law to know which way most of the justices will vote. That’s because the Supreme Court isn’t a legal body, it is a political body.

    Aww, don’t tell me you’ve fallen for Cole’s bullshit. You’re smarter than that.

  51. 51.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 11:15 am

    @burnspbesq:

    Loony-tunes like our genial host, who have convinced themselves (in the face of 223 years of contrary evidence) that judging is an inherently political act and legal reasoning is just smoke and mirrors, are going to go nucking futs if it comes out that way.

    The genial host to whom you still haven’t acknowledged your enormous error in insisting to the end that the ACA decision would come down 8-1 or 7-2 for, because rank partisanship would absolutely, positively be restricted to one or two outliers? The host you told you’d eat crow if it only went through 5-4? That host?

    This pathological inability to ever admit a mistake has got to explain your continuing career troubles.

    If, after last week, you can still argue that nearly half of this court is incapable of making judging an inherently political act outside of legal reasoning, your credibility is even lower here than it has been. Doubling down on stupidity…yet again.

    In the coming days, I look forward to more thoughts on this case from our many attorneys-commenters who possess both competence and ethics.

  52. 52.

    aimai

    July 2, 2012 at 11:15 am

    @burnspbesq:

    You can’t explain Bush V. Gore any other way than as politics gone mad. And you can’t explain Scalia’s various flip flops on precedent and his own prior decisions as anything other than politics gone mad. But that’s not really anything new–legal scholars have acknowledged the role politics, class, and culture play in legal interpretation for years. They even teach it in law schools. Incredible!

    aimai

  53. 53.

    Southern Beale

    July 2, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Unrelated except in the douchery department: George W. Bush is touring Botswana and Zambia this week,

    … to promote his foundation’s health initiative to improve cervical cancer prevention and treatment programs in Africa.

    Let’s take a moment and remember all of the women in America who cannot get cervical cancer prevention and treatment programs in his home state of Texas, thanks to Republican douchebaggery like shutting down women’s healthcare clinics because the Texas GOP is “pro life.” And not to mention all of the other healthcare crap going on right now.

    George W. Bush. I send a heart fuck you to you, sir.

  54. 54.

    Violet

    July 2, 2012 at 11:19 am

    @General Stuck: He’s dissecting something in Biology class. I’m going to go with fetal pig. Is it Rand Paul?

  55. 55.

    Cacti

    July 2, 2012 at 11:20 am

    @EconWatcher:

    OT, but it sounds like one or more conservative justices have been leaking stories to the press to imply that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure—that Roberts voted as he did because he concluded from press stories that striking down the law would be viewed as illegitimate.

    I’d imagaine that the leaks are sour grapes from Kennedy. Roberts stole his thunder and usurped his place as the “swing vote” on all of the big decisions.

  56. 56.

    Zagloba

    July 2, 2012 at 11:23 am

    Off-topic, but Anderson Cooper came out to Andrew Sullivan this morning.

  57. 57.

    EconWatcher

    July 2, 2012 at 11:25 am

    @aimai:

    I’m a lawyer, although certainly not a constitutional scholar. What I found most striking about the dissenters in the ACA case was that they were willing to let labels control a constitutional outcome: Congress didn’t label the mandate a tax, so we won’t uphold it as a tax.

    That is contrary to some very basic, longstanding principles of constitutional law, which those dissenters themselves have invoked in numerous prior rulings: Congressional statutues are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. Laws of Congress are to be construed, where reasonably possible, as constitutional. Substance should prevail over form. Never before, to my knowledge, has the Court suggested that Congress must correctly cite the power it is using in order for its law to be upheld, if Congress has the power.

    So yes, I think the dissenters were partisan and lawless. I think Roberts knew it, and that’s why, in the end, he couldn’t go along. But one more vote would have made the difference. So people who treat the Court as sometimes a political body are more right than wrong (although I do think that can be overstated).

  58. 58.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 11:25 am

    @EconWatcher:

    I think DOMA will be upheld, and the VRA is toast, or gutted with the DOJ review sections. Roe is in danger, for the reason Kennedy seems to have pitched his tent full time with the nutbags. I think when a case gets to the court, they will follow the wingnut 5 precedence, of money equals speech, and throw out any and all restrictions on campaign spending, including from the candidates themselves, and well as any other roadblock to the free speech highway they have paved with gold.

    We won this huge battle over social programs and general welfare laws, but it likely will give Roberts cover to proceed unbound, on his mission to conservatize the country from the bench, and squeeze out every last vestige of liberalism that he and his henchman can possibly make happen. This was the first time Roberts sided with the libs in a 5/4 vote. And I bet it’s the last for some time to come. And even with his upholding the IM and ACA, he still couldn’t help himself for a little judicial rewrite of the law he said was constitutional. The guy is a full metal activist, and only not when the consequences are at their zenith, like the ACA. And now Kennedy seems firmly in his spell, and the others sleep in caskets when the sun goes down. That is what I think. Unless dems hold the oval office, and one of them croaks, drowning in their own bile.

  59. 59.

    rlrr

    July 2, 2012 at 11:28 am

    @Zagloba:

    To the surprise of who?

  60. 60.

    iLarynx

    July 2, 2012 at 11:30 am

    @aimai: Oh, yes. I’m sure Sorkin will rue the day he decided to tangle with Sarah Prickett. She’ll have the last laugh as in five years we’ll all be discussing the art of Ms. Prickett and asking “Who the hell is Aaron Sorkin?”

  61. 61.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 11:30 am

    @Violet:

    It’s Rand, and he is dissecting a Cat/

  62. 62.

    iLarynx

    July 2, 2012 at 11:31 am

    @iLarynx: /snark

  63. 63.

    Chyron HR

    July 2, 2012 at 11:33 am

    @burnspbesq:

    Hey, it’s the nation’s foremost Constitutional scholar, Burns’ Lawyer.

    Are you going to make another hilariously incorrect prediction about this case, the way you spent months screaming that the Obamacare case would be decided 7-2 and condescendingly declaring that anyone who disagrees doesn’t understand that the Roberts court is a bastion of jurisprudence? Because that never gets old.

  64. 64.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 11:34 am

    What the fuck? I don’t understand enough of this without following the link to figure this out, and based on the excerpt, I’m not following the link.

  65. 65.

    Violet

    July 2, 2012 at 11:34 am

    @General Stuck: Well, I got the dissecting part right. And the Rand Paul part right. Who dissected a cat in school? We did frogs and fetal pigs.

  66. 66.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 11:36 am

    @EconWatcher:

    So people who treat the Court as sometimes a political body are more right than wrong (although I do think that can be overstated).

    It absolutely can be overstated, which is why when I point out the court’s politicization–based not on my layperson’s gut but on actual attorneys’ dissections of the unconstitutionality of opinions like the ACA dissent–I stick to talking about a hefty portion of the court having clearly demonstrated its ability to act solely as partisans.

    I sympathize with the frustration of good-faith attorney-commenters who keep hearing remarks about the court being all political, all the time. But the solution to that is not to pretend that the SCOTUS right wing’s politicization does not represent massive and worrisome corruption on the nation’s highest court, corruption that throws off previously supportable assumptions about the future behavior of some of the justices. This is where rational and reasonable analysis like yours and that of many other of our attorneys here is so vital to our understanding of the situation.

  67. 67.

    Gin & Tonic

    July 2, 2012 at 11:38 am

    @Zagloba: Holy cow! Next you’ll be telling us that Elton John is gay.

  68. 68.

    Cacti

    July 2, 2012 at 11:39 am

    @Chyron HR:

    Are you going to make another hilariously incorrect prediction about this case, the way you spent months screaming that the Obamacare case would be decided 7-2 and condescendingly declaring that anyone who disagrees doesn’t understand that the Roberts court is a bastion of jurisprudence?

    I’m surprised burnsie still shows his face around here, after Scalia’s spit-flecked political rant from the bench about immigration policy.

  69. 69.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    July 2, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Remember the superstar from CPAC several years ago who was hailed as a potential Republican leader of the future Jonathan Krohn? Guess what he is no longer a conservative and would probably vote for Obama.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78068.html

  70. 70.

    MikeJ

    July 2, 2012 at 11:42 am

    @EconWatcher:

    (although I do think that can be overstated).

    As one of the people doing the overstating, I would agree. But the internet was made for hyperbole. And cats.

  71. 71.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 11:42 am

    @quannlace:
    Parodied well in _Brazil_ . It’s at least that old.

  72. 72.

    Pat

    July 2, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Farking hell…

    Look, the question that preceded Sorkin’s offending response was “why don’t you make a show about something people still read, like Gawker?” And people are supposed to be surprised that Gawker harrumphed that Sorkin would ridicule such silliness?

    Sorkin didn’t exactly acquit himself with his rejoinder, but that woman was a twit. And you are making common cause with stupidity. If you’re going to treat all of the Internet as your tribe, you’re going to have some very embarrassing cousins….

  73. 73.

    Someguy

    July 2, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Sorkin may be a jerk, but Democratic politicians ought to use his mannerisms and attitude as a model for how to treat Republicans. We’d be a better nation for it.

  74. 74.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 11:45 am

    @burnspbesq:

    You know, you’re always free to start your own blog in which you can address issues of towering importance. I’m sure you’d get ones of readers.

  75. 75.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 11:46 am

    @WereBear:

    I guess I can understand people who don’t like Sorkin’s particular dialogue-writing style, but complaining that his characters don’t talk like “real” people is silly. Frankly, the worst dialogue is when it sounds like real people talk, because the way real people talk is boring.

    Anyone who thinks that the dialogue on “The Wire” was not equally as crafted and stylized as what Sorkin writes needs to learn a little bit about screenwriting.

    (Though I do get what people mean when they say Sorkin relies too much on dialogue. That’s his stage background coming through — Mamet is often the same way.)

  76. 76.

    scav

    July 2, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Burnsie’s got stick-to-it-ness trained under the Catholics. He’s not going to let a little 5-4 evidence get in the way. Speaking of a different case, this one at least made me laugh:

    Apple’s patent absurdity exposed at last
    US appeal court judge Richard Posner has finally said the unsayable: that Apple’s and other tech firms’ patent battles are a ridiculous abuse of intellectual property law

    Opinion from the Guard so not offered up as anything near the end word. Still makes me snortle to think of a judge assigning the patent to “1” to one litigant, the patent to “0” to another and putting them in a dark room to figure it out.

  77. 77.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 11:48 am

    @burnspbesq:
    Blogs. How do they work?

  78. 78.

    Violet

    July 2, 2012 at 11:51 am

    @Litlebritdifrnt: Aww…that’s great. He sounds like a smart, thoughtful kid. Good for him.

  79. 79.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 11:51 am

    @Violet:

    Who dissected a cat in school?

    Texans

  80. 80.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    July 2, 2012 at 11:53 am

    @Violet: I loved his reasoning that once he got more “thoughtful” he switched sides. That really puts the shiv in between the shoulder blades, although I do not think that was his intention.

  81. 81.

    Nina

    July 2, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Sorkin came off more as an age-ist than a misogynist in that bit, at least to me. He probably would not have done that to a woman of his own age, whereas he probably would have been almost as snotty to a young-looking man asking similar questions.

  82. 82.

    Violet

    July 2, 2012 at 11:59 am

    @Litlebritdifrnt: Yeah, it does. And he repeats several times how he was just parroting what he heard around him, and once he thought about it realized he didn’t agree with it. No wonder the Texas GOP wants to eliminate critical thinking.

  83. 83.

    scav

    July 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    @Litlebritdifrnt: He certainly mentioned a rather longer list of philosophers too — he may be slightly good at the shiv, meaning it or not.

  84. 84.

    Mino

    July 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    @Litlebritdifrnt: He, he. If that Georgia lad had been edumacated in Texas, he’d never have aquired critical thinking skills. We’da seen to that.

  85. 85.

    Mino

    July 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    @General Stuck: I never!

  86. 86.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    @Mino:

    At least one does.

  87. 87.

    Gin & Tonic

    July 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    @Violet: Kid’s only 17, so I’ll let it slide, but grouping Wittgenstein with Nietzsche and Kant, and calling the three of them “German philosphers” — kid needs to read and understand more. Those are the words of someone who has read little but wants to sound important.

  88. 88.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Anyone who thinks that the dialogue on “The Wire” was not equally as crafted and stylized as what Sorkin writes needs to learn a little bit about screenwriting.

    Yes, the dialogue on “The Wire” was equally crafted, but it was crafted so that it sounded like real people talking. Sorkin’s dialogue is crafted so that it sounds like Aaron Sorkin characters talking. The trick to writing good dialogue is to make the audience forget, in some ways, that they’re hearing good dialogue, and rather make them believe that they’re hearing real dialogue.

  89. 89.

    RossInDetroit

    July 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    @Zagloba:

    Anderson Cooper needed to tell Andrew Sullivan that he was gay? Where’s Sully been, Mars?

    This is two kinds of non-news:
    A) everyone knew.
    B) nobody cared.

  90. 90.

    RossInDetroit

    July 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    @Violet:

    Who dissected a cat in school?

    My wife did. When they were done they mounted the skeleton in a jazz dance pose with a cigarette and a tiny martini glass. The base of this assemblage bore a Latin inscription which translated as “Happiness is a Tight Pussy”. She and her gay lab partner Jimmy did that.

  91. 91.

    RossInDetroit

    July 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    I just discovered a synonym for cat that FYWP doesn’t like. Dammit, I was talking about a cat.

  92. 92.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    @Gin & Tonic:
    Actually, he said “Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, _Kant and lots of other German philosophers_”. Kant is not German? And all have connections to the German language.

  93. 93.

    trollhattan

    July 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    I give you Meg Whitman shoving a female eBay staffer.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/us/politics/15whitman.html

    And now she’s licking her wounds by firing thousands at HP.

  94. 94.

    Shalimar

    July 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    @burnspbesq: I think he is suggesting that you could have posted your off-topic link without going out of your way to shit the thread first.

  95. 95.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    @Violet: “No wonder the Texas GOP wants to eliminate critical thinking.”
    I think the Texas GOP _has_ eliminated critical thinking. They’re now trying to push the same on the rest of us.

  96. 96.

    aimai

    July 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    I think these “who does she think she is” comments really reflect exactly the attitude that Sorkin has which is that he bemoans an era (the ’40s) when (he thinks) heroic acts of modernist vision like his TV script writing would have been hymned by more important people (older, white males? Educated people) than some little bimbo who has “never seen a movie or read a newspaper.”

    Her question about Gawker wasn’t silly or dismissive or even rah rah internety–its the same question that gets asked of any artist when their focus or their medium starts to get stale. Have you thought about updating your shtick? Have you thought about preaching to someone outside your choir? Does your viewpoint translate into other languages, media, cultures? HIs response was not as thoughtful as her question or her essay.

    She was there doing her job, and he was there preening and posing for an imaginary audience of trained seals. I know people loved the West Wing–I found it stagy and uninteresting–but its not really “one for the ages.” In fact I doubt very much that people will still be talking about Sorkin in five or ten years. I’m sure there will be someone new doing something else new. Just as they are about Mamet (good point upthread whoever brought him up). I loved Mamet’s work for a long time but he jumped the shark politically and aesthetically quite a while ago.

    aimai

  97. 97.

    Gin & Tonic

    July 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    @SectarianSofa: Wittgenstein was Austrian, not German, and was in the British analytic school — by no stretch a “German philospher.” He spent his career writing on very different issues than Nietzsche and Kant.

  98. 98.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    I’m sorry, are you actually suggesting that Aaron Sorkin’s personality disorders are more important than the beginning of the Supreme Court’s review of the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?

    Yes. That is exactly what he is suggesting. How could it be read any other way? Once again you do not fail to grasp what is being said to you.

  99. 99.

    WereBear

    July 2, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    @Mnemosyne: Heck, even a monster movie like The Thing from Another Planet has marvelous dialogue.

    (Not the only reason I love that movie, mind you.)

    I would agree with you about The Wire and mention NYPD Blue as another who actually cared to have the characters say things to each other.

    I think a lot of suits figure it doesn’t matter, because atrociously written movies can do well at the box office; but I always figure you up your odds if it is done well, so why not?

    The screenwriter is usually the cheapest line on the budget!

  100. 100.

    Southern Beale

    July 2, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Has everyone read Amber Waves Of Grain over at Esquire? A look at income inequality in America, author interviews six people at different income brackets, from a guy making just $200 week to a bazillionaire?

    Incredible story. Everyone should read it. It’s long, 6 pages, but damn. I’m still hashing over some of the stuff. Amazing …

  101. 101.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    @Gin & Tonic: That’s why I italicized “Kant and other German philosopher”. It’s a list, man. It’s ambiguous. Also, you’ll need to fix the Wikipedia article on German philosophy:

    “German philosophy, here taken to mean either (1) philosophy in the German language or (2) philosophy by Germans, has been extremely diverse, and central to both the analytic and continental traditions in philosophy for centuries, from Leibniz through Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein to contemporary philosophers. Søren Kierkegaard (a Danish philosopher) is frequently included in surveys of German (or Germanic) philosophy due to his extensive engagement with German thinkers.”
    (Citations are decent.)

    Why you hatin’?

  102. 102.

    Violet

    July 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    @Gin & Tonic:
    It depends how you read it. He said:

    “I started getting into philosophy — Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Kant and lots of other German philosophers.

    He could have meant “Kant and other German philosophers.” Kant is German. The previous philosophers may or may not have been German, but that isn’t relevant. It might just have been an awkwardly worded sentence. Or he might not have realized the ones he mentioned weren’t all German.

  103. 103.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Wittgenstein was Austrian, not German, and was in the British analytic school—by no stretch a “German philospher.”

    No, by several stretches. The camp of “German philosophers” (as also German writers, musicians, etc.) can stretch to include Austrians, Swiss, or anyone else who primarily thinks and writes in German (including ethnic Germans in all the countries of Eastern Europe).

    Austrians are “Germans” in many important ethno-linguistic-cultural senses. The main distinction between “Austrian” and “German” only arose in the late 19th century, when Bismarck managed to create a German empire under the rule of the kings of Prussia, and the Austro-Hungarian empire thereafter was set on a more eastern path.

  104. 104.

    Steve in DC

    July 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    @aimai:

    Personally I have always got the impression that West Wing is less important for it’s quality as a series than for it’s outsized cultural impact among young liberals and DC Beltway centrist types.

    If you wanted to see good in our leaders and that they were failed humans instead of gigantic jackasses The West Wing was functional escapism. It also had a “liberal” president with traditional Burkean “conservative” qualities for centrist types to wank over. And if you were young and stupid enough you might have thought one day our politics could be like that.

    The thing is though, it’s fiction. And once you realize that it’s utter bullshit and that our politics has never operated like that it seems nothing more than the fantasy of egotistical jackass, and the entire thing falls apart. But outside of David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, and liberal poly-sci majors in urban cities, everybody else realized it was bullshit.

  105. 105.

    WereBear

    July 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    @Gin & Tonic: Geez, the kid realized he’d been brainwashed and starting reading philosphy; and he’s only 17!

    I’d buy him dinner.

  106. 106.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    OT

    hahahahaha

    “Despite howls of protest from many Republican leaders, only about one in five Americans – and only 35% of the Republican rank and file – say they are angry about the decision,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “And despite victory laps by many Democratic leaders, only one in six Americans – and only one in three Democrats nationwide – say they feel enthusiastic about the court’s ruling.”

    Back to the drawing board, wingnuts

    Like i figured, big yawn from public, with a now what are going to do about the economy, stupid?

  107. 107.

    Joel

    July 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    @quannlace: I’m giving the Newsroom a chance, after being super-excited before the premiere and a little disappointed after. The thing that gets me about Sorkin is the whole “talking at people” instead of natural dialogue. It feels extremely archaic, especially after Davids Chase and Simon changed the way television shows are made.

  108. 108.

    Mister Papercut

    July 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    @Violet:

    Who dissected a cat in school?

    I did, as a sophomore in high school. (It was for AP Biology/Human Anatomy, though.)

  109. 109.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    @Violet:

    It’s also casually spoken, and not written, speech, and therefore almost necessarily more imprecise.

  110. 110.

    Gin & Tonic

    July 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    @SectarianSofa: Not hatin’, just suggesting that the kid needs to read more. Remember the line about Gingrich (remember him?) that he’s a dumb person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like? That list the kid rattled off sounds like somebody who has skimmed a bit and is trying to sound more impressive than his actual reading would indicate. But as I sad at the outset, he’s only 17, so whatevs.

  111. 111.

    Gin & Tonic

    July 2, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    @Violet: I blame the absence of the Oxford comma. Which we can all blame Politico for.

  112. 112.

    Pat

    July 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Aimai, I appreciate you actually being on-point, but c’mon. Gawker is hideously trivial, and the question was entirely extraneous. Whatever you think of Sorkin’s project, he’s clearly convinced that serious news reporting is (a) important and (b) something there’s just no room for in present-day media. Anyone who asks “well, why don’t you do something about flippant hipsters chasing the hot topic of the past eight hours across the internet?” pretty clearly hasn’t internalized the premise.

  113. 113.

    WereBear

    July 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    @Joel: Mr WereBear & I are big Jeff Daniels fans; he never gets enough credit, despite his quality and versatility.

    The Crossing was something he really shone in.

  114. 114.

    Goblue72

    July 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    @Mister Papercut: Same here – sophomore HS (late 1980’s) AP human anatomy classes would dissect cats by the bucketful. I couldn’t deal so opted for the 2 year Chem AP track. Would have rather dissected a cat in retrospect.

  115. 115.

    gelfling545

    July 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Why to we continue to cherish the notion that because one has a talent, even a great talent, one is necessarily an admirable human being? It would seem to me that those who have nurtured a particular talent to success or even greatness may have had to do so at the expense of developing certain social skills.

  116. 116.

    Ruckus

    July 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    I thought Mr. Burns was a rich asshole that Bart’s dad worked for. I don’t recall him being a constitutional scholar.

  117. 117.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    Right — the only source I have at hand _The Oxford Companion to Philosophy_ doesn’t even bother to argue the shared heritage of Austrians and ‘Germans’.

    Interesting:
    “[Contra the medieval tradition of Latin-language philosophy,] many of the philosophers who wrote in German were very conscious of the fact, and emphasized and exploited the philosophical resources of German.”

    And, “…analytical philosophy prospers in Germany, especially under the influence of the Vienna Circle, Popper , Wittgenstein , and Anglo-American philosophers, but utilizing also the fertile resources of the German heritage.”

  118. 118.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    To simplify what I wrote above, until the 19h century, there was no country known as “Germany”, though there was a concept of a German people (basically, everyone who spoke German), and instead were many separate political groupings consisting of Saxons, Bavarians, Hessians, Austrians, Westphalians, Baden-Wurtembergers, Prussians, etc.

    Then in the 19th century, all of those groups but the Austrians came together in a nation that came to be known as Germany. So the German-Austrian distinction is really more of a political one that it is an ethnic-linguistic-cultural one. Austrians are “Germans” in terms of their language, ethnicity, culture, history, etc., but not in terms of their political nationality.

  119. 119.

    NonyNony

    July 2, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    The trick to writing good dialogue is to make the audience forget, in some ways, that they’re hearing good dialogue, and rather make them believe that they’re hearing real dialogue.

    I disagree with this entirely.

    The trick to writing good dialogue is to write dialogue that entertains the audience.

    Your dialogue can sound completely crafted and artificial, or it can sound just like two guys you overhear on the street chatting, or it can be written in iambic pentameter and it doesn’t actually matter. What matters is whether or not people are entertained by what they hear in your dialogue. If you’ve got that you’re golden. If you don’t have that it doesn’t matter how good your craft is or how “real” the dialogue sounds if you don’t remember why you’re writing the dialogue.

  120. 120.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    @Gin & Tonic: Ok, I’m with you. Something about philosophy makes people more persnickety (me, e.g.). But the speaker being 17 should trump most things.

  121. 121.

    Gin & Tonic

    July 2, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    @Rafer Janders: I wouldn’t presume to guess what language Wittgenstein thought in, but he received his doctorate from, and spent the rest of his career teaching in, Cambridge. England. The only major work he published in his lifetime was indeed in German, but he was a “British philospher,” if you are to assign him to such a grouping.

  122. 122.

    jeffreyw

    July 2, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    @NonyNony:
    See also: Deadwood

  123. 123.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    @Gin & Tonic:

    That list the kid rattled off sounds like somebody who has skimmed a bit and is trying to sound more impressive than his actual reading would indicate

    So, as you note, he’s basically exactly the same as every single 17 year old who’s ever existed.

  124. 124.

    ShadeTail

    July 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    You know, I’d tell you to fuck off, but your craptastic ravings are really entertaining. You are so full of shit and so empty of credibility that you acting all important and informed is really quite hilarious.

    BTW, remind me, what vote to uphold the ACA did you predict? And how correct were you?

    Oh, and like it or not, asswipe, this Arron Sorkin idiocy *is* relevant to some people’s lives. Not particularly to mine, but hey, all work and no play, etc.

  125. 125.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    @Gin & Tonic: Wittgenstein thought in Orcish, like most philosophers of standing.

  126. 126.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    I wouldn’t presume to guess what language Wittgenstein thought in, but he received his doctorate from, and spent the rest of his career teaching in, Cambridge. England

    Considering Wittgenstein was born and raised in Austria, and didn’t move permanently to England until he was in his early forties, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume he thought in German, as I don’t know too many people who change the language they think in while in middle age.

  127. 127.

    Hypatia's Momma

    July 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    @gelfling545:
    “It’s just how Hollywood people are.”
    “It’s just the Internet.”
    “Men are just like that.”
    “Boys will be boy!”

    (I’ve only seen/heard “Hollywood people” line only in context with Hollywood men being abusive assholes but I’ll assume it’s also directed at women who routinely have violent physical outbursts and/or are routinely racist and sexist.)

  128. 128.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    @NonyNony:

    Yes, but…I was talking about writing characters for television in situations that are supposed to pass for real life (the White House, the Baltimore docks, a CNN type newsroom). All those shows are designed to make us feel that we are getting a look at something authentic, at real life as it is currently lived.

    I agree that you can write wonderful dialogue in iambic pentameter, but if you had your characters speak that way on either The West Wing or The Wire, it would remove, perhaps a little bit, any sense of verismilitude….

  129. 129.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    @NonyNony:

    Sure, it has to be entertaining. But when I watch a Sorkin show I’m entertained by Sorkin’s writing. When I watch The Wire I’m entertained by the characters’ talking to each other. It creates two entirely different reactions in me. If what Sorkin wants is to create an entertaining show, then he’s done that, but he’s never let me forget that I’m watching a show. As someone else noted above, it always seems more like a play, more stagey, than like real life.

  130. 130.

    sb

    July 2, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    An artist acted like an asshole? Stop the fucking presses.

  131. 131.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    @shortstop:

    The host you told you’d eat crow if it only went through 5-4

    Got a link?

  132. 132.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    @aimai:

    You can’t explain Bush V. Gore any other way than as politics gone mad.

    Nor have I tried to. That’s the outlier.

  133. 133.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    @Chyron HR:

    hilariously incorrect prediction about this case

    I got the outcome right. Can you say the same, jackass?

  134. 134.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    Yes. That is exactly what he is suggesting. How could it be read any other way? Once again you do not fail to grasp what is being said to you.

    I’m sorry, is the concept of the “rhetorical question” unfamiliar to you?

  135. 135.

    iLarynx

    July 2, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    I don’t feel obliged to defend a particular person or a gender (or a generation for that matter). All I know of Sorkin is 1 episode of West Wing (not impressed), The Social Network (good, but not great), and his recent appearance on Colbert. My observations weren’t coloured by whatever of Sorkin’s foibles may have shown up in gossip tabloids like Gawker. The fashion columnist’s question of Gawker was a dumb one. She may not be dumb herself, but that was a dumb question. She might as well have asked about The National Enquirer. Who the hell takes Gawker or The National Enquirer seriously? Apparently Sarah Prickett did and it betrayed either a lack of seriousness, or an abundance of ignorance on her part.

    Sorkin may well be a jerk (don’t really know, don’t really care), but Sarah Prickett did come across as out of her element and, as someone else has already noted, a twit.

    The point being that it seems a bit hypocritical to say “Sorkin’s a jerk, a world-renowned jerk, a hubris-spewing jerk to everyone” and then claim that the only reason he was a jerk to Sarah is “because she’s a girl.”

  136. 136.

    burnspbesq

    July 2, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    @ShadeTail:

    See comment 133.

  137. 137.

    sb

    July 2, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    @iLarynx: Damn, I wish I would have written that.

  138. 138.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    West Wing is 24 for liberals

    Shitty trite fantasy dialogue does not get any better even if people are cutting each other off to deliver it

  139. 139.

    EconWatcher

    July 2, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Mr. Burns, I think you’d have to concede that the Court is more politicized than you thought it was. Kennedy joined a four-vote disssent, which almost carried the day, based on some really shoddy reasoning that doesn’t square at all well with prior precedent.

    Yes, Roberts saved the day, and so rendered your predicted outcome correct. But did you ever in a million years think that Kennedy would jump on to the wingnut wagon the way he did here? You did not, and that’s because you underestimated the politicization of the conservatives on the Court.

    Yes, the folks here who treat the Court as nothing but political are mistaken. But it’s no longer tenable to say that justices like Kennedy and Scalia only went off the reservation once, with Bush v. Gore. I wish that were true, but plainly it is not. I would suggest that your comments will be more interesting when you confront that reality.

  140. 140.

    ShadeTail

    July 2, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Yeah, the comment where you lied about getting it right. You predicted it would sail through at least 7 to 2, and it nearly got overturned 5 to 4. It only squeaked though when Roberts of all people defected for the one vote we needed. So unlike the people (like me) who predicted it would be a very close politicized decision either way, you were utterly wrong. As you always are.

    Please, keep embarrassing yourself by tooting your horn about how great you really aren’t, because as I said, you are very entertaining. :)

  141. 141.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    I have a dream, that one day Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon will embrace at the top of Burj Khalifa, and as they slowly meld together and become indistinguishable to the human eye, they throw themselves off

  142. 142.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    @RossInDetroit:

    I would like to marry your wife if that’s OK with you.

  143. 143.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    Yes, the dialogue on “The Wire” was equally crafted, but it was crafted so that it sounded like real people talking.

    Not really. It was crafted to sound like people would like to think they sound when they talk. It’s just as much of an illusion as Sorkin’s dialogue. Or, for that matter, Wilder’s or Sturges’s or Welles’s or Coppola’s or Scorsese’s or … you get the idea.

    It’s really a matter of taste, so if you don’t like Sorkin’s style, it’s not a big deal. But when Frank Pembleton spoke on “Homicide,” it was no more realistic than when Sorkin’s characters speak.

    Weirdly, I think a big part of the problem with Sorkin is that he writes all of the teleplays for his shows himself, so everyone ends up sounding alike. With most TV shows, there’s a staff of writers and, while everyone writes the same “voice” for each character, you’re still going to get some variety in what characters do/say based on who the writer is that week. Having a single writer writing in a single voice works fine for a feature film, but it’s a hell of a lot harder to pull off week after week over the course of a TV series.

  144. 144.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    To wrap it up, Aaron Sorkin is the authoritarian personality’s David Milch, which is more or less what this article says

  145. 145.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    The line of dialogue that made me a devoted fan of “Homicide,” David Simon, and Andre Braugher:

    “You know how there are three kinds of Jews, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox? Well, there are two kinds of Catholics — devout and fallen.”

    Nobody talks like that, but damn did it work for that character.

  146. 146.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Yes, Sorkin and Coppola, two peas in a pod :/

  147. 147.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    The difference to me between Sorkin and Milch is that when I heard an audio clip of Deadwood on the radio it had a long pause and a sharp inhalation in it and it made me want to watch the show instantly, but whenever I hear a clip of one of Sorkin’s shows on the radio it’s like no one ever has to breathe in, much less consider what they’re saying

    In the garden patch of television where Milch carefully cultivates dread and doubt, Sorkin spurts verbal urine like a leaky dick

  148. 148.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    @AA+ Bonds:

    To wrap it up, Aaron Sorkin is the authoritarian personality’s David Milch, which is more or less what this article says.

    Never met David Milch, have you? I have. If you think he’s any less of an arrogant asshole than Sorkin, I’m afraid I’ll have to disillusion you.

  149. 149.

    EconWatcher

    July 2, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Plus, Milch plagiarized Deadwood from a novel of the same name by the great writer Pete Dexter.

  150. 150.

    MBunge

    July 2, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    @Mnemosyne: “Weirdly, I think a big part of the problem with Sorkin is that he writes all of the teleplays for his shows himself, so everyone ends up sounding alike.”

    It has nothing to do with the amount he writes. That’s just the way he writes. Everybody sounds like everybody else and every conservation sounds like every other. I mean, Woody Allen has a wider variety of characters and voices than Sorkin.

    Mike

  151. 151.

    Ruckus

    July 2, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    @Mnemosyne:
    I actually do know some people who talk like that. Not all the time and sometimes they step on their tongues but still.
    I think part of the reason actors don’t sound like real people is that actors get multiple tries to craft what we see. They practice their lines and have directors and writers watching to correct their delivery. We get to step on our tongues(hoof in mouth disease), so few of us ever sound like actors.

  152. 152.

    MBunge

    July 2, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    @AA+ Bonds: “The difference to me between Sorkin and Milch is that when I heard an audio clip of Deadwood on the radio it had a long pause and a sharp inhalation in it and it made me want to watch the show instantly”

    And that’s what drives people in the entertainment business crazy. A “long pause and a sharp inhalation”? That’s what piqued your interest?

    Mike

  153. 153.

    Omnes Omnibus

    July 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    @EconWatcher: I’ll have to admit that the right side of the Courtis more politicized than I expected. I have been thinking about Kennedy. On big decisions since Bush v. Gore, he has largely gone to the right. I think the idea that he is a swing Justice in the mold of O’C is mistaken. Outside of a couple of issues, he is of the right. All this being said, I do not buy into the idea that the Court has become an entirely political entity. The growing perception that it has, though, is dangerous to the Court’s legitimacy as an institution.

  154. 154.

    EconWatcher

    July 2, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Agree on all points. Kennedy is now a rightist who happens not to hate gay people.

    I think it can’t be overstated how much of a pickle Scalia is creating for Roberts through his rantings. That attack on Obama over immigration was just off the charts. I can’t remember anything like that from a justice in my lifetime.

    Roberts has to care about the Court’s appearance of impartiality and judiciousness. Nino sure ain’t helping.

  155. 155.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    @MBunge:

    Yeah, you don’t have to tell me that a lot of Americans are absolutely repulsed and mystified by the use of silence.

    It’s how Sorkin makes his dime, by allowing slack-jawed, self-loathing viewers to coast through episode after episode without ever having to be alone with their inner life, or to contemplate those of the characters.

    I suggest you ease into scary ol’ culture with a little subtitled Kurosawa. Tell me how it goes.

  156. 156.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    @MBunge:

    Meh. I don’t think that, say, Sorkin’s Mark Zuckerberg and Will McAvoy sound exactly alike. But I do think that Sorkin’s writing tics become much more obvious (and for many people, annoying) over the twelve hours of a TV season than they do over the course of a two-hour feature film.

    The funny thing is, I’m not actually a big Sorkin fan. I’ve seen maybe a dozen episodes of “The West Wing” and most of “Studio 60” and that’s about it. I’m just defending against the notion that somehow he’s automatically a bad writer because the dialogue he writes is stylized in a specific way that some people find annoying.

    @Ruckus:

    Actually, one of the things that I find interesting in “The Newsroom” is that they actually bothered to figure out that news anchors and news readers have a very specific style in which they speak when they’re in front of the camera. If you ever watch any of the Onion’s “news” parodies, they do the same thing — a lot of the actors who do those Onion sketches are former small-market news people, so they know the “dialect.” Most movies and TV shows about TV get it wrong, so it’s nice to see that someone was thinking about it.

    My all-time favorite fake Onion news show: Has Halloween Become Overcommercialized? Spot. On.

  157. 157.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    @AA+ Bonds:

    I suggest you ease into scary ol’ culture with a little subtitled Kurosawa. Tell me how it goes.

    Oh, sweetie. I was watching subtitled Kurosawa while you were still crapping your diapers. I have two film degrees and I work in the film industry. So maybe back off the pulpit, okay?

  158. 158.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    . . . . are you MBunge? Because that would be disappointing

  159. 159.

    Death Panel Truck

    July 2, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    @Chyron HR: 7-2? Wow. My legal education is limited to one semester of Constitutional law at Central Washington University twenty years ago, and even I knew it would be 5-4. Unlike many here, I never doubted the ACA would be upheld. I was only wrong in believing Kennedy would be the deciding vote. I never dreamed it’d be Roberts.

  160. 160.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    I don’t know which derail is more adorable, burns trying to use standard of review as an example of how Court decisions are free(!) of politics, or the folks trying to Wikipedia up whether the Tractatus or Philosophical Investigations was the ‘real’ Wittgenstein

  161. 161.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    The fly is out of the bottle and now this thread has filled it with piss

  162. 162.

    Death Panel Truck

    July 2, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    @trollhattan:

    “Ms. Kim, who was not injured in the incident

    Was. Not. Injured. equals 200 grand? Wow. I should have tried harder to provoke my right-wing boss at the last paper I worked at into shoving me. He wasn’t hurting for coin. ;)

  163. 163.

    AA+ Bonds

    July 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Anyway, MBunge makes my point as effectively as this story: Sorkin (and his thin characters) hail from a school of Americans who consider silence terrifying, who think no more than they say for fear of ‘inauthenticity’, and whose gaseous products dissipate on the wind like so many farts.

    Sorkin can only ever write two characters: Blaaron Blorkin, who isn’t going to take it anymore! who is going to lay it down! cram the Real right up in your butthole! and Daaron Dorkin, the hyper-critical censor who wants Blaaron to rein in, hold back, consider this or that specific criticism. Either Blaaron is right because of his/her innate uncritical instinct, or Daaron is right because of his/her innate critical instinct. You’ll even see this in scenes where a lone character is talking to himself, or to God (and perhaps that’s where the vacuity of the exchange is presented with the most honesty).

    It’s . . . an experience, it’s even exhilarating in rare moments, but it’s not substantive, and it’s in stark contrast to a writer like Milch, who forces the audience to participate in his work through smart use of ambiguity.

  164. 164.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    @AA+ Bonds:

    No, but you seemed to be assuming that anyone who didn’t agree with you that Aaron Sorkin is the Worst Writer Ever must be doing it out of total ignorance of film and television history, so I answered.

    I tend to like very stylized dialogue, so I like both Sorkin and Milch (though I like David Simon more than both of them combined).

  165. 165.

    Mnemosyne

    July 2, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Also, since I’m apparently in the mood to fight about TV today: Larry David, great TV writer or greatest TV writer ever?

    A guy who can take 10 episodes to get to the punch line of his joke and make all 10 of those episodes interesting in themselves is someone who was born to write for TV, IMO.

    “No way out. No way out. No way out.”

  166. 166.

    JenJen

    July 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Aaron Sorkin is a very talented complete misogynistic douchebag.

    And, high fives are easy. The secret? Keep your eye on your high-fiving partner’s elbow, not their palm. Try it. Works every time.

  167. 167.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    @burnspbesq: @burnspbesq: Never change, Burns. Sure, we wish you weren’t demonstrably emotionally unstable–for your sake–but since you continue to be thoroughly unaware of what a jackass you make of yourself in virtually every conversation, we guess you’re not hurting yourself (in this venue, anyway–real life is quite different), and the entertainment value for us is huge. I nominate “But I got the outcome right!” for a tag.

    @EconWatcher: Exactly so.

    @Rafer Janders: I would like to hang out with her, that’s for damn sure.

    @EconWatcher: This reminds me–where did the nick Fat Tony originate? Nino’s always been his diminutive, if I may use that word without laughing.

  168. 168.

    arguingwithsignposts

    July 2, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Actually, one of the things that I find interesting in “The Newsroom” is that they actually bothered to figure out that news anchors and news readers have a very specific style in which they speak when they’re in front of the camera. If you ever watch any of the Onion’s “news” parodies, they do the same thing—a lot of the actors who do those Onion sketches are former small-market news people, so they know the “dialect.” Most movies and TV shows about TV get it wrong, so it’s nice to see that someone was thinking about it.

    This is not a secret to anyone who’s been around TV newspeople. It’s taught to them in j-school – middle American English, down to which syllables to accent. It’s almost frightening the amount of packaged b.s. formula that is a basic American nightly local newscast.

  169. 169.

    SectarianSofa

    July 2, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    @AA+ Bonds:

    A debate about the real Wittgenstein, while potentially fascinating, is a debate I won’t be having. As I’ve fucking heard it before. Anyway, hate on wikipedia if you want — it’s often valuable, if only to point to other sources. (And many of the science, CS, technical articles are excellent jumping off points.) That, and you can fix or “fix” the entries if you’re so inclined.

  170. 170.

    MBunge

    July 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    @AA+ Bonds: “Yeah, you don’t have to tell me that a lot of Americans are absolutely repulsed and mystified by the use of silence.”

    Dude, when you say hearing a snippet of TV show dialog on the radio that contains a “long pause and a sharp inhalation” is all it takes to make that show must see TV, it’s not everybody else who has a weird attitude toward their entertainment. And I just watched and really enjoyed 13 Assassins last night.

    Mike

  171. 171.

    Ruckus

    July 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    @Mnemosyne:
    I once worked for a non profit that had a glossy monthly magazine in which the managing editor would edit everyone’s stories into his voice. The writers there long enough just learned to write like him. It wasn’t bad but everything read the same, as if one person wrote the whole thing with different bylines.

  172. 172.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    I nominate “Butbutbut I got the outcome right!” for a tag.

  173. 173.

    Ruckus

    July 2, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    @shortstop:
    Great tag line but it can only be used when the story is about someone wearing blinders to their own world.

  174. 174.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    @Ruckus: But we have plenty of them, don’t we? The entire GOP, plus Burns. Lots of stories.

  175. 175.

    Villago Delenda Est

    July 2, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    @RossInDetroit:

    Nice Steve Martin reference :)

  176. 176.

    300baud

    July 2, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    @RossInDetroit:

    My wife did.

    That is beautiful. You should marry her again. Just to be safe.

  177. 177.

    Ruckus

    July 2, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    @shortstop:
    True that.
    However I always consider that rethugs have their heads up their asses instead of wearing blinders. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

  178. 178.

    Some Loser

    July 2, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    The funny part is that even though Burns was right about the out come he chose not to be a jerk about it. Didn’t rub in people’s face, didn’t call people out. Fuck, he was goddamn pleasant up until the point Cole double-downed. It seems people are too damned stubborn to give him his due, though.

    C’mon, shortstop, stop being a raging asshole for a minute. Burns was right about the outcome and off about the number. It is not that he hasn’t admitted as much.

  179. 179.

    Ruckus

    July 2, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    @Some Loser:
    Did you not read burnsy’s pontifications about how none of us know anything about the SC or the law? About how there can only be one outcome, the numbers, who and why?

    Who died and made him lord high ruler of all that is legal?

    Yes he got the direction of the outcome right. He got everything else wrong. Sure a lot of people did. Most(all) of us didn’t look down our noses at everyone else for having an opinion. Cause his informed opinion was wrong. And he’s pissed about us seeing and saying that.

  180. 180.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    @Some Loser:

    It is not that he hasn’t admitted as much.

    You’re going to have to show me the part where he “admitted as much.” All we’ve seen is tearful shrieks of “I was right about the outcome!” and a complete refusal to discuss the numbers. Please remember that no one asked him to predict those numbers–he chose to do so and to bray over and over about how he was absolutely certain about them because of his authoriteh.

    He’s doubling down today by insisting that the decision doesn’t indicate that extraconstitutional judging goes on on the high court. I have no problem being a raging asshole by making him produce the constitutional grounds supporting the dissent. He won’t; he can’t, and pushing back won’t break his addiction to unearned arrogance. But we can at least make it less comfortable for him.

  181. 181.

    Some Loser

    July 2, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    @Ruckus:

    He was berating people because they were trying to judge the outcome solely on oral arguments. Of course, Burns wasn’t the only one getting angry about that. Even Omnes expressed frustration with that.

    He got nearly everything right, actually. The only thing he was wrong on was Kennedy siding with the rest of the conservatives. That surprised most people.

    I don’t really like defending the guy. He’s an asshole most of the time, but he was almost completely right on this. And after the decision came down in his favor, he didn’t act like a dick. Hell, he didn’t even really insult Cole for doubling down and being a stubborn asshole.

    Give the devil his due and stop acting like stubborn dumbasses. It is not funny when Republicans do it, and it is even less funny when left-leaning individuals do it.

  182. 182.

    Some Loser

    July 2, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    @shortstop:

    He already mentioned that he thought Alito, Thomas, and Scalia were a bunch of hacks. Try not to be dishonest here. He contest the attitude that the Supreme Court is wholly corrupt and political. He was off by one vote and was right about the outcome, so he was more correct than most people who bet.

  183. 183.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    He’s doubling down today by insisting that the decision doesn’t indicate that extraconstitutional judging goes on on the high court.

    Nothing is extraconstitutional at the Supreme Court when it comes to deciding what is and isn’t constitutional. They are the masters of our realm in that role. We may not like or agree with it, and think it politically motivated. But it is not outside their defined role in the constitution. The only power we have against them is electing more people that think like we do, and appoint likewise judges. Unless they go completely insane, one of them ends up with a dead girl, or live boy in their beds, then we could impeach them, or our reps could. But that is about it.

    As for burns, I think it is hilarious he has gotten under so many people’s skin around here, that they can’t help themselves but scream into the ethers. Which of course, is precisely what he intended. And none more so than you shortstop.

  184. 184.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    @Some Loser:

    He got nearly everything right, actually. The only thing he was wrong on was Kennedy siding with the rest of the conservatives.

    Um, WRONG. You keep ignoring the fact that he made his 8-1, 7-2 prediction based on his unwavering belief that no more than two conservatives could fail to see the constitutionality of the act. That was the basis on which his numerical projection rested.

    Well, twice as many as that failed. Almost half the court. And does Frank come back with something like, “Glad I got the outcome right, but I sure was wrong about the demonstrated ability of the court’s right wing to make completely partisan arguments without a constitutional basis”? Not only does he not do that; he’s back today insisting that Bush v Gore was a one-off. Your not having taken in most of these facts is not reason for us to worry about you thinking we’re being too hard on him.

  185. 185.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    @Some Loser:

    The funny part is that even though Burns was right about the out come he chose not to be a jerk about it. Didn’t rub in people’s face, didn’t call people out. Fuck, he was goddamn pleasant up until the point Cole double-downed. It seems people are too damned stubborn to give him his due, though.

    That’s the way I read it as well. too funny.

  186. 186.

    shortstop

    July 2, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    @Some Loser:

    He already mentioned that he thought Alito, Thomas, and Scalia were a bunch of hacks.

    Mind showing me where he did that? I don’t have any problem admitting my error, if you can.

    He contest the attitude that the Supreme Court is wholly corrupt and political.

    No, he contests the fact that the court is corrupt and political. No “wholly” about it. He simply will not engage the reality that nearly half the court is proven to be so–he hasn’t been willing to do this since this conversation started months ago. This is the reason he focuses on Cole’s extreme position and sidesteps the many, many commenters here who argue that one wing of the court acting like hacks presents an actual problem for American jurisprudence.

    Off to a doc’s appointment but will check back later.

  187. 187.

    Some Loser

    July 2, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    @shortstop:

    Link

    Give me your goddamn link, and I’ll judge for myself. The link above shows Burns, in a moment of clarity, admitting to himself that Scalia is becoming unhinged and changing his guess from 7-2 to 6-3. Where the fuck did you get 8-1 from?

    He is insisting that Bush v. Gore is an outlier. I think he’s wrong, but I can see why he things that. He also insists just because someone doesn’t disagree with him doesn’t mean they’re hacks. Radical thought, right.

    And as I mentioned before, he actually did say he thought Alito and Thomas were complete partisan hacks. He was surprised to add Scalia to the list.

    Stop making shit up. Admit you and Cole were wrong. There is nothing with being wrong once and a while. I am wrong have the goddamn time I open my mouth, but you don’t see me stink of threads of my ignorance.

    Edit: Comment 21.

  188. 188.

    Some Loser

    July 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    @Ruckus:

    Special for you, Ruckus.

  189. 189.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    @Some Loser:

    I linked the actual comment. And reading it, burns prediction on Roberts was kind of prescient

    (2) if he’s in the majority, he gets to assign the opinion, and he’ll assign it to himself in order to get a narrow opinion that leaves open the possibility of future reductions in the scope of the Commerce Clause.

  190. 190.

    Rafer Janders

    July 2, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    @Some Loser:

    He got nearly everything right, actually. The only thing he was wrong on was Kennedy siding with the rest of the conservatives.

    Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

  191. 191.

    WayneL

    July 2, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    Do you know what I hate about liberals? They are losers. They declare victory even when nothing has been won. They are sanctimonious assholes who think they only way to look at other human beings in down on them. They are often so wrong they make me laugh, while conservatives want to make me cry. Both want me to barf.

    I just finished watch the opening monologue of The Newsroom. If there were one other person in this goddamn country who could say on national television exactly what I was thinking, I’d hold that person in the highest regard, too. All this crap about Sorkin is exactly what the right thinks, saps. They are brain dead. And not alone.

    I only wish I could think half as well as Sorkin writes. I’m a liberal and proud of it.

  192. 192.

    Ruckus

    July 2, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    @Some Loser:
    Hey genius.
    Notice that I was answering eemom?

    Here is burnsy’s post that I was referring to from the same thread.

    I previously said that I thought it would be 7-2 to uphold the mandate. That was based on the theory that Scalia would be boxed in by his concurrence in Raich. I am now prepared to consider the possibility that Scalia will act in an utterly unprincipled manner, ignore or lamely distinguish Raich, and vote against the mandate. However, I still think Kennedy will overcome his obvious confusion and figure out that the “limiting principle” that he’s looking for is that health care is different because of the problems of adverse selection and moral hazard, and I think Roberts will join the majority for two reasons: (1) I think he is conscious of the need to not have another Bush v. Gore fiasco and (2) if he’s in the majority, he gets to assign the opinion, and he’ll assign it to himself in order to get a narrow opinion that leaves open the possibility of future reductions in the scope of the Commerce Clause.

    He was wrong about the mandate.
    He was wrong about Kennedy.
    He was wrong about the commerce clause.
    He was wrong about the number.

    I’m on to better things

  193. 193.

    Sad_Dem

    July 2, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    Ruckus Says: @Mnemosyne:
    I once worked for a non profit that had a glossy monthly magazine in which the managing editor would edit everyone’s stories into his voice. The writers there long enough just learned to write like him. It wasn’t bad but everything read the same, as if one person wrote the whole thing with different bylines.

    That’s what Sorkin’s shows have always sounded like to me. I can’t enjoy his shows because of it. Maybe because I work as an editor and know blowhards like him all too well.

  194. 194.

    Omnes Omnibus

    July 2, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    @Ruckus: You know that the mandate was upheld, right? The mandate as a tax was fully briefed and argued. Also Roberts join the majority and wrote a narrow opinion that “leaves open the possibility of future reductions in the scope of the Commerce Clause.” Burns was wrong about Kennedy (as was I) and the number (as was I).

  195. 195.

    General Stuck

    July 2, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Scratches head. This shit is so weird. It is basically between Cole and Burns, but that doesn’t stop the jackals from snarling and vicious. And I’m one that very much disagrees with you, eemom, and Burns, in general about the political court we have, except in this one case.

  196. 196.

    Will

    July 2, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    The Newsroom sucks. That’s not surprising to me.

  197. 197.

    Batocchio

    July 3, 2012 at 12:36 am

    I’ve heard Sorkin speak a few times. He’s a great writer, and can be a bit arrogant and very impatient, especially with idiots. He’s a condescending prick here, and I largely agree with aimai’s take on why. I haven’t seen Newsroom, but when it comes to him and women as a writer, I think of the great characters played by Felicity Huffman, Alison Janney, Stockard Channing, Mary-Louise Parker, Janel Moloney, Marlee Matlin, Anna Deavere Smith, Emily Procter, Jorja Fox, Moira Kelly, Elisabeth Moss, Amanda Peet, and the late great Kathryn Joosten, among others.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/21.25)

Recent Comments

  • the pollyanna from hell on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:22am)
  • RevRick on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:21am)
  • JML on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:19am)
  • stinger on On The Road – frosty – Chasing Birds (May 22, 2025 @ 8:17am)
  • Baud on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:15am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!