While it is technically true that "the states have all powers that the federal government does not," it is also true that for the last seventy years federal powers have been given an expansive reading by the courts, not only because of the incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment but also through the Commerce Clause.

Perhaps, however, the real issue is the difficulty in drafting solid, generally-approved answers when the questions' subject matter is so murky and contested.

Money, of course.

Estrich may not have returned Koppelman's phone calls, but, when I was a student of hers, she admitted without any shame that she was doing it for the money. Fox offered much, much more than any other news outlet.

Oh, yeah, and Estrich gave everyone who gave a presentation an A- and gave no higher than a B to anyone who choose to turn in a paper instead -- perhaps as punishment to those who dared make her do do her goddamned job for one more second than she possibly had to.

Hm, I guess I'm still a little bitter about the whole thing.

King, I am really shocked by your ignorance as to how sports talk radio has evolved. Why, a few years back, when I was living in L.A., one sports talk radio station put up huge billboards with scantily-clad models holding baseball bats and balls. Get it? A phallus shaped object and round orbs? Hee-larious! For a moment that made me forget how unpleasantly loud and asinine that station's hosts were and, instead, think about the station's crass, sexist and idiotic marketing campaign.

Regarding FNL, I agree that there was something a bit off about the final game and that the show's creators probably only let the Panthers win because NBC might not pick up the show for next season. Furthermore, that final play, the hook-and-ladder (aka, the hook-and-lateral) was obviously "ripped from the headlines" as that was the play that sent this year's Fiesta Bowl into overtime.

Nonetheless, being a huge Broncos fan and having nearly had a heart attack while attending that most awesome of games in college football history, I had to love it anyways.

Tom wrote:

It was obvious that Havrilesky didn't have any big thing to write about, but didn't have the integrity to say "Here's some random notes about various shows, just to keep you informed." Trying to link these unrelated bits with a catch-phrase, one of her favorite gambits, just didn't work. If a column is just floor sweepings, and honestly sometimes such a column is necessary, writers should just be open about it. After all, the universe doesn't always fall into logical patterns, and quite often it can't even be forced into patterns no matter how hard you try.

Tom, come on, you must know that I Like To Watch has always been about the television that Havrilesky watches -- the shows she loves and the shows she doesn't but can't stop herself from watching. That is all ILTW has ever really been about. It is not about grand theory. No Gramsci, no Said, no Foucault, no male gaze, no false consciousness. Perhaps a vast wasteland, but if so, it is tour through the wasteland by one of its residents. If anything, ILTW's unifying theme *is* that is is a collection of unrelated bits of televised popular culture.

She isn't trying to fool anyone into thinking otherwise. You say she wasn't honest, but I don't believe that you actually believe she was being dishonest. Certainly your hatred of her has blinded you in the past even to the point that you don't even see when you both agree on something. Still, you could not have read this week's article and sincerely believed that she was trying to fool her readership. I simply refuse to believe you are that stupid.

Perhaps the reason why people post anonymously to you is that you follow Havrilesky's columns like an stalker or obsessed fan, the kind who reads The Catcher in the Rye a little too much. You post an angry, sometimes pointlessly mean-spirited critique within a few hours of her article's publication. Every week. The same thing. The only times you have not done so within the first few hours is when she has published a one-off piece on something, not in the ILTW format, not on Saturday. It's unsettling.

I'm sorry, but that is the way that you act. I don't mean any disrespect; I am just telling it like it is.

Let me guess, you're the projectionist!

"Havrilesky couldn't have written it. She hates TV. She hates everybody. If she loved anything or anybody, she'd lose the respect of the Kool-Aid Kids who adore everything she writes, no matter how lame."

You are seriously going off the charts on the unintentional comedy scale.

... because they are not nationally uniform.

The silliest thing I heard today was some pro-gun pundit spout off that VA Tech outlaws all guns on its campus but that would never stop someone like Cho, an individual bent on mass killing. Yeah, because all he had to do to get a gun was move himself physically out of his dorm room and buy one off-campus. How can you stop someone from a committing a gun-related crime who is willing to drive literally (a few) miles away to purchase a gun legally?

On topic, I don't know what Dems could do to beat the NRA on this issue. Having been raised in Idaho, I know that some people would vote for the Devil over a candidate who advocates serious gun control. Meanwhile, I value a candidate's position on the environment, infrastructure, education, abortion, taxes/fiscal policy and (at the national level) foreign/military policy above gun control. So gun control policy whithers and people die needlessly.